Rising Front
Last updated: 2026-01-10
- Highly enjoyable and fun gameplay experience
- Strong sandbox and creativity features included
- Excellent battle simulation potential demonstrated
- Severe performance and optimization issues present
- Unpolished and low-quality graphics observed
- Poor AI and unit control frustrates players
Emotions
Players experience frustration primarily due to technical issues like lag, crashes, and poor optimization, which disrupt gameplay. Additionally, unbalanced or non-functional mechanics—such as AI behavior, troop commands, and missing features (e.g., tanks, tutorials)—compound the problem, making the game feel incomplete or unplayable.
Excitement stems from the game's unique blend of FPS and strategy elements, chaotic sandbox battles, and the potential for large-scale custom scenarios. Players also appreciate the modding community and developer updates, which enhance replayability and introduce new content like tanks or multiplayer features.
Disappointment arises from unmet expectations, particularly regarding polish, depth, and historical accuracy. Players criticize the lack of updates, repetitive gameplay, and missing features (e.g., drivable vehicles, naval units), as well as bugs and performance issues that detract from immersion and enjoyment.
Satisfaction is driven by the game's core mechanics, such as building fortifications, commanding troops, and engaging in large-scale battles. Players appreciate the ease of use, customization options, and the unique WW1 setting, which delivers a fun and immersive experience despite some technical flaws.
Enjoyment is derived from the game's chaotic and creative sandbox mode, which allows for replayable and varied battles. Players highlight the fun of artillery mechanics, custom scenarios, and the overall war simulator experience, even if the gameplay is simple or unpolished.
Verdict
Mixed
Summary
Positive 74% · Negative 26%. Score: 26 / 100
Positives:
- Players consistently describe the game as fun, engaging, and well-made, with many recommending it. The gameplay loop is satisfying and replayable, even in early access.
- The sandbox mode is praised for its creativity, chaos, and potential for custom scenarios. Players enjoy the LEGO-like tinkering and building aspects, making it a standout feature.
- The game is recognized as one of the best WW1/battle simulators, with large-scale battles and a unique mix of FPS and strategy. Players appreciate its historical accuracy and immersive combat.
- Mods and Steam Workshop content significantly enhance replayability, adding variety and new gameplay elements. The modding community is active and well-supported.
- The game handles hundreds or thousands of AI units smoothly, even on modest hardware. Players highlight its excellent optimization and low system requirements.
Negatives:
- Players report frequent lag, crashes, and poor optimization, especially on low-end PCs. Animations and loading times are described as janky and slow, resembling outdated hardware capabilities.
- Graphics are criticized for being ugly, dark, and lacking depth, with repetitive textures and Unity asset-like appearances. The visuals contribute to an overall unpolished feel.
- AI is described as stupid, ineffective, and unresponsive to commands. Units ignore orders, block line of fire, and lack survivability, making gameplay frustrating.
- Players struggle with unclear controls, missing tutorials, and a lack of in-game instructions. This leads to confusion and boredom, especially for new players.
- Players find the game repetitive and boring after a short time due to limited content, lack of variety, and unbalanced scenarios. Replayability is low.
Gameplay:
- Players can issue orders to units, including formations (e.g., line, assault) and direct commands. However, some report limitations in formation variety and autonomous unit behavior.
- The game blends first-person shooter (FPS) and real-time strategy (RTS) elements, letting players command troops from a tactical map or participate directly in battles. This hybrid approach is a standout feature.
- Artillery strikes and defensive setups (e.g., machine guns, barbed wire) are central to gameplay, especially in historical scenarios like beach defenses. Players highlight the tactical depth of these systems.
- The game offers a detailed scenario editor allowing players to customize maps, factions, income, and unit compositions. This feature is praised for enabling community-created content and replayability.
- The game features dynamic spawning of units and platoons, enabling large-scale battles (e.g., 1000 vs 1000 soldiers). However, some players find spawning mechanics inconsistent.
Performance:
- Lag is reported during ragdoll-heavy moments, gunfire, and large-scale battles, even on high-end hardware. Some players note improvements by lowering graphics settings.
- Players report consistent crashes when using mods, particularly during mod-heavy gameplay, loading screens, or after repeated deployments. Some crashes may also be hardware-related.
- The game is optimized for lower-end PCs but struggles on very weak hardware like Intel Pentium or Celeron processors, despite advertised low system requirements.
- The game runs well on Steam Deck with low graphics but crashes occasionally with high graphics settings, indicating inconsistent optimization for the platform.
- Players experience extended loading times when using mods, particularly with workshop mods and poor internet connections, impacting gameplay flow.
Recommendations:
- The game is frequently praised for its content depth, sandbox battles, and creativity, making it a strong recommendation for strategy and FPS fans. Many reviewers highlight its value for money and potential for long-term engagement.
- Many players recommend waiting for quality-of-life improvements, additional content, or the game’s official release before purchasing. This is especially true for those hesitant about its current state.
- Reviewers often compare the game to titles like *Ravenfield*, *TABS*, and *Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator*, positioning it as a unique or complementary experience for fans of those games.
- Players frequently request improvements to artillery mechanics, including crew-operated systems, realistic animations, and gore effects. These changes are seen as critical for immersion and tactical depth.
- Reviewers note frustrations with construction limits and clunky UI/building interfaces. Improvements in these areas are seen as essential for smoother gameplay.
Miscellaneous:
- Players frequently mention the game's early access status, noting that it demands patience from the community due to ongoing development and potential instability. This feedback highlights expectations for iterative improvements.
- The game is recognized as a solo developer project, which may impact development speed, scope, and resource availability. Players acknowledge the challenges faced by independent creators.
- The game appeals to a wide demographic, including teens, adults, and veterans. This suggests versatile gameplay mechanics or themes that resonate across age groups.
- Players describe the game's size as 'workable,' indicating it strikes a balance between depth and accessibility without being overwhelming or too simplistic.
