Wargame: AirLand Battle PC

User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 242 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 27 out of 242

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 7, 2014
    7
    I bought this game during the Steam Summer Sale, and overall I think it's a pretty good RTS. However, if you are looking for a ultra-realistic RTS this is not your game. Wargame Airland Battle has impressive scale, and the amount of units available is great! The gameplay however, is disappointing. Infantry is very unrealistic in this game, and aircraft are not as powerful as I had hoped.I bought this game during the Steam Summer Sale, and overall I think it's a pretty good RTS. However, if you are looking for a ultra-realistic RTS this is not your game. Wargame Airland Battle has impressive scale, and the amount of units available is great! The gameplay however, is disappointing. Infantry is very unrealistic in this game, and aircraft are not as powerful as I had hoped. The gameplay seems more like rock, paper, scissors, than carefully countering your opponent. All units are available from the start, and your army can consist of whatever you wish. This makes every unit feel somewhat weak. Since most vehicles and all infantry consist of squads of multiple units, elite units don't feel as powerful as they should. A single infantry squad is perfectly capable of leveling a tank unit, something which is near impossible in reality.

    This game is fun if you play it as an RTS. However if you are expecting realism, this is not the game for you.
    Expand
  2. Jun 12, 2013
    7
    Ok, first off I am not a RTS veteran, I never played star craft or any other games like that. I really only started RTS's with Company of Heroes which was an excellent game and has gotten me into this genre of game. i would also like to state that this is my first review on metacritic ever so I may get some stuff about reviewing wrong but whatever. Ok about the game, Wargame Airland battleOk, first off I am not a RTS veteran, I never played star craft or any other games like that. I really only started RTS's with Company of Heroes which was an excellent game and has gotten me into this genre of game. i would also like to state that this is my first review on metacritic ever so I may get some stuff about reviewing wrong but whatever. Ok about the game, Wargame Airland battle is a cold war era RTS with maps the size of 2+ battlefield maps strapped together with duct tape. This makes for interesting battles with large numbers of enemy units. It also includes jets, and while these "amazing dogfights" are not exactly the quality I thought I was going to get, it still feels awesome to see a MIG falling from the sky in a heap of flames and debris, also watching 24 500kg bombs drop on an unsuspecting enemy is a freaking awesome feeling. It takes a while to discover what balance of expensive and cheap units you want in your "deck" or army as too many expensive units will result in you getting completely destroyed by the larger number of cheaper units the enemy has. The game devs have told a bit of a lie when they say "750 units in the game!!!" It should be more like "750 ways to transport your infantry to the front line" as there aren't 750 types of units there are just different vehicles and helicopters to transport them in. If you want to count that as 750 units, that's fine, personal preference, but I don't. The gameplay is pretty cool, and decks can get very interesting. My favorite deck is one comprising of only vietnam era units. I sent all of my infantry in, in the UH-1Y (or equivalent) helicopter with bombers flying overhead while listening to fortunate son (amazing experience wouldrecommend/10). The campaign seems fairly boring, the AI are good, the multiplayer is excellent, the graphics are awesome, the models are really detailed even when zoomed in. Overall I give this game a 7, (would have been 7.5 but we can't do that here It isn't the perfect game but it is pretty cool and I've been playing it for a while now. Expand
  3. Dec 7, 2013
    7
    Ok guys i'll try to be short here. Probably i'm getting to old for games but as i get older i'm getting more interested on games that follow some logic and if they inspire on real life i hope to find the same stuff found in real life. Since the game is sold as a RTS simulator i didn't get this simulation. Except for units name and shape there is not much simulation in this game. AI and MPOk guys i'll try to be short here. Probably i'm getting to old for games but as i get older i'm getting more interested on games that follow some logic and if they inspire on real life i hope to find the same stuff found in real life. Since the game is sold as a RTS simulator i didn't get this simulation. Except for units name and shape there is not much simulation in this game. AI and MP are made of rushes (the opposite in a war), you will find both sending most of their troops toward to you at high speed instead of having them gaining ground slowly to avoid excessive lost. Most units does not follow realistic balance, you will find air defense pretty far from real life performance (not even close), infantry are almost useless. AI will have unlimited points so the can deploy as many units as they want (they will deploy the same over and over and over).
    In conclusion, this is just another RTS not more and not less realistic than command and conquer generals, just another game forced to be easy to help players and increase the pool of players.
    Luckily i paid less due to steam sales.

