Rising Front

About

Rising Front is a single player tactical shooter game with a historical theme. It was developed by Sandstorm Studios Inc. and was released on January 9, 2026. It received positive reviews from players.

A single-player, large scale WW1 game centered around trench warfare. It is a mix of FPS, Battle Sim and Strategy, making for epic battles with hundreds of units on the battlefield!

Skip User Reviews

89%

Audience ScoreBased on 3,118 reviews

gameplay42 positive mentions

stability50 negative mentions

Excellent large-scale WW1 and earlier historical battles with hundreds to thousands of AI units fighting simultaneously, providing a unique and immersive experience.
Dual gameplay style allowing players to switch between commanding units in a strategic top-down view and participating as a soldier in first-person, enhancing player engagement.
Well optimized for massive battles, with solid mod support extending gameplay options and community-created content.
The building and fortification system adds creativity and strategic depth, enabling the construction and use of emplacements and artillery support.
Active solo developer with frequent updates and a clear roadmap adding new content such as tanks, cavalry, and plans for planes and chemical warfare.
AI shows decent tactical behavior including using cover, operating emplacements, and reacting to battlefield conditions, making battles feel alive.

Currently lacks multiplayer which limits replayability and player interaction potential.
Game is still in early access with bugs, including crashes, UI issues, poor command controls, and occasional AI pathfinding problems.
Content is somewhat sparse with limited maps, factions, and mission variety; scenarios can become repetitive after a few hours.
Some aspects of gunplay, animations, and sound design are clunky or underdeveloped, reducing immersion.
AI can behave inconsistently, including unintelligent melee, standing in open fire, and occasionally ignoring player commands.
Building interface and command map navigation can be confusing and clunky, hindering smooth gameplay flow.

