Metascore
71

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 40 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: The wargame March of the Eagles is dedicated to the era 1805-1815 focused on the dramatic conflicts of Europe. March of the Eagles explores one of the defining periods in European history in an experience crafted by Paradox Development Studio, the masters of Grand Strategy and makers of Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis. The Napoleonic War is brought to life in this war-focused strategy game. Expand
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. 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.
  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 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

See all 19 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 9
  2. Negative: 3 out of 9
  1. 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. Expand
  2. Mar 9, 2013
    8
    It feels like it's just test for EU4 improved Clausewitz engine, and it is. People who aren't Paradox Interactive fans won't like this, people who are into their grand strats will have a feeling that something's missing in this game to call it grand strategy. It's just a short war simulator. Core of the game deserves 6/10, but like every Paradox game, you can mod everything in it, so fans will quickly write some top-class mods which will turn this game into real grand strategy. Expand
  3. 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. Collapse
  4. Feb 24, 2013
    7
    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
  5. Aug 22, 2013
    6
    This is Paradox at their mechanical mediocre WORST. The March of Eagle is a lack-luster, passionless and limited attempt to make a Napoleon-light game in order to make some quick money to support one of their more serious projects. This game represents very little effort in recreating the classic Napoleonic wars. A period of highly active militarism that has still not been adequately represented in a game. Paradox dropped the ball badly here. We should condemn this half-hearted effort. CK 2 and EU 4 show that the team can do a hell of a lot better when they commit themselves to a good result

    THE GROT REVIEW CRITERIA: After a long time writing reviews like an anus, think its time to set a few bad habits straight: Stop insulting designers. Show some respect for the design process and getting games in circulation. Hence (1) No Red scores. (2) Game scores as follows: Bad Game 5/10. Poor Game 6/10. Mediocre Game: 7/10. Good Game 8/10. Great game 9/10. Stella Game 10/10. To get 10/10 it must be a game that can be (theoretically) play-able for 1000+ hours. Not only great but near endless fun. Games may be bad or poor but making them should earn respect. Thus even the worst POS will still be a 5/10. 0/10 no longer exists in my vocabulary. Yellow is the new red. For the sake of accountability: you can reply if needed: Orctowngrot: Tim Rawlins: timtimjp@yahoo.com
    Expand
  6. 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. Expand
  7. Feb 27, 2013
    3
    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. Expand

See all 9 User Reviews