Dictionary.com defines stagnant as: "foul or stale from standing; showing little or no sign of activity or advancement; not developing or progressing; lacking vitality or briskness; sluggish or dull."

That pretty much sums up Moscow to Berlin: Red Siege, the latest in what has become a never ending line of World War II real-time strategy games. Technically speaking, MtB:RS is the fourth game in a "series" from makers Monte Cristo that began with Desert Rats vs. Afrika Korps, and was followed up by D-Day and Battle of the Bulge. So if you liked those, chances are you'll like this one too - flaws and all. It's not that Moscow is bad so much as it's devoid of any sign of advancement in the genre, and it seriously lacks any sort of vitality (unless you're new to the genre). What it boils down is - it's just another dull RTS in a vast genre of nearly identical games.

Red Siege highlights the battles between the Germans and Soviets during WWII. Again. The game's lone campaign is told via three chapters. Chapter One details "Operation Barbarossa," and the German attack on the Soviet Union as they take control of the river crossings at Brest. Chapter Two is "The War in Russia," and has the Germans pushing towards Stalingrad. Chapters Three is "The Final Battle," as the Soviets siege East Prussia and take Berlin. The Scenario mode lets you replay any of the previously completed missions. Frankly, using the word "campaign" is a bit of a misnomer. Even though the game's 20 missions play out in chronological order, allowing players to take control of both sides, you don't actually carry your units over to the succeeding missions. You can't even purchase units in between missions, so basically you're dropped into a scenario with a predetermined number of units that you can't personalize, and you duke out until you win or lose.

MtB:RS has no "main" characters, and there's really no plot - it's all about out strategizing the enemy A.I. based on the documented history of each mission. Thankfully, gameplay is focused on fighting and not on gathering resources. Most missions will have you defeating enemy units and capturing specific locations (flags) on the map, with the occasional "dig in" and defend mission. Granted, there are diverse settings that range from rail yards to docks to sprawling cityscapes and open fields. However, the maps are small, with no more than a few dozen units to control. While the smaller scale puts a serious emphasis on strategy (tactics and maneuvers), the game doesn't allow you to zoom out far enough to get a really good overall view of what's going on. I found myself constantly moving the mouse around the map in order to see what my other units were doing. It didn't take long for that to become really old.

There are four different levels of difficulty: Easy, Normal, Hard and Extreme. The difference in the levels doesn't appear to change the number of units you control, or the amount of troops the enemy throws at you - just the ferocity of your adversary. I played the first mission on every difficulty level and you'll notice incremental jumps in how fast you're defeated. When I ratcheted it up to "Extreme" it took but a scant 7 minutes for me to lose enough manpower to fail the mission... miserably.

Unfortunately, there are a few occasional problems that hinder you in actually out strategizing you're A.I. opponent. First off, the game's path finding can be excruciating. Your vehicles will sometimes take routes to a location that a blind, deaf, dumb, and mute solider wouldn't take. The slightest obstruction on the map seems to remove all manner of logic from their "artificial intelligence." Furthermore, vehicles will travel in reverse a lot instead of actually turning around to meet a threat head on. I know Europeans drive oddly, but this is a bit much.
But that's not the only problem with the built in intelligence - on either side. For some odd reason, immediate threats tend to be ignored, and the enemy is willing to sit and wait until it can see the whites of your eyes. It simply doesn't put up much of a fight except on the Extreme level, where the pendulum swings the other way and becomes uber-powerful.
The game is full of era specific artillery, weapons, and the like. In fact, one of the neater features is the inclusion of an encyclopedia, which shows a picture and individual stats for every one of the hundred-plus things you'll encounter during the game (both Allied and Axis). Although MtB:RS is a very tank-oriented game, there's a wide variety of infantry at your disposal. Sappers are the most useful since they can spot and clear mines, an element that more often then not derailed my tank treads. Infantry can also take and hold buildings, but they do the most good when added to your vehicles and mobile weapons since certain soldier types give bonuses (aiming, range, etc.) when they occupy them.

Graphically, the game is only mediocre. It's not as ugly as, say - a Soviet infantryman after a month in the field, but it's certainly not as cutting edge as many games currently on the racks. The games physics are very nice however. Trees get knocked over as your tanks roll over them, buildings crumble as artillery fire hits them, and there are enough explosions, fire and smoke effects to make any warmonger warm inside. As long as you stay zoomed out that is. Once you zoom in, details fade, textures become rough and models appear blocky. Aurally, the game rises to the occasion - at least from a soundtrack standpoint. It's both grand and sweeping, like a good war movie soundtrack should be. However, the dialogue, accents, voiceovers and repetitive shouts are underwhelming.

There is a multiplayer mode to Red Siege, but it's impossible to tell how it holds up since I was unable to find anyone online to play with. The game offers Conquer, Capture the Flag and Deathmatch modes, but no solo skirmishing.

In the end, Moscow to Berlin: Red Siege will only appeal to those on the extreme ends of the spectrum. New RTS players will like the easy to understand gameplay and ability to jump right into combat without a steep learning curve. Unfortunately, this was not the game's intent. Only devotees of the series, who played all three previous games and absolutely must play them all - no matter what, will care to pick up this lackluster effort.

Our Final ScoreBad

What did you think of this game? Post Your Own Review