    BTW one of the things that most disappointed me is not the balance and the AI behavior but rather the fact that missions are designed to be a typical console/game missions made for hardcore instead of some sort of possible real life mission (survive 10 min without any help, conquer a point in 15 min, etc...)
    Expand
  4. Aug 18, 2013
    5
    Another game with heaps of potential, yet ultimately found to be lacking in too many crucial areas.

    I have put many hours into this game, and have previously been in the top 20 on leaderboard, currently in top 50, now i feel the need to write a review to explain this game from a fan of the genre. This game will give the average player many hours of fun, its only when you start to get
    Another game with heaps of potential, yet ultimately found to be lacking in too many crucial areas.

    I have put many hours into this game, and have previously been in the top 20 on leaderboard, currently in top 50, now i feel the need to write a review to explain this game from a fan of the genre.

    This game will give the average player many hours of fun, its only when you start to get good at it that you start to notice some glaring issues. If you, like me are the kind of person who always seems to push a game to its limits, then id advise you listen well.
    Im only going to describe the problems i have with this game, if you want to find out about the good things, that information is readily available elsewhere.

    - Flawed victory conditions: The available gamemodes do not allow for a proper assessment of who was the better player. The current default ranked gamemode "destruction" only takes into account unit losses/kills. So you can pretty much sit and camp for most of the game, which is exactly what usually happens. The new gamemode "conquest" does the opposite. It only takes into account victory points (land held) and not kills, which means you could have lost twice, three times as many units as your opponent yet you still win if you had a slight advantage in positions held.
    A gamemode which took into account both unit kills and positions held is the obvious answer, yet due to Eugens lack of interest, that has not been materialised.

    Broken deck system: The deck system is horribly broken, making cheese tactics like helicopter spams or other types of ridiculous spamming techniques not only viable, but often optimal. The deck system is simply too complex and poorly thought out. For NATO players who want to be competitive, they are forced to use a mixed deck, with national decks being simply too uncompetitive, and use the same units. In fact most players use a NATO mixed deck, being the strongest deck in the game at this time making for extremely repetitive, boring gameplay. 800+ units were advertised as being available in Wargame: Airland Battle, yet you will learn that only 200 or so of them are actually viable for use. For PACT players, the USSR is the only viable choice, with all other PACT minor nations being utterly useless and pathetically weak. A lot of this comes from the way prototypes work. Prototypes are units that are BOTH outside of the game time frame (post 1985) and are therefore restricted to national decks. However this means that many units that are extremely effective are available to both mixed and national decks. It is not possible to balance a unit that is NOT restricted to a national deck. You just end up making a unit OP for mixed decks or under powered for national decks. Read the forums to get an understanding of the sheer frustration that this has invoked.

    It is a great game and the casual player will get lots of enjoyment from it, just dont expect it to be the kind of game that encourages highly skilled competitive gameplay. The devs themselves have said many times on the forums that the national decks, for example, are just there for lollygagging around with or for use as a 'challenge' (translates to: you will get crushed by anyone who isnt a noob). This extremely frustrating attitude is propagated on the forums by the devs and the mindless marshalls, with anyone suggesting a new path getting a ban or thread-locked.

    I hope you find this review informative and helpful.
    Expand
  5. Sep 5, 2013
    7
    If you are military nerd, it's a good game. If not, it's just common hard strategy game. I play this game about 5 hours but I still don't know what are good weapons, and good strategies to win a battle.
  6. May 31, 2013
    6
    The rplayers.de review is pretty accurate. It's a nice game with lots of stupid that just spoil the fun.

    I like the serious wargaming aspect, but for a developer who has already spent several years on the subject there are just too many stupid things. Like Artillery, that destroyes everything. Supply trucks you are sending around ALL THE BLOODY TIME. Infantry that is really good in
    The rplayers.de review is pretty accurate. It's a nice game with lots of stupid that just spoil the fun.

    I like the serious wargaming aspect, but for a developer who has already spent several years on the subject there are just too many stupid things. Like Artillery, that destroyes everything. Supply trucks you are sending around ALL THE BLOODY TIME. Infantry that is really good in cities and useless in forrests. City battles that are plagued by completely random line of sight rules. Well whole battles that are plagued by completely random sight rules.

    The list goes on. If you helicopter is flying high he can spot an enemy unit and you artillery can aim properly. Once the helicopter drops down he instantly forgets where the enemy unit was. So if you didn't zoom in on the enemy unit the moment it was visible you have no idea where exaclty to point you artillery.