gameplay
131 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
32%
57%
11%
Gameplay in this game offers a solid and fun sandbox experience blending FPS and RTS elements, with engaging building mechanics and large-scale battles. However, it is often described as clunky, repetitive, and lacking depth or polish, with unintelligent AI and cumbersome menus detracting from the overall enjoyment. While it shows great potential and is praised for its core mechanics and atmosphere, many reviews highlight the need for more refined RTS features, better UI, and additional content to enhance engagement and replayability.
- “This is so fun it has minor bugs but still very good. Graphics might not be good but the gameplay is absolutely amazing, if only they added some type of campaign.”
- “The scenario editor is awesome, and the gameplay feels really satisfying.”
- “Regardless of the mode, gameplay and mechanics remain identical.”
- “The gameplay is clunky and highly unfinished overall and most maps are quite mediocre in my opinion.”
- “The gameplay is pretty boring, you just shoot the bad AI (which the game advertises as being great and very intelligent) and that's pretty much it; commanding the units does not feel nice, you can't even select multiple armies at once.”
- “Build mode is patently useless, gameplay is buggy, ultimately there are better alternatives.”
graphics
97 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
28%
59%
13%
The game features simple, low-poly graphics with a charming, toy-soldier art style that prioritizes performance and clarity for large-scale battles. While some praise the unique style and smooth running on various systems, many criticize the visuals as outdated or unpolished, with frequent performance and optimization issues despite adjustable settings. Overall, the graphics fit the game’s theme but are considered basic and occasionally hinder immersion.
- “Graphics have a nice and original style 10/10.”
- “The graphics are simple but really work well in this game; the soldiers look like little wooden guys and it reminds me of playing with toy soldiers as a kid.”
- “Simple yet charming graphics: the graphical style is simple but effective, with enough detail to give the 3D environments some character without overwhelming the player.”
- “The ai isn't the best and the graphics are obviously a bit hard to look at but this game makes up for it in its simple dumb fun and its sale price.”
- “I get that it's made by a solo developer, and I don't doubt it has potential, it's just that it's hard to get over the unbalanced audio mixing, along with the fact that since the game is centered around unrealistic scenarios with an extremely gratuitous number of units, the graphics look like ripped Unity assets in order to maintain performance, resulting in unflattering visuals that break what little immersion the game already had to begin with.”
- “The optimization of this game is not good; I barely get 45 fps when the fight starts and I have an RTX 3060 Ti that can run RDR2 ultra above 60+ fps. I tried lowering the graphics settings to minimum and it's still getting the same fps no matter what, so I know it's an optimization problem.”
optimization
78 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
31%
55%
14%
The game’s optimization receives mixed feedback: many praise its ability to run large-scale battles smoothly even on lower-end systems, while others report significant performance issues, bugs, and frame drops, especially with high unit counts or on certain platforms like Mac. Overall, it shows strong potential that would benefit greatly from continued performance improvements and AI optimization to fully realize its ambitious scale.
- “You can have hundreds of units on the battlefield (with explosions and bodies ragdolling everywhere) and there won’t be any frame drops or performance issues at all on both Steam Deck and PC.”
- “Extremely well optimized while still having core game mechanics work almost seamlessly.”
- “Very well optimized fun with visuals prioritizing performance and clarity to support large numbers of units on screen.”
- “The optimization of this game is not good; I barely get 45 fps when the fight starts and I have an RTX 3060 Ti that can run RDR2 ultra above 60+ fps. I tried lowering the graphics settings to minimum and it's still getting the same fps no matter what, so I know it's an optimization problem.”
- “I certainly do not know how it can be called "optimized" for "any scale" when it runs about as bad or worse than Hell Let Loose, despite (again) only being a single-player game.”
- “Poorly optimized even with a good rig; it is hard to simulate a battle that would be fun.”
stability
52 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
4%
96%
The game is widely reported to be buggy and unstable, with frequent crashes, freezes, and various glitches affecting AI behavior, visuals, and gameplay mechanics. While some updates have improved stability, many users still experience significant technical issues that impact overall enjoyment. Despite this, a number of players find the core gameplay fun and promising for a work in progress.
- “The game runs great on the deck.”
- “One of the best sandbox games I have played in a long time and it runs great!”
- “A neat idea for a game and it has its moments here and there, but it's too janky and buggy.”
- “The game is way too broken and buggy as all hell even by early-access standards.”
- “Lag central, do not play; half the time it doesn't work and freezes.”
story
47 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
11%
68%
21%
Most users criticize the game for lacking a meaningful story or campaign, describing it more as a sandbox or mission editor than a narrative-driven experience. While some missions offer challenging scenarios, the absence of a cohesive storyline detracts from immersion and lasting engagement. A few suggest adding a story mode or multiplayer to enhance depth and replayability.
- “Rather than focusing on tightly scripted missions or small-scale firefights, the game emphasizes sheer scale, placing the player within sprawling conflicts inspired primarily by World War I and earlier historical periods.”
- “The missions you get off the bat are cool.”
- “The absence of a story is another major drawback.”
