Metascore
71

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 19
  2. Negative: 0 out of 19
  1. Mar 25, 2013
    85
    March of the Eagles is the last masterpiece created by Paradox Interactive who put the player in the chaotic Napoleonic wars. A title that condenses years of experience with some important new gameplay.
  2. Apr 1, 2013
    80
    Paradoxiana at its most approachable and bellicose. Engaging engagements, feisty AI, low price.
  3. Mar 28, 2013
    80
    March of the Eagles lacks the depth of its grander siblings like Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis, but it compensates for that well by being a swift and easily accessible grand war game. The AI is good enough for the moment, although the game really shines in its cutthroat multiplayer.
  4. Mar 7, 2013
    80
    If a real-time version of Risk on steroids mixed with Diplomacy's double-dealing sounds appealing, then March of the Eagles is well worth picking up.
  5. Mar 5, 2013
    80
    Grand Strategy simplified, but still grand. March of the Eagles gives the players clear victory conditions, a shorter time range and simplified economics and politics. This makes the game more focused, and easier to learn. Multiplayer against a group of friends is a blast.
  6. Feb 24, 2013
    80
    March of the Eagler is a good, slightly less complex but not simple at all, strategy game that follows the steps of games like Crusader Kings II and Sengoku. When you start playing it sucks you in a world of napoleonic warfare.
  7. Feb 27, 2013
    79
    The smaller scale, lopsided balance, and multiplayer lobby screwups may keep it from being mentioned in the same breath as the biggest and best, but being a successful minor power in the pantheon of strategy games is still a fine achievement.
  8. Jun 10, 2013
    78
    For strategy fans that wish to go a step further than your normal RTS and Civilization/Total War clone, that want to touch a more hardcore subgenre, but without getting choked by endless menus, numerical stats and graphs. [April 2013]
  9. Mar 4, 2013
    74
    March of the Eagles is a great game, but it’s the same game you have played before.
  10. Mar 17, 2013
    72
    March of the Eagles is an entry point into the grand strategy genre. Its focus on the war and the presence of an ending makes it a game different than classic Paradox titles, but it is good especially when played online with friends.
  11. Mar 15, 2013
    71
    March of the Eagles is very light on remarkable features – at least, in the single-player campaign. Multiplayer is more fun, provided you manage to find someone to play it with.
  12. Mar 1, 2013
    70
    I'd happily recommend March of the Eagles based exclusively on the multiplayer, but if you prefer your gaming to be a solo venture, then it might not really offer quite as much.
  13. Mar 1, 2013
    70
    The game time is shorter and the goals are more defined, leading to a more immediate need for diplomacy and warfare, and the stripped down nature of the game actually does it credit when playing with others.
  14. Feb 22, 2013
    70
    Paradox Interactive have managed to release a grand strategy game that actually feels not so overwhelmingly complex as to scare off newcomers.
  15. Apr 1, 2013
    65
    The real niche for MoE is as a more-sophisticated “Total War” for multiplayer fans. The online player looking for a game with substance at a reasonable price will like this game. The usual hardcore crowd would be better served to wait for "Europa Universalis IV".
  16. Apr 14, 2013
    60
    A promising update of the classical Paradox formula, trying to bring the Napoleonic wars back. It manages to bring it on, however, the result is not consistently good. Even though it is all about its multiplayer game here, it's not the thing worthy of remembering.
  17. Mar 30, 2013
    60
    A great wargame to play with friends, and a very dull one to play by yourself. [Apr 2013, p.90]
  18. Feb 28, 2013
    60
    I love war games and historic strategy of all kinds. But regardless of the curiosity and high motivation during the first hours, in the long run I lost interest, mainly thanks the superficial game system which doesn’t offer any efficient tactics and focuses on unnecessary micro management.
  19. Apr 19, 2013
    50
    You could come into March of the Eagles expecting a glorified game of Risk and go away quite satisfied. That’s reductive perhaps, but there is a solid if unspectacular base strategy game here that’s deep enough for grand strategy fans to sink their teeth into. There’s just not a lot else to enjoy.
User Score
7.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 40 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 9
  2. Negative: 3 out of 9
  1. Mar 1, 2013
    4
    I played Victoria 2 and A lot of things were not so great in that game. I thought they had improved with March of Eagles but i was mostly wrong. I only experience minor bugs like text fails and a few graphic ones in between. But the AI is maybe even worse. I played as Denmark a minor nation and joined the french coalition. For a long time a British or Russian ship or two passed by. I had 8 battle ships so that was ok and i often-ly let them pass just because i didn't want to loose mine. Then i got the idea to transport some of my troops to Norway because i got invaded there. I built 3 ships and in a matter of days A third of the entire english fleet is there, and the whole russian except two transport ships. I had 11 ships where three of them were as good as useless in battle. This is the things that ruins games. I had planned a future of turtle'ing and the english/russians gained absolutely nothing from this. Furthermore they magicly knew when i got these ships and immediatly send as much as they could to ruin my game. Furthermore the mapping isn't too good. All the good ratings must be people who play as major nations where it would be more obvious of them to hinder you in building ships. I had never attacked any province from the enemy coalition and they had no reason to think so. Rating it 4 is almost a compliment. I know it seems kind of to rage over this one thing. But i tried waiting and seeing if there would be a different result but the exact same happened. And i am convinced that there will be more like this. Just like in Victoria 2 they made this pretty much impossible or at least impossible to gain almost any land as a smaller nation. Also they made the campaign too short in my opinion. You should at least have the option to have a longer campaign. Probably want buy a war-strategy game from Paradox ever again.Only thing is that the diplomacy is a bit better than in Victoria 2. Not recommended. Full Review »
  2. Feb 27, 2013
    8
    I think some of the people are actually rating this game without playing it. I have hit zero bugs, not one. The game is quite fun, not as in depth as Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis, but for a military sim it excels at what it does. I have not tried multiplayer yet so I cannot comment, but singleplayer is one of those games where you mean to sit down for an hour, and play for three or four. Full Review »
  3. Feb 25, 2013
    9
    What fun! I'm not hitting the bugs described below. It's well balanced and tough. Great Napolean sim. Ideal for a group of online players but they need to improve there online access. Full Review »