March of the Eagles

About

March of the Eagles is a single player and multiplayer real-time strategy game with a historical theme. It was developed by Paradox Development Studio and was released on February 18, 2013. It received mostly positive reviews from both critics and players.

The strategy wargame March of the Eagles is dedicated to the era 1805-1820 focused on the dramatic conflicts of Europe. March of the Eagles explores one of the defining periods in European history in an experience crafted by Paradox Development Studio, the masters of Grand Strategy and makers of Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis. The Napoleonic War is brought to life in this war-focused strate…

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

66%

Audience ScoreBased on 281 reviews

gameplay9 positive mentions

replayability3 negative mentions

Focused and engaging military gameplay with deep army customization and tactics, including commander and flank management.
Quick and accessible grand strategy entry point, suitable for newcomers and fans of the Napoleonic era, with a well-implemented coalition system and high replayability in multiplayer.
Stable engine performance with decent visuals and an immersive soundtrack that fits the Napoleonic theme.

Limited scope and short campaign length that restricts nation development and reduces replayability compared to other Paradox grand strategy games.
Poor diplomacy and economic systems, with overly aggressive and sometimes unfair AI, plus lack of political depth and development features.
Abandoned by developers early after release, lacking DLC support and active community mods, which affects long-term engagement and polish.

gameplay
43 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
21%
72%
7%
The gameplay offers a fast-paced, strategic experience focused heavily on detailed military tactics and deep combat mechanics, appealing especially to fans of Paradox's grand strategy titles. While praised for its intuitive interface, historical depth, and engaging battle systems, some find it overly simplified or fiddly, with limited political complexity and occasional repetitiveness. Overall, it serves as an accessible but niche title with strengths in warfare simulation, though its lack of updates and polish may deter some players.
- “With its detailed historical context, robust gameplay mechanics, and engaging strategic challenges, the game provides a compelling experience for strategy enthusiasts and history buffs alike.”
- “Its historical accuracy, strategic depth, and engaging gameplay make it a must-play for fans of the genre and a fitting addition to the Paradox Interactive catalog.”
- “Where this game truly shines is when players fully utilize the really deep and well designed battle mechanics which no other Paradox game could really provide even up to this day.”
- “Rulebook claims this is old-school board game inspired, but the gameplay is really just managing spreadsheets and organizing troops.”
- “So while it may be board game inspired, the actual gameplay is overly complicated and fiddly for what it is.”
- “Think a typical paradox game stripped to the bone with no content, no patching, and the most basic gameplay imaginable.”
music
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
38%
43%
19%
The music in the game is widely praised for enhancing the atmosphere and immersion, with many users finding it a standout feature that adds grandeur to the experience. While some compare it favorably to previous titles, a few feel it doesn't quite measure up to Paradox’s best soundtracks. Overall, the soundtrack is considered well-composed and a strong complement to the gameplay.
- “Give the OST a listen on YouTube; if you like the style, you won't be disappointed. 8/10.”
- “The game itself is gorgeous, the music is fantastic, but that doesn't cover the faults in its approach to the era.”
- “The music adds further grandeur to the game which may not exist otherwise.”
- “The only thing that is really lame to me is the music, which is nowhere on par with their other titles.”
- “The music is choreographed by F. Scott Fitzgerald and composed by Shakespeare by Mark Twain. It gets you in the music and mood of warfare and feels like you are really there, controlling a country under your dominion. It is truly a masterpiece of design and really hacks my brain to make me think that I am an owner of land in the war.”
- “Give the OST a listen on YouTube; if you like the style, you won't be disappointed, 8/10.”
graphics
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
12%
38%
The graphics are decent but not a standout feature, offering a balance between overly polished visuals and complex, clunky designs. While the game uses a familiar engine and looks acceptable, the visuals may feel somewhat outdated and less refined compared to other titles. Overall, players seeking impressive graphics might be disappointed, as the focus leans more towards gameplay than eye-catching visuals.
- “It's difficult to find a Napoleonic game that lies between eye candies like NTW, with great visuals but little depth and realism, and the insanely complex and chunky AGEOD titles.”
- “Graphically, it is quite nice, using the same engine as the most recent entries.”
- “Good enough graphics, fast paced, HOI4 x10 style gameplay.”
- “You'll probably get bogged down by the older visuals and less polished mechanics.”
- “And the graphics, I think from the pictures you know what I mean.”
- “If you're going to be persuaded either way by graphics for a game like this, you're probably in the wrong place.”
replayability
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
17%
50%
Replayability opinions are mixed: some appreciate the game's depth and the ability to play as any nation from launch, enhancing replay value, while others find its limited scope and lower replay potential less satisfying compared to similar titles.
- “While the learning curve may be steep for newcomers, the game’s depth and replayability make it a worthwhile investment for those willing to delve into its complexities.”
- “Every nation on the map is playable from launch (no DLC is a rarity these days) which adds replayability to the game.”
- “Sadly, it isn't very good and its limited scope makes it lose on replayability.”
- “However for me the game doesn't have too much replay value.”
- “Finally, it doesn't have the amount of replayability as other grand strategy titles.”
stability
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
25%
75%
The game's stability is mixed, with some users experiencing no glitches or crashes, while others report frequent bugs and issues. Overall, it appears less polished compared to other titles by the same developer, leading to a somewhat unstable experience.
- “No glitches or crashes. Everything is laid out neatly, and the game regularly issues alerts even to players playing at the easiest level who try to hide out in the backwater that is the Ottoman Empire.”
- “I would give a positive review for just about any Paradox title (yes, including Victoria II and Hearts of Iron III, as buggy as they may be), but this is a title I simply cannot forgive for its mistakes.”
- “More like March of the Unsupported, buggy games, am I right?”
- “Buggy, sure.”
grinding
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The grinding in the game is often seen as boring and tedious, with the diplomacy and coalition-building mechanics showing potential but ultimately feeling more like a chore than an engaging feature.
- “Seemed boring and tedious to me.”
- “The diplomacy and coalition building system holds promise, but in practice seemed more tedious to me than fun or interesting.”
monetization
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game’s monetization is notably restrained compared to typical Paradox titles, which some players appreciate, especially as the game was abandoned and avoided aggressive monetization practices that are often criticized.
optimization
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game features smooth and highly optimized performance, ensuring a seamless gameplay experience. Its visual quality is impressive, complementing an intuitive and clean user interface.
- “Gameplay is awesome, performance is smooth and incredibly optimized, visually it is beautiful, the time period is one of the most fascinating in history, and the UI is clean and easy to navigate.”
humor
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor is described as funny with a distinctive Napoleonic flair, adding a unique and clever comedic touch to the experience.

