Warfare Online

About

Warfare Online is a multiplayer turn-based strategy game. It was developed by Con Artist Games and was released on May 8, 2017. It received mostly positive reviews from players.

Engage in intense battles in Warfare Online, a tug of war game from the creators of Warfare 1917 and 1944. Assemble your own custom platoons and take them to battle online against commanders from all over the world! Accessible Real Time Strategy Build custom Platoons Destructible Cover Over 150 Support Assets to collect Online Multiplayer Free to Play

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

68%

Audience ScoreBased on 525 reviews

gameplay21 positive mentions

stability10 negative mentions

Faithful to the classic Warfare 1917 and 1944 series with updated 3D graphics and strategic gameplay.
Deep unit customization and deckbuilding with a variety of support cards add tactical depth.
Fair free-to-play model where progression is possible without spending money, supported by an active community and responsive developers.

Game is currently dead or nearly dead due to server shutdowns, making online play impossible.
Pay-to-win elements and matchmaking issues create imbalance, where higher-level or paying players can dominate newbies.
Several bugs, glitches, poor AI behavior, and long matchmaking/queue times hinder gameplay experience, especially for new players.

gameplay
53 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
40%
52%
8%
The gameplay in Warfare Online is generally described as simple, strategic, and fun, with smooth mechanics and well-implemented unit behaviors, though some find it repetitive or basic. While the core gameplay is engaging, progression and multiplayer access can be hindered by slow pacing and pay-to-win monetization. Overall, it offers a solid strategic experience reminiscent of its predecessors, but is limited in depth and scope.
- “The gameplay is quite solid, level progression is smooth so far (as of this writing I'm at level 4), and the power-ups provide dynamic gameplay that can easily change the course of a match.”
- “The gameplay and balancing are great, the monetisation system is fair and there are a lot of unlocks to keep you motivated.”
- “Actually an awesome strategy game with good gameplay and astonishing graphics for the popularity it has (none). I highly suggest you try it!”
- “The resulting gameplay experience is therefore much smaller in scope and duration and there is less opportunity for the battle to swing back and forth multiple times.”
- “The gameplay mechanics are slow, you have to play three matches before you can play against people and each match takes around 20 minutes.”
- “The developers will not think about gameplay, balance, etc - their only purpose of making games is to make you pay.”
graphics
44 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
57%
36%
7%
The game's graphics are generally praised for being a significant improvement over earlier versions, featuring detailed and visually appealing 3D designs and effects. However, some users encounter performance issues like low framerates and occasional graphical bugs. While not groundbreaking, the graphics are considered good and fitting for the style, enhancing the overall nostalgic and strategic experience.
- “Actually an awesome strategy game with good gameplay and astonishing graphics for the popularity it has (none). I highly suggest you try it!”
- “Good game; gives me nostalgia for the old Warfare 1917/1944, but with infinitely better graphics.”
- “The graphics were never mandatory to be great, but they are. They are really good; the franchise has transcended into 3D beautifully. The design choices of the main menu and in-match UI interface look rather well, and the effects of shots, fire, artillery, explosions, etc. look beautiful. It's a great looking game.”
- “I've tried lowering graphics, and reinstalling but it still freezes and crashes.”
- “And whether I increase or decrease the graphics, it stays around 20 fps.”
- “So I set it to low and then my graphics just went to crap, I couldn't see any textures besides the riflemen and the Abrams tank, and the building looked like if you punch your TV (please don't punch your TV) life it was sharp and jagged with pink, green, black, etc.”
story
26 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
12%
76%
12%
The story aspect is generally viewed as weak or minimal, with some users describing it as unremarkable, simplistic, or even lacking altogether. Many players find the plot clichéd and feel the game could benefit from a richer, more engaging narrative or a dedicated story mode. Overall, the storyline is overshadowed by technical issues and gameplay concerns, limiting its impact.
- “I guess what I really mean by all this is if you took the 1980's characters and replaced them with early 2000's characters, even that would be 100% better. Then, add a load more to the storyline, and not that same old nuclear hijackers scenario. This game could be okay, as it stands I give it 2 stars for effort and 1 star for a possibly good game.”
- “The older games certainly didn't have multiplayer but the missions were fairly interesting, and had some more units like the man-portable mortar and the officer, as well as a morale system that let you win in a battle of attrition instead of merely destroying their base as a win condition.”
- “The game is fine if you want to relax a little and crush armies like in the old flash games, however I would've loved to see a story mode.”
- “The characters move very oddly, somewhat resembling PC terrors or really bad lag while everything else seems to move just fine. As for the storyline, it's basically nonexistent—more like a cheap, non-descript, kindergarten-style story line.”