    An infantry.. what great fun. You have mobile and mechanized infantry. The first one just has vehicles, the second one has firiring vehicles. But thats beside the point. What your infantry is good at is defending cities. You drive into a city block, your infantry takes position inside the buildings and your vehicles.. they get a bullseye painted on them. I can not explain it any way else they don' get hidden, they are not positioned behind buildings, they are just standing there, visible for everybody and waiting to be destroyed by the first random enemy that comes along.

    Well, I think this should do. If you have fun playing rts games, good micromanaging skills and never fought in the real military you may have fun. If you are looking for a serious war simulation or a forgiving rts game, look somewhere else.

    I will give it a six. I should give it a zero to level out all those 8-10 reviews, but the game doesn't deserve it.
    Expand
  7. Nov 3, 2013
    7
    Wargame: AirLand Battle is one of the biggest RTS titles of this year. ALB offers a wide variety of vehicles and infantry to command during battles. It features a typical "capture and hold a sector" gamemode as well as some others, including a destruction gamemode where players win by scoring points for destroying enemy units. ALB also offers 10 vs 10 multiplayer (currently on one mapWargame: AirLand Battle is one of the biggest RTS titles of this year. ALB offers a wide variety of vehicles and infantry to command during battles. It features a typical "capture and hold a sector" gamemode as well as some others, including a destruction gamemode where players win by scoring points for destroying enemy units. ALB also offers 10 vs 10 multiplayer (currently on one map only) which is quite awesome.

    Pros:
    - Semi-large scale depending on the map
    - 10vs10 multiplayer possibility
    - Dedicated servers (currently in testing)
    - Co-operative gameplay is a possibility
    - Campaign that can be played online
    - Good sound design
    - Well engineered maps
    - No stupid unlocks (as with Wargame: European Escalation)

    Cons:
    - Overdone tracers, tanks look like they are shooting lasers
    - Infantry shoots through walls of buildings
    - Some unit movement glitches
    - Unrealistic engagement distances (game will tell you a tank can engage at 2000 meters however 2km ingame is what would seem 700 meters in reality)
    - Some units are useless and nerfed too much (why is there even balance at all in a game that bases on vehicles that exist in real life?)
    - Aircraft have no flares (however they have what the game claims to be ECM which most of the available aircraft did not have at the time they were in active duty)
    - Unrealistic infantry movement and formations (soldiers don't take cover, they just stand there getting shot at)

    Overall gameplay is very good, I was surprised at what this game can do, while there are inevitably issues and design flaws, ALB makes up for it in gameplay. It's a real shame this game does not sell as well as we would all like and there is not many players around.

    Recommend this game to anyone that likes good RTS games.
    Expand
  8. Jun 25, 2013
    6
    Wargame Airland Battle is really like trying to wage war in post apocalyptic world, cept for airplanes which of course gets an unlimited supply of fuel and battle. Like the previous iterations, supply is heavily limited, which doesn't matter for short battles where you've got kill caps, but is quite apparent in total destruction matches. Eventually you're left with a battlefield withWargame Airland Battle is really like trying to wage war in post apocalyptic world, cept for airplanes which of course gets an unlimited supply of fuel and battle. Like the previous iterations, supply is heavily limited, which doesn't matter for short battles where you've got kill caps, but is quite apparent in total destruction matches. Eventually you're left with a battlefield with units littered all over the place completely out of fuel/ammo/health and left scrounging whatever you have that can move and shoot onwards. Course this post apocalyptic scarcity of supply only affects ground units, airplanes on the other hand just continuously rain bombs over the battlefield as long as they aren't shot down. This coupled with the total lack of moddability makes for a disparaging gameplay where you're forced to rely on airplanes or stuck all your points into FOBs, which you're limited to 4 unless you don't choose a nation.