- “A campaign with even a minimal storyline would have added meaning to the conflicts and helped the game feel more memorable.”
- “The battles are fun and well-designed, but the lack of RTS depth, story, and multiplayer keeps it from becoming something truly great.”
replayability
17 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
41%
41%
18%
Replayability is a mixed aspect for this game; while workshop support, custom scenarios, and a variety of units add significant replay value, the lack of progression modes and lasting tactical depth limits long-term engagement for some players. Many find it highly replayable for casual, short bursts or modded experiences, though others feel it requires more content and improvements to maintain lasting appeal.
- “Workshop support allows players to create and share custom units, maps, and scenarios, significantly extending replayability.”
- “With semi-self operating AI, a variety of maps, a handful of different unit types, as well as the ability to create your own scenarios through sandbox mode, and a dozen built-in scenarios, Rising Front has a high level of replayability despite being extremely early in its development.”
- “The WW1 scenarios now feel like full-on warzones and add a great amount of replayability.”
- “Lacks replayability and an actual game mode with progression, but if you just want to do massive WW1 battles for a few minutes or hours for fun, it's worth it.”
- “Very fun and lag free, though sadly not much replayability.”
- “Also there are only 11 reviews with over 100 hours, which I think says a lot about its replayability.”
grinding
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
6%
69%
25%
Grinding in the game is widely described as tedious and time-consuming, often requiring extensive effort akin to needing "a second life" to progress. Some users find the gameplay fun without grinding, but overall, the repetitive nature makes advancement feel like a major grind.
- “It's very fun, no grinding needed.”
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “The player is often dwarfed by the conflict unfolding around them, reinforcing the game’s emphasis on war as a massive, grinding force rather than a series of heroic moments.”
- “Currently, it is so tedious to build!”
music
9 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
34%
33%
The game lacks music and ambient sound effects, resulting in a notably quiet experience that some players find immersive while others see it as a drawback. Many suggest adding background music or environmental sounds to enhance the atmosphere and overall engagement.
- “Mixing the combat with some BF1 soundtracks makes it feel really immersive; some of the best $17 I've spent. The dev has something really golden here.”
- “This is a great WW1 shooter and it may not have any music while in a fight or anything that tells you if you got a kill, but it actually makes it feel like you're there in a battle in WW1 (not the actual WW1 battles though). Even if it's in early access, it's great.”
- “Either music or ambient sound effects such as wind, trees, birdsong, etc.”
- “There's no music.”
- “There are no screams, no music, no background noises. It's the quietest war I have witnessed in the last 20 years of gaming.”
- “Some critiques first: I wish the game had some sort of music in the background.”
humor
9 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game is praised for its humorous and goofy elements, particularly the hilarious ragdoll physics and amusing updates. Players find the combat both funny and entertaining, contributing to an overall enjoyable experience despite some technical issues.
- “10/10 game, a nice somewhat goofy battle sim with funny ragdoll physics. The only downside is it's single player.”
- “Hilarious ragdolls, nice weapons, and the AI is incredible for a solo developer.”
- “Haha, funny machine gun goes brbrbrr.”
monetization
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
14%
86%
Users criticize the game's monetization for misleading advertisements, particularly exaggerating the AI capabilities, and express frustration over intrusive ads without toggles. While developers have made some adjustments, such as adding ad sensitivity options, many feel the game doesn't justify its cost compared to free alternatives with no microtransactions.
- “Misleading advertisements”
- “The advertisements for this vastly overshow what the AI can actually do (AI is awful).”
- “Stupid games without toggle ads f u”
atmosphere
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
43%
14%
43%
The atmosphere receives mixed feedback, with some users finding it immersive and unique due to its minimalist style and large battles, while others criticize it for feeling lonely, unimmersive, and lacking engaging sound effects or voice overs, which diminishes the overall battle experience. Despite its simplicity, the game manages to evoke a distinct World War I ambiance, though improvements in audio design could enhance immersion.
- “The things I love is how atmospheric it is.”
- “The minimalist style and the large battles really give off a unique and enjoyable atmosphere.”
- “Even with its still simplistic mechanics and its lack of viable content, it achieves a pretty WW1 atmosphere.”
- “It's pretty lonely and unimmersive, and the lack of atmosphere makes the battles feel dull and boring, which a game of this scale shouldn't be.”
- “A louder and more accurate sound effect would be greatly appreciated and would add a lot to the atmosphere.”
- “It is almost there from an atmosphere perspective, but things like voice overs are still absent from the game.”
emotional
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
75%
25%
The game lacks strong emotional engagement, offering no compelling characters or narrative to connect players beyond the combat. However, some appreciate the wholesome gesture of the developers reinvesting earnings into the community. Overall, emotional attachment to the gameplay or story is minimal.
- “Hours of watching artillery pummel waves of troops into the ground as they desperately try to take a fort almost makes you shed a tear.”
- “I don't care about the outcome, I just think it's really wholesome of the developer(s) to literally put the money they make back into the community.”
- “Emotionally attached.”