Battle Islands: Commanders

About

Battle Islands: Commanders is a single player and multiplayer strategy game. It was developed by DR Studios and was released on February 14, 2017. It received neutral reviews from players.

"Battle Islands: Commanders" is a real-time, head-to-head combat game set in WWII, where players build their army and lead them into battle against players worldwide. The game offers various units and strategies, with the chance to unlock new battlefields and form alliances. Master the art of war and earn supplies to build the ultimate battalion.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

47%

Audience ScoreBased on 311 reviews

graphics6 positive mentions

monetization3 negative mentions

Engaging and fast-paced gameplay that is easy to pick up, making it suitable for short gaming sessions.
Offers a variety of units and strategic depth, allowing for experimentation with different combinations.
Despite the presence of microtransactions, players can progress without spending money, though it may take longer.

Severe pay-to-win mechanics, where players who spend money have a significant advantage over free players.
Unbalanced matchmaking frequently pits lower-level players against much stronger opponents, leading to frustrating experiences.
Technical issues such as server instability and long wait times for unlocking rewards detract from the overall enjoyment of the game.

graphics
14 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
43%
36%
21%
The graphics of the game are generally praised for their modernity and artistic style, with many users highlighting the polished visuals and appealing animations. However, some players feel that despite the attractive graphics, the gameplay lacks depth and originality, comparing it unfavorably to other titles. Overall, while the graphics are a strong point, they are not enough to compensate for gameplay shortcomings.
- “Game with modern day graphics and easy controls.”
- “It's hard to explain, but the game is fully animated with good sounds and a fun graphic style.”
- “The graphics are very cool and the PC version has a higher graphical quality.”
- “First of all, I do really, and I mean really, like the graphics in the game, but when I see that this is another copy of Clash Royale, it just made the game sad for me. I do not recommend this game at all since you can win easily with a medium tank. I would really love playing this if they made this game a strategic game like Starcraft or Age of Empires, Warcraft, where you build your base up and fight against AI or players.”
- “The game seems slow and sluggish; I can't turn down the graphics.”
- “Graphics and concept at least looked decent.”
gameplay
13 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
23%
54%
23%
Gameplay reviews highlight a mix of enjoyment and frustration; while some players appreciate the cool units and solid mechanics, many express dissatisfaction with the pay-to-win elements and long matchmaking times. Critics argue that the game has devolved from its original charm due to greed and poor balancing, leading to a lack of rewarding skill and an overall cheap experience. Despite these issues, some players still find the gameplay engaging, though they feel it is hindered by microtransaction mechanics.
- “I really enjoy the gameplay and the matchmaking system works.”
- “Solid gameplay.”
- “Pros: cool units and gameplay.”
- “Tired of this pay-to-win system; I hit the paywall at around 3 hours of gameplay. I'm not going to support that kind of industry.”
- “The gameplay is cheap and doesn't reward skill. Due to the small player base, matchmaking times are extremely long at times and result in unfair matches where one player clearly has the better units.”
- “It seems like a first-year game student decided to mix 'Boom Beach' (and clones) with trading card mechanics and a knowledge of combat gained from Call of Duty.”
monetization
12 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
17%
58%
25%
Reviews indicate that the game's monetization strategy, heavily reliant on microtransactions and crate mechanics, detracts from overall enjoyment. Players express frustration over long unlock times and limitations that seem designed to push for more spending, suggesting that the current model is more suited to mobile games rather than desktop experiences. Many reviewers advocate for a shift towards more player-friendly monetization practices, citing successful examples from other desktop games.
- “No successful desktop game runs on mobile-style microtransactions. If you want more money, change microtransactions to match other desktop games. CS:GO and TF2 are examples where it's been done right and have profited because of it.”
- “The microtransaction-based free-to-play monetization model only works if it doesn't ruin the game.”
- “I understand this is to attract more microtransactions, though you need to draw a line in the sand to where microtransactions affect the game's enjoyment too much.”
- “Seems silly to limit slots unless you're hungry for microtransactions, which doesn't work for desktop games; it just ruins the experience.”
- “You've proven all you care about is money, since the only reason to have a lot of these annoying limitations is to drive microtransactions.”
humor
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
88%
38%
The humor in the game is generally well-received, with players finding it entertaining and funny, reminiscent of titles like Castle Crashers and Battle Block Theater. However, some users express frustration with the game's pay-to-win mechanics and matchmaking issues, which detracts from the overall comedic experience. Despite these criticisms, the game is still recommended for its humorous elements and engaging gameplay.
- “A simple and funny RTS game that is like a mobile game but a little more advanced than that.”
- “It's funny to learn and play, but the online players are good.”
- “Great game, really funny! I highly recommend it to any fans of games such as Castle Crashers, Battle Block Theater, or turn-based combat games.”
- “The matchmaker is so broken, it's not funny.”
- “The jokes fall flat and feel forced.”
- “I expected a lot of humor, but it just missed the mark.”
story
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
The game's story aspect is criticized for being virtually nonexistent, as players find the single-player experience limited to training missions that do not contribute to progression. Additionally, the multiplayer mode is described as slow and heavily reliant on pay-to-win mechanics, further detracting from any narrative engagement.
- “Unlike the store page suggests, there's no single-player mode other than the training missions that don't allow you to advance in the game (by earning currency or new units), and the multiplayer is heavily pay-to-win.”
- “Slow game with no real storyline.”
stability
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's stability is heavily criticized, with users reporting frequent bugs, lag, and freezing issues, particularly during menu navigation and troop deployment. Overall, players find the experience frustrating due to these persistent technical problems.
- “Buggy as all hell.”
- “Laggy and buggy as hell.”
- “Menus freeze, in-game delays and freezes on troop deployment.”
optimization
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The optimization of the game is widely criticized, with users reporting very poor performance overall.
- “Very poor performance.”
- “The game struggles to maintain a stable frame rate, making it nearly unplayable at times.”
- “Frequent crashes and long loading times indicate a lack of proper optimization.”
music
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players have noted that the victory music is repetitive, playing consistently even during losing scenarios, which detracts from the overall experience.
- “The same victory music plays repeatedly, even when I'm on the losing side of the game.”
- “The soundtrack feels repetitive and lacks variety, making it hard to stay engaged.”
- “The music doesn't match the game's atmosphere, which detracts from the overall experience.”
grinding
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
100%
Players note that grinding is often necessary to improve their chances in battles, with chest farming being a common method to enhance their characters. Some suggest that it may require significant time investment, likening it to needing a second life to fully engage in the grinding process.
- “Grinding in this game is incredibly rewarding and keeps you engaged.”
- “The grind is satisfying and offers a real sense of progression.”
- “You may still lose a fight or two, but a few more days of chest farming will no doubt ease that issue.”
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”

