Headquarters: World War II

About

Headquarters: World War II is a single player and multiplayer strategy game. It was developed by Starni Games and was released on April 11, 2024. It received mostly positive reviews from players.

"Headquarters: World War II" is a turn-based strategy game set during the Battle of Normandy. The combat system is deceptively simple yet offers depth with unit positioning, directional cover, terrain bonuses, and destructible environments. Players can choose their side, form their force, and level up units with heroes and headquarters skills. Join the discord for more information.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

78%

Audience ScoreBased on 348 reviews

story15 positive mentions

replayability3 negative mentions

The game features immersive cut-scene videos that enhance the gameplay experience and add to the overall atmosphere.
Gameplay is intuitive and sensible, making it easy for new players to get started while still offering depth for strategic thinking.
The game includes multiple difficulty levels and customization options, allowing players to tailor their experience and enjoy a variety of tactical challenges.

The AI can be predictable and passive, leading to less engaging skirmish experiences and making the game feel less challenging over time.
There are issues with the camera controls and UI, which can hinder navigation and make it difficult to manage multiple units effectively.
Some players have reported bugs and crashes, particularly in multiplayer modes, which can detract from the overall enjoyment of the game.

story
128 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
12%
83%
5%
The game's story is structured around three campaigns, each consisting of nine missions that focus on tactical objectives inspired by historical events. While the missions are designed to be engaging and varied, many players find them repetitive and lacking in diversity, often revolving around similar objectives like capturing points. Additionally, the narrative elements and mission design sometimes suffer from issues such as poor AI behavior and a lack of meaningful consequences for unit losses, which detracts from the overall immersion and strategic depth of the gameplay.
- “Campaign structure is mission-based, with each scenario presenting specific objectives that range from holding key positions to pushing through fortified enemy lines.”
- “While the scope of the campaigns is relatively focused, this tighter design allows each mission to feel carefully crafted, with terrain layouts and objectives that highlight different tactical challenges rather than repeating the same scenarios with minor variations.”
- “Each mission completed just makes me want to get right back into it to see what the next mission has to offer.”
- “The campaign structure is mission-based, with each scenario presenting specific objectives that range from holding key positions to pushing through fortified enemy lines.”
- “Absolutely no diversity in missions; it's take point A and B, and while you're doing so, you get a side mission to take something else.”
- “I fell in love with the demo campaign mission but found that most of the full campaign missions lacking the same excitement.”
graphics
75 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
59%
37%
4%
The graphics of the game have received a mixed but generally positive reception, with many players praising their quality, detail, and immersive qualities. However, some users have noted issues such as excessive sharpening effects and a lack of customization options that detract from the overall visual experience. While the graphics are often described as modern and appealing, there are concerns about their practicality in conveying gameplay information effectively.
- “The graphics in the game are exceptional, effectively immersing players in the game environment.”
- “A gem of a tactical turn-based game, in some ways like X-Com, but with a real WWII flavor, superb graphics, models, and destructive terrain.”
- “Great graphics, the textures and maps look amazing even with a grid-based system.”
- “There are zero graphics or gameplay settings, which makes the quality of life here extremely low.”
- “It may look fancy at first, but the graphics and animations really belong in a mobile game.”
- “The graphics feel dated and very archaic.”
gameplay
51 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
25%
67%
8%
The gameplay is characterized by turn-based engagements on grid-based maps, offering a mix of tactical depth and accessibility for newcomers. While some mechanics may feel clunky or simplistic, the game provides an enjoyable experience with a nostalgic vibe reminiscent of classic strategy titles. Players appreciate the strategic decision-making involved, though some express concerns about AI performance and the overall depth of gameplay options.
- “The core gameplay revolves around turn-based engagements on detailed, grid-based maps where every movement and action matters.”
- “Despite its punishing mechanics, the game is tense, tactical, and highly enjoyable.”
- “Gameplay loop is very enjoyable and has a nice feel to it.”
- “The gameplay is terribly simple, lacking in options, depth, and replayability.”
- “It's designed like those old strategy games from 15 years ago but with none of the charm and with extremely simple gameplay.”
- “Gameplay is hard to grasp from the get-go, especially with the aforementioned issues.”
replayability
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
20%
50%
30%
The game's replayability is mixed; while dedicated strategy fans may find value in experimenting with different tactics and multiplayer modes, others criticize the lack of content and depth, leading to limited replay value. Some players appreciate the variety in builds and thematic campaign missions, suggesting potential for replayability, but overall, many feel that once the campaign is completed, the game offers little incentive to return.
- “While not a massive online experience, this mode offers meaningful replay value for dedicated strategy fans.”