    Point being is it really that hard to get period resupplies of FOBs. If I hadn't read the title, this would be one of the most convicting post apocalyptic game out there.
    Expand
  9. May 31, 2013
    5
    ALB should have been released as a DLC package not as a new game. There's really not that many improvements made compared to European Escalation. Much of the new content is below par to modern games. There's not so many new units either, you have your usual strike/defend/support vehicles with more or less realistic portrayal, usually less. With ALB there comes the new element for Wargame,ALB should have been released as a DLC package not as a new game. There's really not that many improvements made compared to European Escalation. Much of the new content is below par to modern games. There's not so many new units either, you have your usual strike/defend/support vehicles with more or less realistic portrayal, usually less. With ALB there comes the new element for Wargame, airplanes. After a short while of playing i noticed that the planes are added poorly, dogfights offer no excitement and there's not much joy when you call your first A-10 to give close air support. It seems Eugen thinks that it's good game if you have lots of stuff you can put into battle. I see no reason why in multiplayer there should be several versions of BTR apc's instead of making the stuff work little more realistically.
    I don't say i hate Wargame series, it's at the moment one of the best rts games there is. I'm saying that Eugen should have sorted the EE's problems before pushing this one out. At this point, ALB is just a mediocre game.
    Expand
  10. May 30, 2013
    5
    First, I have to state I've not bought this game. No, I didn't pirate it either! I played this game through a friends steam account, as I was very wary of what FHI did. I was under the sneaking impression that they released Wargame European Escalation under a new name, with a few bells and whistles; planes, new maps, new units and very slight improvements to multiplayer, and then charged aFirst, I have to state I've not bought this game. No, I didn't pirate it either! I played this game through a friends steam account, as I was very wary of what FHI did. I was under the sneaking impression that they released Wargame European Escalation under a new name, with a few bells and whistles; planes, new maps, new units and very slight improvements to multiplayer, and then charged a full standalone price tag on top of it.

    Unfortunately, it seems I was correct. Now, I love Wargame, and the new one is a fantastic addition to the franchise. If only it came as a DLC or expansion to the current game, and not a standalone one with the price of a full game, I would be happy...

    Now, if your reviewing this game and not had the pleasure to play the original, then naturally your going to give it high praise, as it is a good game. If you've played the original, loved it, you may cast aside any principles you might have regarding developers who copy and paste their games and fork out the cash to try this new one out. Fortunately I'm not so easily persuaded with my cash, and even with the 25% sale on at the moment (interestingly enough, so early too?) I'm still not keen on purchasing it because if I my concerns that this title is simply a copy and paste of the original with planes added (which it is) then I feel that giving them my money would be condoning what they've done, and shame on them for doing it.

    Make no mistake: If you've not got the original, by all means, get the new one. If you are like me, and have got the original one but are on the fence about it... Ask yourself, is paying an extra 39 euro's (or whatever your currency is) really worth it for the same game with planes added in?
    Expand
  11. Nov 10, 2013
    7
    This is a very strange game:

    - the care related to the creation of credible scenarios of war, armies and combat mechanics, is incredible (never seen anything like it) - and... the game itself fail to use "all" of that In fact, in my opinion the game itself is quite too difficult to understand, at the start, and also after ten-fifteen hours of play, it never becomes very enjoyable.
    This is a very strange game:

    - the care related to the creation of credible scenarios of war, armies and combat mechanics, is incredible (never seen anything like it)

    - and... the game itself fail to use "all" of that

    In fact, in my opinion the game itself is quite too difficult to understand, at the start, and also after ten-fifteen hours of play, it never becomes very enjoyable.

    So, this game is pretty funny, well built, but unable to exploit its undoubted potential.
    Expand
  12. Apr 21, 2014
    5
    Wargame: EE сильно запомнился любопытной кампанией с разносортными миссиями. Пусть линейно, по старинке, миссия, одна за другой предлагала задачи решать, которые можно как захочется при определённых обстоятельствах. Жаль что в Airland отказались от такого пути, сделать нормальную сюжетную кампанию. Ситуация напоминает аналогичную с Dawn of War, там тоже была тактическая карта, зоны которойWargame: EE сильно запомнился любопытной кампанией с разносортными миссиями. Пусть линейно, по старинке, миссия, одна за другой предлагала задачи решать, которые можно как захочется при определённых обстоятельствах. Жаль что в Airland отказались от такого пути, сделать нормальную сюжетную кампанию. Ситуация напоминает аналогичную с Dawn of War, там тоже была тактическая карта, зоны которой нужно было захватывать. Несмотря на некторые приятные нововведения, а их всё-таки не так значительно много, определение судьбы сюжетной кампании - это большой шаг назад. Expand
  13. May 30, 2013
    8
    I resubmitted this review in order to clarify something very important.

    This is more of an expansion (stand-alone) to the original than it is a new game. For comparison though here are the differences between this game and the previous one. EE is European Escalation; ALB is Air Land Battle. -Campaign: EE had a very basic level structure. Level 1, then etc. ALB has a
    I resubmitted this review in order to clarify something very important.