- “I guess what I really mean is if you took the 1980s characters and replaced them with early 2000s styles, that would be 100% better. Then add a lot more to the storyline and avoid the same old nuclear hijackers scenario. This game could be okay, but as it stands I give it 2 stars for effort and 1 star for a possibly good game. I would not buy into this game at all; it's playable if you like running out of troops after the first three are sent out and have no real control over where they go. The game needs a lot of revising.”
- “A usual story for companies like con artists.”
stability
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game currently suffers from frequent crashes, freezes, and various glitches that hinder smooth gameplay, despite some users noting improvements from earlier beta versions. Performance issues such as lag and poor optimization remain significant drawbacks, though a few players report stable and well-functioning AI unit behavior. Overall, stability is a major concern that significantly impacts the player experience.
- “I've tried lowering graphics and reinstalling, but the game still freezes and crashes.”
- “I would write a more detailed review if I could actually play the game... crashing all the time, 30 seconds into the match, game freezes for a couple of seconds and then crashes.”
- “It's slow, buggy, and poorly optimized. I might come back in the future, but as it stands now, I have to give it a no, sadly.”
grinding
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
25%
75%
Users find the grinding in the game to be excessively slow and tedious, requiring significant time investment, often feeling wasted. Additionally, the need to purchase items after unlocking them adds to the frustration.
- “While farming is a very slow and painful process.”
- “The only real issue with this game is the massive amounts of grinding and how when you unlock something you have to buy it.”
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
optimization
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
75%
The game's optimization is currently subpar, with occasional stuttering and performance issues, especially during heavy infantry use. However, as it is in early access, there is potential for improvement in future updates.
- “By the way, this game is in early access so I don't really expect much performance optimization at the moment, but I see potential that this game will be the best game that ConArtist ever made (or at least better than Last Stand: Dead Zone).”
- “It is because veteran players know the optimized gear sets as well as card decks.”
- “I often get a bit of stuttering, where there's tiny lag for a bit (e.g., infantry movement is jerky).”
- “Performance isn't the best, especially if you spam infantry.”
- “By the way, this game is in early access, so I don't expect much performance optimization at the moment, but I see potential for this game to be the best game that Conartist ever made (or at least better than Last Stand: Dead Zone).”
monetization
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
67%
33%
The monetization model is heavily criticized for promoting pay-to-win mechanics, detracting from the strategic gameplay. While the 3D graphics and gameplay are solid, the inclusion of microtransactions negatively impacts the overall experience.
- “It's a browser game ported to 3D graphics which look good with solid gameplay and microtransactions.”
- “I was one of the early testers and didn't find the game too bad but unfortunately the monetization model promotes pay-to-win mechanics.”
music
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
67%
The music in the game is generally well-received, with an epic main menu theme and good background tracks during combat. Sound effects and voice acting are praised for their clarity and variety, enhancing the immersive experience. However, some users find the music somewhat generic and note occasional missing dialogue.
- “The music is epic, at least in the main menu, and the background soundtrack during fights is good. Many games don't even have background soundtracks, and the sounds are great, from firing weapons to units announcing their arrival and situations. Each unit has their own voice with multiple different sentences, even telling you what they are facing. Warfare games have always had great voice acting, but it is very clear this time.”
- “Music sounds generic.”
- “I can click buttons and hear the musical cues, but the screen will be stuck.”
humor
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game features a strong emphasis on tactical humor, particularly highlighting the reliable advantage of troops behind cover, which players find consistently amusing. Overall, its humor is well-received and adds an enjoyable layer to the gameplay.
- “Really funny game.”
- “The funny thing is this game puts so much emphasis on the fact that the troops behind cover will 9/10 times win against troops who aren't behind cover.”
replayability
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game offers fun and quick play but currently has limited replayability due to only one game mode (1v1) and two playable nations (USA and Russia). Players hope for more game modes and factions in future updates to enhance variety and longevity. An update has improved overall playability, increasing its appeal.
emotional
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Users find the emotional experience of the game lacking, describing it as leaving them feeling empty compared to previous titles by the same developer.
atmosphere
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Users praise the game's atmosphere, highlighting the developers' clear dedication and effort in creating an immersive and engaging environment.
- “You can tell the devs put a lot of time into it, great atmosphere.”