Making History: The Second World War

About

"Making History: The Second World War" is a turn-based Grand Strategy game set in the WWII era, where players can experience alternate outcomes in the conflict through extensive event content and hundreds of additional historical events. As any nation with over 280 separate nationalities, players must make strategic decisions in factors, mines, research labs, and battlegrounds worldwide. The game includes an easy-to-use scenario editor for modding, tutorial mode, and 90+ Steam achievements, making every playthrough a new and immersive experience.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Making History: The Second World War screenshot

+23

79%

Audience ScoreBased on 288 reviews

gameplay14 positive mentions

stability14 negative mentions

Great introduction to historical strategy games, especially for new players.
Offers a lot of depth and replayability with customizable scenarios and a focus on combat.
Significant improvements over previous iterations, making it more enjoyable for fans of the series.

Frequent crashes and 'out of memory' errors make the game frustrating and sometimes unplayable.
The user interface is cumbersome and lacks a proper tutorial or manual, making it difficult for new players to learn.
Performance issues, especially in late-game stages, lead to slowdowns and bugs that detract from the overall experience.

gameplay
50 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
28%
66%
6%
Gameplay is described as complex and initially difficult to grasp, requiring time and effort to understand its mechanics, which can lead to a rewarding experience once mastered. While the game offers deep strategic elements and engaging features, the lack of comprehensive tutorials or community resources can hinder new players. However, the developers are responsive to feedback, and the game includes user-friendly modding tools, making it accessible for both newcomers and veterans of the genre.
- “I played The Great War at first and then The Calm & The Storm, learning to understand this gameplay for a few days until suddenly I got very addicted to it.”
- “The gameplay is simple enough for someone to immediately start playing without really needing the tutorial, but deep enough for the veterans of the series to enjoy.”
- “This is how it should be: easier mechanics, great depth with automation capabilities, and difficult strategic gameplay.”
- “I don't mind complex games with deep and/or subtle mechanics, but unless there's a way to learn those mechanics, to learn from your mistakes, then you're not going to have a fun game.”
- “Unlike Paradox's Crusader Kings and Hearts of Iron, it also doesn't have a wiki, multiple forums, and videos explaining how to play and use the mechanics or how they work.”
- “The gameplay is simple enough for someone to immediately start playing without really needing the tutorial (which is kinda bad) but deep enough for the veterans of the series to enjoy.”
music
20 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
15%
70%
15%
The music in the game has received largely negative feedback, with users noting a disjointed and inappropriate selection of tracks that fail to complement the gameplay. Reviewers criticized the lack of era-appropriate music, describing it as a mix of styles ranging from western movie themes to modern electric guitar pieces, which detracts from the overall experience. Many expressed frustration, labeling it as some of the worst music encountered in a wargame.
- “One song sounds like it came from a western movie, another one or two are peaceful classical music, and at least one is more modern with electric guitars.”
- “- classical music score from the Victorian era.”
- “And this is quite minor, but the background music is all over the place.”
- “The background music is all over the place.”
- “I don't think any of the songs are bad; I just don't think they complement each other or what's happening in-game.”
- “No era-appropriate soundtrack, limited historical detail, and laggy-frustrating map scrolling.”
graphics
18 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
50%
17%
The graphics of the game receive mixed reviews, with some praising the beautiful map graphics and historical accuracy, while others criticize the overall quality as outdated and lacking detail, describing them as "old and lazy." Users noted that the command and dialogue boxes are confusing, detracting from the visual experience. Overall, the graphics seem to fall short of modern standards, impacting the game's potential.
- “Beautiful graphics.”
- “- nice map graphics”
- “This game had real potential...but they let it slip...the graphics are cool.”
- “The graphics are just very old and lazy: it's very sad to see a flat map with pale colors; even in 2004, this would have been considered outdated.”
- “Despite the very low quality graphics, the game still manages to be slow, especially during saving.”
- “- awful graphics”
stability
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
88%
The game suffers from significant stability issues, including frequent freezes and various glitches that hinder gameplay, making it nearly unplayable for some users. While some acknowledge these problems as expected in early access, the overall consensus is that the game's stability is worse than previous titles in the series.
- “If you are new to the series, then MMH2 is $15, bug-free, and lots of fun.”
- “It's just a basic re-skin of the older games and is quite buggy (possibly worse than the older ones).”
- “The thing that makes this game unplayable for me are the freezes.”
- “Lots of map glitches with unit models and some commands freeze, saving the game at this point becomes very frustrating.”
optimization
12 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
17%
17%
67%
The game faced significant optimization issues at launch, including serious bugs and performance problems that rendered it nearly unplayable. While improvements have been made over time, players still report performance drops in later stages, stuttering during mouse movement, and frequent crashes, indicating ongoing optimization challenges. Overall, despite its excellent game design, the optimization remains a notable concern.
- “Initially, it had serious bugs and performance issues that made it virtually unplayable, but it has improved significantly over time.”
- “While there are still performance drops in the late stages of the game, the overall game design is phenomenal.”
- “Initially it had serious bugs and performance issues that made it virtually unplayable, but it got much better over time.”
- “Still, performance drops at late stages of the game, but the game design is phenomenal.”
- “It goes jerky for no reason (probably not good/optimized coding?).”
replayability
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
40%
40%
20%
The game offers significant replayability through modding options, allowing players to explore various scenarios, and features historical and alternate history event chains that enhance gameplay for both major and minor nations. The combination of player influence and random events contributes to a dynamic experience, making it enjoyable and less micro-management-intensive compared to other grand strategy games. Overall, it is highly regarded for its replay value.
- “Once you do it, it is extremely enjoyable and replayable, with much less micro-management than other grand strategy games.”
- “A very good grand strategy game with tons of replayability.”
- “Historical and alternate history event chains add some direction, challenge, or replayability to major nations and several minor ones as well.”
- “This is due to both player influences (realized from direct influence or unrealized through economic manipulation), as well as through random event algorithms (I assume as I am not a developer) to make the game more replayable.”
humor
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players appreciate the humor in the game, often finding it amusing to revisit, particularly in the context of negative reviews, which adds an unexpected layer of enjoyment.
- “The humor in this game makes it funny to replay.”
- “I find humor in some of the negative reviews.”
grinding
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
Players express that grinding in the game is excessively time-consuming, often requiring a significant investment of effort and time, likening it to needing a "second life" to manage the demands of farming and combat effectively. Many feel compelled to micromanage their units to avoid wasteful actions, which can detract from the overall enjoyment of the game.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “I basically ended up removing all independence and farming them rather than watch them throw away their units in futile gestures against the rest of the world I was almost instantly at war with.”
story
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
25%
75%
The reviews indicate that there is no story present in the game, suggesting a lack of narrative depth or engagement.
- “There is absolutely no story to speak of.”
- “The game feels like it lacks any narrative depth.”
- “I was disappointed by the absence of a coherent storyline.”