    This is more of an expansion (stand-alone) to the original than it is a new game. For comparison though here are the differences between this game and the previous one.

    EE is European Escalation; ALB is Air Land Battle.

    -Campaign: EE had a very basic level structure. Level 1, then etc. ALB has a 'civilization' like campaign (minus civilization management. Only units).

    -Units: There are at least 350 units in EE. Note though that these are limited to mostly ground units and
    helicopters. ALB adds aircraft which is a massive new depth to the game. It consists of 750+ units.

    -Multi: EE had up to 4v4 battles. ALB has up to 10vs10 and the campaign is multiplayer (1v1 only).

    -Progression: EE had a command stars unlocking system. This system allowed players to purchase units with stars earned from multi and SP. ALB has stripped away this system. My opinion on this is in the review below. There is still a level ranking system in ALB for multiplayer (to show how long you've been playing).

    .
    Hopefully this covers most questions. Back to the main review :)

    The good

    The massive depth of units and and attention to detail will astound anyone who takes the plunge. The game's updated engine can either give players a great amount of detail when viewing from afar (easy to read icons and a clean presentation) while showing off the firepower of your armaments in frightening detail when up close (from spinning death falls to plummeting planes. On the vehicle side the engine delivers. There are a few corner cuts here and there [in particular the infantry] but you'll not focus on these for too long). There is a lot of information to take in too that can be quite helpful. Unit statistics (showing how good a unit is at doing whatever job by detailing what weapons do what and other useful statistics like how good is the unit at spotting other units). All of this leads to exciting battles that involve a great amount of micro-management and positional planning.

    In the game you will create a stack of units built in a deck system. Each side has a standard amount of activation points. The more of a single type of unit you add to the deck the higher the activation point cost is (to the total activation points). When you select a specific unit type you can either select the trained version (which is more accurate and less prone to morale loss in combat) but you end up with less of that unit as a whole for deployment. You can specialize your deck to be specific to one nation (nations make up each side of the game) which gives you more activation points as well as specialize in a specific type of deck (armored for example allows you to use a prototype tank and more of the tank class uses less activation points in total but then you cannot bring as many infantry out as before).
    The game's units are called up via deployment points which you earn by holding capture zones (while in the normal RTS battle game). Spending points at specific intervals can either lead to the one unit that pushes you forward or the unit that merely fails to provide the needed kick into the game. On the campaign map this is even more important a decision as units that level up in rank (which gives them better stats and basic abilities) will keep their rank till they die. Once dead they will have to be reinforced with standard new units.

    There are many systems at play that you constantly will need to keep a thought on. From suppression tactics to morale, from ammo counts to basic repairs and the like. The game does a good job of telling you when a specific unit begins to run dry (normally highlighted by icons near the unit name). So you'll never be caught without ammo unless you're having to watch a number of war fronts at the same time (which is when things get hairy).

    The bad

    The massive depth can also be its downfall in a sense. The current system allows players to use any units in the game in a deck system (no unlocking). Some view this as a crutch but personally I feel that it does level the playing field. However the problem with this is that new players will find the list of units and possibly be scared away by the depth. Don't panic! I recommend you specialize your deck in a specific nation to limit the view of units so that you can figure out what each one does (skirmish skirmish skirmish).

    The other downside to the systems in place is that there isn't a fluent tutorial (basic tutorials cover deployment/capture zones, movement, airbase use and resupply) but it isn't as comprehensive as it may need to be. This means that there is a learning curve to the game that isn't gentle.

    A tough RTS with great rewards.

    Let me know if you enjoy this review. Have fun on the battlefield all of you.

    Mail: RandomMaster@ymail.com
    Collapse
Metascore
80

Generally favorable reviews - based on 22 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 22
  2. Negative: 1 out of 22
  1. Pelit (Finland)
    Oct 7, 2013
    89
    Wargame: AirLand Battle polishes the Wargame even better. Here a commander with a plan and a good recon will prevail over someone with hunder actions per minute. Dynamic campaign makes it easily worth it, especially when you can face off with your friend in it. Hopefully we'll see more campaign scenarios as DLC. [Aug 2013]
  2. Jul 25, 2013
    60
    The other knock against the single player campaign is that there's no option to save your progress. No option to save your progress. It bears repeating because this is 2013! What the hell?
  3. Jul 15, 2013
    82
    If you're looking for a deep strategy game, this is one you can get lost in for more hours than you can count.