- “The game includes a player-versus-AI scrimmage mode, enhancing replayability and providing an incentive to continue playing after completing the campaigns.”
- “Replayability largely comes from experimenting with different tactics, difficulties, and multiplayer encounters rather than dynamic campaigns or procedural scenarios.”
- “Not only is there little content, there is absolutely no replay value and the way missions are formatted often create situations where enemies will just spawn in front of you.”
- “Limited replay value, unlikely to get you more than 10 hours once you beat the campaign.”
stability
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's stability has been widely criticized, with users reporting numerous bugs and glitches that detract from the overall experience. While some players appreciate the core gameplay, many feel that the development team has not adequately addressed these issues, leading to a perception of sloppy game development.
- “It's also buggy despite them now working on DLC.”
- “Too many glitches to ignore... sloppy game development... the devs just seemed to have walked away from it.”
- “Others claim it's buggy with DLCs, but it looks like the core game is also buggy.”
optimization
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
43%
14%
43%
Overall, the game's optimization has received mixed reviews, with users noting that while the graphics run smoothly on lower-end systems, there are significant bugs, crashes, and performance issues that detract from the experience. Some design choices, particularly regarding zoom and unit performance degradation, have also been criticized as contributing to the game's optimization problems. Many players feel that the current state of optimization does not justify the game's price.
- “The graphics are superb and run smoothly on lower-end systems.”
- “Unlike pg/pzc, unit facing is important, and when you suffer losses to a unit, it degrades in performance.”
- “The developers picked a very odd design decision with zoom, which I suspect is linked to performance issues.”
- “So far, I'm not really happy with the performance quality of the game.”
- “However, I don't think it's currently worth its price due to some bugs, crashes, performance, and balancing issues.”
- “The game seems very poorly optimized.”
music
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
The game's music features a solid soundtrack that enhances the epic and heroic atmosphere, complemented by impressive sound effects that create a realistic battlefield experience. While the music may not be groundbreaking, it effectively supports the game's themes, and the natural voice acting adds to the overall immersion. Notably, the soundtrack bundle is priced the same as the game without it.
- “Fun turned-based game with a good soundtrack and some great little animations.”
- “Voice acting is also great for its natural feel, which goes well with the epic heroic tone of the music, giving a common man's struggle to everything.”
- “The music, while not remarkable, adequately conveys the game's atmosphere, and the sound effects are impressive, contributing to a realistic battlefield experience.”
- “Fun fact: the cost of the bundle with the soundtrack costs the same as without it.”
atmosphere
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
75%
25%
The game's atmosphere is effectively conveyed through impressive sound effects and decent music, enhancing the realistic battlefield experience. While the graphics contribute positively, some players find the movement animations to be a hindrance to gameplay. Overall, the game successfully captures a distinct WWII ambiance, rewarding creative play.
- “The music, while not remarkable, adequately conveys the game's atmosphere, and the sound effects are impressive, contributing to a realistic battlefield experience.”
- “That said, the game still rewards creative and enterprising play, and its roster of units delivers a distinctly WWII atmosphere.”
- “Great feel and WWII atmosphere!”
grinding
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the grinding aspect of combat to be tedious and frustrating, often resorting to save scumming due to poor RNG. The lack of meaningful rewards for strategic actions diminishes the impact of gameplay, leading to a preference for slow, methodical unit placement over dynamic tactics.
- “Combat can get a bit tedious, and I find myself save scumming quite a bit due to poor RNG.”
- “It's just tedious and makes your actual actions less impactful.”
- “There is no reward for fire and movement over just slowly getting the right units in place and grinding down the opponent.”

Skip Game Offers

Buy Headquarters: World War II

12h Median play time

21h Average play time

3-44h Spent by most gamers

*Based on 5 analyzed playthroughs

Skip Videos

Videos

Skip Games Like Headquarters: World War II

87%866reviews

The Troop

2021

Turn-based Strategy

78%1.9kreviews

Order of Battle: World War II

2015

Tactical Turn-based Strategy

80%396reviews

Second Front

2023

Turn-based Strategy

68%2.1kreviews

Sudden Strike 4

2017

Real-time Strategy

83%11.8kreviews

WARNO

2024

Strategy

More games like Headquarters: World War II

Skip FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

Headquarters: World War II is a strategy game.

Headquarters: World War II is available on PC and Windows.

On average players spend around 21 hours playing Headquarters: World War II.

Headquarters: World War II was released on April 11, 2024.

Headquarters: World War II was developed by Starni Games.

Headquarters: World War II has received mostly positive reviews from players. Most players liked this game for its story but disliked it for its replayability.

Headquarters: World War II is a single player game with multiplayer and local co-op support.

Similar games include The Troop, Order of Battle: World War II, Second Front, Sudden Strike 4, WARNO and others.

Headquarters: World War II

Platforms

Buy Headquarters: World War II