Skip Critic Reviews

65%Critics’ scoreBased on 2 critic reviews

Skip Game Offers

Buy March of the Eagles

751h Median play time

503h Average play time

5-1000h Spent by most gamers

*Based on 2 analyzed playthroughs

Skip Videos

Videos

Skip Games Like March of the Eagles

63%24kreviews

Imperator: Rome

2019

Open World Management

90%11.1kreviews

Victoria 2

2010

Economy Management

78%5.3kreviews

Hearts of Iron III

2009

Casual Real-time Strategy

74%33.4kreviews

Victoria 3

2022

Economy Management

74%3.5kreviews

Knights of Honor II: Sovereign

2022

Open World City Builder

More games like March of the Eagles

Skip FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

March of the Eagles is a real-time strategy game with historical theme.

March of the Eagles is available on PC and Windows.

On average players spend around 503 hours playing March of the Eagles.

March of the Eagles was released on February 18, 2013.

March of the Eagles was developed by Paradox Development Studio.

March of the Eagles has received mostly positive reviews from both players and critics. Most players liked March of the Eagles for its gameplay but disliked it for its replayability.

March of the Eagles is a single player game with multiplayer support.

Similar games include Imperator: Rome, Victoria 2, Hearts of Iron III, Victoria 3, Knights of Honor II: Sovereign and others.

March of the Eagles

Platforms