[Slowhand]

The critique of MoW:V posted on this forum actually makes me feel sorry MoW:AS was ever published under the franchise title.

Veterans of the series realize the latter was a 'one off' release and accept it as such. Newcomers purchasing MoW:V after their exposure to MoW:AS expected more of the same, resulting in their disappointment with the latest game.

Sure, MoW:AS added a new dimension to the franchise. Still, a lot of discontent could've been avoided had the disenchanted posters undertaken a bit of research before diving into the latest release.

Foremost: what would lead anyone with the remotest knowledge of the Vietnam war to expect large scale battles? In the conventional sense, none were ever fought. This wasn't El Alamein, Kursk or Sevastopol. I doubt Vietnam even has enough room to afford such expansive maneuvers.

Even the largest, from Dien Bien Phu, Khe Sanh, An Loc, Hue, the Tet Offensive, to the eventual fall of Saigon, were mainly asymmetrical confrontations, confined to assaulting fire bases, provincial capitals and adjoining hamlets.

Nevertheless, all previous titles were a healthy mix of many squad-level, few mid-size and rare large-battle scenarios. I can't remember a single mission of the vanilla series where I've been tasked with holding off an endless stream of opposition.

IMO, a lot of disappointment could've been avoided had new players taken the time to review the history of the conflict as well as the series itself. Otherwise, they'd have realized what the franchise is - and has been – about since its inception.

Lastly, I'm out of the argument regarding multiplayer, as I only play single-player campaigns. Nevertheless, if I have any criticism of the title, it'd be the fewer amount of missions compared to previous releases.

All said and done though, I'm very grateful for the continuation of the franchise and this latest installment which I enjoy playing very much.