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.… Expand

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.

Not the worst game ever released but due to the prehistoric MP features I can only give it a 3/10, with a decent MP-part it would have gotten 6/10 from me.

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.

Much more polished than the previous games from Paradox Interactive (no lagging after several turns, no major bugs etc..). Still has some flaws (diplomatic things and the map is a little messed up, but I guess they could not portray every European nation 100% accurately, also the way you need to chase fleeing enemy units after a combat is annoying). AI feel somewhat better than in previous games. Overall a nice little game in the Napoleonic wars era, that fitts into the developers other historic strategy games line.… Expand

if you wanted a war game this it,so if you liked hearts of iron then you should try this. If your looking for something for more depth then go for eu3 or crusader kings.or eu4 thats coming soon