March of the Eagles Critic Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paradoxiana at its most approachable and bellicose. Engaging engagements, feisty AI, low price.

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.

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.

March of the Eagles is a great game, but it’s the same game you have played before.

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.

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.

Paradox Interactive have managed to release a grand strategy game that actually feels not so overwhelmingly complex as to scare off newcomers.

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.

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.

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".

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.

A great wargame to play with friends, and a very dull one to play by yourself.

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.

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.