Battleplan Review Summary

Polished, historically rich customization and a unique map-drawing command system shine, but crashes, lag, and progression-blocking bugs mar the experience.

Polished, enjoyable core gameplay: Reviewers widely describe the game as polished, fun, and satisfying overall. The core gameplay loop is repeatedly praised as enjoyable and worth recommending.

Rich historical customization and authenticity: The amount of historical customization is described as insane, with real historical army formations and divisions provided for immersion. Historical photos and artifacts are frequently highlighted as a big plus.

Highly recommended and solid project: Reviewers describe the game as a solid project, highly recommended, and an absolute gem. It meets expectations for a great strategy game.

Unique map-drawing command system: Players highlight the distinctive control scheme where units are commanded by drawing plans directly on the map. This mechanic is described as unique, interesting, and unlike anything played before.

Satisfying long-term planning payoff: Players find it deeply rewarding when long-term plans come together as intended, making troops execute the strategy. Watching frontlines expand, encircle, and engulf the enemy is described as hypnotising and far more satisfying than expected.

Frequent game crashes: Players repeatedly report crashes occurring during missions, after launch, and within short play sessions. Some crashes require full mission restarts, and one user reports the PC crashing after about 60 minutes.

Poor performance and lag: Players report significant lag, stuttering, low frame rates, and performance drops especially in larger missions or when managing many units. Loading saves is also buggy.

Progression-blocking bugs: Several bugs prevent mission completion or advancement, such as time stopping, missing retreat buttons, a mission 5 startup bug, and nothing happening after capturing the final city. These issues can halt the campaign entirely.

Tutorial fails players: Tutorials contain incorrect information, fail to explain required actions, and are affected by bugs that block progress. This makes the early game frustrating and inaccessible for new players.

Campaign logic and continuity broken: The mission-based campaign lacks coherent logic, continues after losses without proper consequences, and cannot heal units despite requisition. Restarting mid-mission also improperly resets units.

Draw on map to command: Players issue orders by drawing lines, circles, or shapes directly on the map rather than clicking through menus. This intuitive control scheme is used for defense, attack, and encirclement commands at the division level.

Real-time strategy with supply lines: The game is real-time rather than turn-based and features supply line mechanics where lines can be resupplied or enemy lines cut. This resembles Unity of Command II and creates a pacing distinct from traditional quick-reaction RTS games.

Mission-based campaign structure: The game uses a mission-based structure with at least five missions, including specific scenarios like the capture of Cherbourg. Missions can be skipped, and some require learning from mistakes and restarting to understand the mechanics.

Tutorial onboarding required: Tutorials must be completed to progress, providing a structured onboarding experience. After the tutorials, players unlock a wide range of strategic options and different ways to pursue objectives, though there is a learning curve.

Strategic depth and tactics: The game is a strategy game allowing various tactics and strategies, with a unique concept that focuses on planning individual operations. It offers grand campaign mode and tactical/operational mechanics similar to HOI4.

Frequent game crashes: Players report frequent crashes at various points, including during the tutorial, after launch, and after short play sessions. Some crashes occur every 5-10 minutes, severely impacting playability.

Performance drops and lag: Many players experience performance drops, lag, and stuttering, especially during missions, with many units on screen, or when changing orders. This affects gameplay fluidity and enjoyment.

Runs well on some systems: Some players report stable performance and smooth gameplay even on older hardware or at high settings. This positive feedback indicates the game can run well under certain conditions.

Graphical bugs and save issues: Players encounter graphical bugs and problems with loading saves, which can hinder progression and immersion. These issues are less frequent but notable.

RAM usage causes crashes: One player reports that the game consumes all RAM and crashes. This suggests potential memory leaks or high resource demands leading to instability.

Timeline mode highly recommended: Multiple reviewers highlight switching Orders mode from Zones to Timeline, calling Timeline the definitive way to play. This suggests a specific settings change can greatly improve the experience.

Poor value due to tech: One reviewer says the game is not worth the money given its technical quality, and another cannot recommend it until tech issues are resolved. These comments point to performance or stability problems affecting perceived value.

Refund requests reported: A couple of users explicitly requested refunds, suggesting purchase regret or unmet expectations. This may indicate issues severe enough to discourage continued play.

Wait for fixes: One reviewer advises waiting until the developers fix the game, reinforcing that technical issues are a barrier. This suggests potential buyers should hold off until patches improve stability.

Highly recommended overall: A reviewer gives a strong positive recommendation, showing that the game can be very enjoyable for some players. This balances the negative feedback with clear enthusiasm.

Session length: 1.5h.

The game becomes fun after players get past its buggy and confusing tutorials; many are blocked by crashes, missing buttons, and unclear instructions, but those who succeed find strategic depth.

Friction: Tutorial bugs prevent progression; Missing or non-functional UI buttons; Crashes during tutorial; Unclear or wrong tutorial instructions; Tutorial mismatch with live game version; Confusion about expected actions.

Unlock drivers: Getting past the tutorials; Understanding the game's pacing and input.

Military Organization Otaku: Deep tinkering with division templates and historical presets, judging authenticity against prior wargame knowledge. Motivation: Recreating, studying, and optimizing historical military organizations and division compositions. Stance: buy.

Curious Casual Strategy Newcomer: Short casual sessions, engaging with surface features and disengaging when systems become complex. Motivation: Curiosity sparked by marketing/trailers and a desire for quick pick-up-and-play fun. Stance: sale.

Tech-Blocked Cautious Convert: Cautious evaluation and delayed purchase, testing stability before committing to play. Motivation: Wanting to continue a demo experience they enjoyed once technical problems are fixed. Stance: no buy.

Linux and Proton: Only one relevant review is available. It reports that the game consumes all available RAM and crashes after brief play, with the user unsure whether Linux is the cause. No Proton version, launch option, native port, anti-cheat, or workaround details are provided, and there is no corroborating evidence. The Linux/Proton compatibility picture remains largely unverified with one possible stability issue.

Comparison to Hearts of Iron IV: Several reviewers compare the game to Hearts of Iron IV, citing tactical/operational mechanics, a desired global map mode, and studying military organizations. Some prefer HOI4 for now.

Compared to other strategy games: The game is compared to RUSE, WARNO, RD, and AB2, with unit grouping as a clear difference. It is also likened to StarCraft II for quick-reaction RTS, Unity of Command II for supply lines, and Gates of Hell for its appeal to fans of those games.

Lack of Chinese language support: Multiple players report that the game does not support Chinese despite having a Chinese description. One reviewer even created and shared a Chinese localization patch.

Active developer engagement: Reviewers note that the developers appear very active. Players have also submitted flaws and bugs through the official Discord.

Desire for full open battle landscape: A reviewer expresses interest in a full open battle landscape across France and the ability to conquer each region one by one. These suggest a wish for more expansive strategic options.