Become a supporter

Warfare: 1917

Share Collapse

Author Comments

Lead the British or German army through the trenches of Europe in this First World War strategy game.

Use infantry, armor and fire support to take control of the ground or bombard your foes into submission.



well first off, it wasnt a bad game, rather fun at first.

but the problem is that the counters of some units are ether TOO efective, or not enough.

the powers that you have are fiarly well done, but the AI has them before you do *meaning the recharge rate*

the german tank is too powerful and needs to ether get a HP/armor downgrade, or the british grenade needs to do more damage to it.

the british level last stand is a piss off, the mines are TOO efective and show up at the same place more than once.

this could be a better game


it could be better but its good itherwise i like to be the british and kick some @$$

Crap gameplay

Its graphically nice, its fun for the first 2 levels but then it just gets boring. The gameplay itself isnt balanced. example: one squad of assault can not take down 1 single rifleman in a trench. Also the enemies artillery hit your units 90% of the time where as yours is pretty inaccurate and when it does hit does barely any damage. Makes for boring and unbalanced gameplay.

Im sorry, but I just dont like it!

Games that are difficult to win just really repel me, and holy freaking crap was the second level hard!

Great potential, Great Failure

First and foremost, these is my type of game. No, not this game itself, I think this game is awful. But I in general love strategy games.

When designing a game the foremost element to keep in tact is game play. Not difficulty, not graphics, nothing else but game play. Warfare 1917 takes the route of many old NES games that believe "Lopsided difficulty and tedious game play = fun"

I for one never understood this idea behind a game, but there must be some reason for it. First let me explain why I feel the way I do about Warfare 1917.

First of all, the enemy always has the advantage via faster resupply by default. This to me screams laziness. Instead of programming for more levels with increasingly smart AI, lets just give the enemy a default passive advantage! Easy enough.

Then there are the enemy land mines. Of course you are unable to set up land mines of your own, that would require additional programming and game balancing. Instead, you are forced to trudge your troops through the minefield wrecking your teams moral along the way. Did I mention the AI is completely invulnerable to mines? Oh yes. They can attack you, worry free of mines, and if you attempt to retaliate prepare to have your first two or three waves obliterated by mines.

Then there are the glitches, which are just the icing on the cake. Namely the glitch that makes you lose and there is nothing you can do about it. There is a glitch that simply lets the enemy float right on by all of your troops/trenches/artillery right to your side of the map. Awesome, right?

I tried to enjoy this game, and honestly I can see how it could be an awesome game with a ton of reply value even. However the game play route the developer decided to go with is incredibly outdated and simply flat out awful. Great games use increasingly strong AI, tactics and skill to reward and challenge the player. Horrible games use cop-out statistic modifiers to make the programming work easier on the developer.

Rated 1/10 becase of the failure that had so much potential.

People find this review helpful!

Click on an icon to vote on this!

Credits & Info

4.41 / 5.00

Oct 3, 2008
7:55 PM EDT
Strategy - Real-time (RTS)
  • Frontpaged October 4, 2008
  • Daily Feature October 4, 2008
  • Weekly 4th Place October 8, 2008