Warrior Kings: Battles

About

Warrior Kings: Battles is a real-time strategy game set in a medieval fantasy world. Players command armies and engage in battles, while also managing resources and building structures to support their forces. The game features a single-player campaign and multiplayer modes, with a focus on historical accuracy and strategic depth. Players can choose from multiple factions, each with unique units, technologies, and playstyles.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

91%

Audience ScoreBased on 320 reviews

gameplay12 positive mentions

graphics10 negative mentions

Timeless classic with a unique tech tree and faction system that allows for diverse strategies.
Nostalgic gameplay that still provides hours of fun, especially for fans of old-school RTS games.
Challenging AI and engaging combat mechanics that require thoughtful planning and strategy.

Outdated graphics and numerous bugs, particularly with unit pathfinding and AI behavior.
Lacks modern quality of life features, making it difficult to play on current systems without mods.
The campaign can feel repetitive and the multiplayer experience is limited due to a lack of community support.

graphics
44 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
14%
64%
23%
The graphics of "Warrior Kings: Battles" are widely regarded as outdated, with many reviewers noting their blocky and blurry appearance, reminiscent of late 90s and early 2000s aesthetics. While some players appreciate the nostalgia and find the visuals passable for a game of its age, others criticize them as clunky and lacking detail compared to contemporary titles. Overall, the consensus is that while the graphics may not meet modern standards, the gameplay remains engaging and solid.
- “For a 2002-2003 game, it has decent graphics.”
- “The art style is not as iconic as other games nor as distinct, but it's certainly not sub-par, and it creates the necessary medieval feel.”
- “While the game's graphics have probably not aged very well for those not viewing it through nostalgia-tinted lens, the strategy side is still rock solid, and its implementation of formations and terrain remain uniquely excellent in my opinion.”
- “Though today the graphics look pretty shitty, the gameplay is still catchy.”
- “Clunky graphics, AI path glitches, and a bland campaign.”
- “Of course, the game is quite old now, so the graphics aren't its strong point, appearing blocky and, when zoomed in, blurry and lacking detail and definition.”
gameplay
36 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
58%
8%
The gameplay is praised for its nostalgic appeal and engaging mechanics reminiscent of classic RTS titles, offering a fun and varied experience with numerous strategic options and unit types. While some players note that the game lacks a compelling story compared to its predecessor, the overall gameplay is described as catchy and enjoyable, with a focus on logistics and resource management. Despite some technical issues and dated graphics, many find the gameplay to be deeper and more rewarding than many contemporary RTS games.
- “I love the logistical aspect of the gameplay and the numerous units you can build.”
- “The gameplay is not repetitive, considering that you can build everything you want and use different strategies; it's like every battle is different from the other.”
- “Wk:b still gives a deeper, much more enjoyable gameplay than most of today's copy/paste RTS games.”
- “The whole thing is weird, it's like the game's mechanics don't fit what it's trying to be; the game is out of sorts with itself.”
- “Though today the graphics look pretty bad, the gameplay is still catchy.”
- “I have always preferred the original to this due to the story; however, the gameplay in battles is a lot more efficient. If you have played both games before, you can tell that they paid more attention to the military aspect of the game, giving you a more advanced play in combat.”
music
28 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
7%
82%
11%
The music in the game is described as inconsistent, with some tracks being enjoyable while others are jarring or inappropriate for the context, such as intense battle music during minor skirmishes. Many players recommend turning off the in-game music to avoid lag and enhance the overall experience, suggesting that external music might be a better alternative. Overall, while the music has its moments, its implementation and relevance to gameplay often detract from the experience.
- “The game plays quite relaxing, serene tracks while not in combat, but when your troops start fighting, the music ramps up to war-drums.”
- “The music could be better, or rather better implemented, but the game is deep, trying different tactics with each alignment, using pike & shot formations, artillery batteries, demonic hordes, massive formations of knights or disrupting your enemy with espionage and subterfuge.”
- “The music can be jarring, dull, or occasionally irritating.”
- “The music is either hit or miss, with some tracks being really good and some being really bad, and the way the music jolts around at times can be very unsettling and quite disruptive.”
- “Sounds: the music sometimes doesn't relate to the game, and when in combat, the music can sound very awkward.”
story
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
50%
38%
The story in this game is generally considered weaker than its predecessor, "Warrior Kings," with many reviewers noting a lack of a cohesive narrative and a focus on skirmish battles instead. While the gameplay has improved significantly, allowing for more straightforward mission objectives and cultural choices, the absence of a compelling story detracts from the overall experience for some players. Despite this, the game remains enjoyable and challenging, particularly in its military mechanics.
- “Nice thing is that compared to the previous title, at the beginning of each mission we can choose which culture we will play.”
- “I have always preferred the original to this due to the story; however, the gameplay in battles is a lot more efficient.”
- “I do wish this had an actual story like the first one, but where it lacks in that, it makes up for it in the overall improvement of gameplay as the first game was a little glitchy.”
- “The single player story is somewhat weaker in this game, but I'd recommend giving it a try since I still found it enjoyably challenging.”
- “- no story in the campaign, just skirmish battles”
stability
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's stability is generally criticized, with users reporting numerous bugs, clunky graphics, and AI pathfinding issues that can detract from the experience. While some players find enjoyment in mastering the game despite its flaws, the overall consensus is that it suffers from significant stability problems, and no fixes are expected due to the developers' bankruptcy.
- “Expect a rather difficult, buggy, and unbalanced game, but if you can master it, it's pretty enjoyable.”
- “Buggy pathfinding - can be worked around, but don't expect a fix - the game's devs went bankrupt and it's 11 years old.”
- “There are lots of little glitches in the game that can be frustrating.”
grinding
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be a mixed experience; while it offers some fun, it can become tedious and frustrating, especially when managing a large number of units (up to 800), which often leads to chaotic and unresponsive behavior. Overall, it is considered an improvement over traditional farming mechanics, but the challenges can detract from the enjoyment.
- “Tedious and frustrating game experience.”
- “Good bit of fun, however once you get into the big game (800 unit cap), with a friend or two, your units will lose their minds, be unable to do basic functions such as walking/farming.”
replayability
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game offers significant replayability due to its diverse selection of maps, customizable settings, and the freedom to choose different alignments or factions. Players appreciate the extensive skirmish mode, which further enhances the replay value, making each playthrough feel unique and engaging.
- “A great selection of maps varying in size and number of players, along with excellent settings customization, greatly improves the replayability of an already huge selection.”
- “The level of freedom in choosing an alignment or faction is brilliant and unique, and the replay value, thanks to its skirmish mode, is massive.”
- “Tons of replay value.”
atmosphere
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The atmosphere of the games is consistently praised as innovative and enjoyable, contributing significantly to the overall experience. Reviewers express a desire for remastered versions that enhance gameplay while preserving the captivating ambiance.
- “Innovative, atmospheric, and fun.”
- “I would think that if they remastered both of these games and improved the gameplay system but kept the good free atmosphere, we would have some amazing games.”
optimization
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game suffers from poor optimization, lacking support for modern display resolutions and the 4:3 aspect ratio, resulting in a subpar experience on contemporary gaming PCs. It has not been updated to run smoothly, leaving players frustrated with its performance.
monetization
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The monetization strategy is criticized as a cash grab, with reviewers feeling that the game has not been updated or improved for contemporary standards.
- “Generally a bit of a cash grab as they didn't bother to fix it up for the modern era.”