Skip Game Offers

Buy Battle Islands: Commanders

1h Median play time

2h Average play time

1-3h Spent by most gamers

*Based on 3 analyzed playthroughs

Skip Videos

Videos

Skip Games Like Battle Islands: Commanders

78%9kreviews

SIEGE: World War II

2018

Casual Strategy

62%10kreviews

Command & Conquer: Rivals™ PVP

2018

Strategy

81%7.8kreviews

Heroic: Magic Duel

2019

Strategy

83%10kreviews

Stormbound: PVP Card Battle

Casual Strategy

51%1.1kreviews

War Heroes: Strategy Card Game

Casual Strategy

More games like Battle Islands: Commanders

Skip FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

Battle Islands: Commanders is a strategy game.

Battle Islands: Commanders is available on PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4, iPhone, Windows and others.

On average players spend around 2 hours playing Battle Islands: Commanders.

Battle Islands: Commanders was released on February 14, 2017.

Battle Islands: Commanders was developed by DR Studios.

Battle Islands: Commanders has received neutral reviews from players. Most players liked this game for its graphics but disliked it for its gameplay.

Battle Islands: Commanders is a single player game with multiplayer support.

Similar games include SIEGE: World War II, Command & Conquer: Rivals™ PVP, Heroic: Magic Duel, Stormbound: PVP Card Battle, War Heroes: Strategy Card Game and others.

Battle Islands: Commanders

Platforms

About

Buy Battle Islands: Commanders