User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 193 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 15 out of 193

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. Aug 7, 2014
    This game is an obvious ripoff to World in Conflict / RUSE but is needlessly slow and boring, where you have to manually adjust everything like an autistic sloth, among many other annoyances, in which I could go on about all day. This game somehow got attention through steam-hype and mysteriously gets a drastically unrealistic user rating presented here. The entire Wargame franchise is quite bland, it doesn't even bring solid graphics, which would alleviate the mundane burden of control and actually make the game worth putting up with. Please keep in mind that the graphics here are not even on par with games that are 7 years older than this, but rest assured that it's the gameplay that ultimately ruins it. Although simpler and more arcade-like, World in Conflict is much more fun. More "depth" (lol) does not necessarily equal more fun, especially in the case with the Wargame series. Expand
  2. Feb 20, 2013
    A game ruined by terrible mission design and a silly ultrahigh speed rate of play which makes mousing around the map more important than strategy. Terrible unit AI in a game which pretends to be realistic. Units stand in the open getting blasted unless you manually tell them to move. Game speed is absurd. If units moved as depicted, tanks would be doing 200mph. Complex array of units and logistics, with a user interface which would struggle with anything more complex than monopoly. I've tried to like this game, put in hours to master the learning, but the reality is, it's badly flawed. Expand
  3. Dec 22, 2012
    Wargame is not a strategy game for strategy fans. It is a kind action/RTS which isn't requiring true strategic skills. Rush/blobs/artillery camping are the main tactics used by the Top100. Playing something else requires a lot more skill than your opponents. It is sad. The game owns a kind of unseen charm with its lots of units and the graphic engine. But the game modes are a massive incentive to blob, rush and artillery camping. If you like games with deep strategy thinking looks for something else.The same if you like simulation. the game isn't a simulation at all. Expand
  4. Mar 26, 2012
    Graphics are good and has some good ideas, but implementation is really bad. It seems like a rushed game and there isn't a whole lot of strategy. Was fun killing noobs with my clan - rockets - tank spam - rinse repeat. But it gets old very quick, and is not worth $39.99 because of it's many flaws.
  5. Mar 23, 2012
    Sorry but the game sucks. The interface is really really bad, with some terrible design. In multiplayer, the game has been taken over by 3 unstoppable rush strategies - so the game really is now rock/paper/scissor. In the rare games where you find players who do not rush, you will find that rockets are used - and these rockets are capable of killing top of the range tanks over a large area!

    The player base is now tiny, less than a month after release - if you buy this game you will understand why. It seems rushed, and the scores on here are unbelievable and very suspicious. They don't have a demo for a reason!
  6. Mar 20, 2012
    Horrifically bad interface makes me wonder how this ever got the scores it did here. The real challenge of game is trying to control your units, assuming you have the labyrinth of different units memorized already, strategy goes right out the window in favor of trying to work the frustratingly bad game interface. The game had potential but falls flat.
  7. Mar 17, 2012
    A waste of money

    This game just sucks at what it is trying to be â
  8. Mar 7, 2012
    nice game Bud it looks more like a unbalanced version of world in conflict game in my opinion Ty make the same big mistake as world in conflict no resources no base building and way to fast game ply its more stress then fun u have simply no time to think and that's bad for a rts i like to think when i ply to use some tactics Bud this game is more like the faster u go the better totally unbalanced on top of that it have a ferry week campaign only 1 map i like Bud for the rest it was even more bad then w.i.c Bud still it have great potential much have to be don lets hope for some good Dlc the rest it have steam that's cool bud even that it coasted more on the steam shop then retail so that was bad Anny way i ply a few weeks beta as well and i must say i am looking for some otter rts games and pass this game sorry to say... the graphics = OK

    the sound = averaged

    steam = OK

    campaign = bad

    online game play = averaged server settings = bad

    cost = bad
  9. Feb 29, 2012
    This game is inferior to R.U.S.E. and has too many units. It is a fun experience but as you continue to play it you will find it lacking. Team strategy feels a bit cheap and the natural imbalance of all of the units with the leveling system is not only broken but unfriendly to beginners. It is by far the worst real time tactical game I have played.

Generally favorable reviews - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 28
  2. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. May 20, 2012
    A solid tactical simulation of armored warfare 1975-1985 whose real value is in the multiplayer mode.
  2. May 11, 2012
    Eugen Systems put the "real" back into RTS. The result is spacious, subtle, deeply satisfying tactical gaming. [June 2012, p.84]
  3. 60
    Over-complicated tactical-strategic RPG is way too fast and complicated for the beginner while unsatisfactory for any advanced gamer. [Apr 2012]