I’ve only played the demo and a decent chunk of Early Access, not the finished game, so take this as a first impression. Overhype, the developer not the game (well at least not yet) has earned a lot of goodwill with Battle Brothers, but I’ve been burned by Early Access enough times that I went in with an optimisctic pessimism. Yes, you read that right!
That said, what I’ve played so far genuinely surprised tickle me wargamer balls.
It borrows some surface-level ideas from XCOM, but it feels much closer in spirit to Battle Brothers. And that’s exactly why I’m hooked on it.
If you loved Battle Brothers the way I did, a lot of this will feel familiar in the best possible way. The game makes every decision feel expensive. Lose a squad leader and they’re gone (bye bye) all their perks, experience, and that sentimental little attachment you developed over multiple operations just vanish. You cry and live with the consequences. That weight carries through everything you do.
The supply system is one of the best parts. Every marine and every piece of gear pulls from the same hard pool before you even drop. After a couple of operations I stopped caring about optimizing my squad and srated having genuine feeling of my pixeltroopen’s. My testosterone was below the ideal level for a an adult male. That mental shift should be familiar with most XCommers (Or Ex-commies?) but it completely changes how you approach missions. It’s the kind of design that makes you feel like a real commander instead of just a player moving pieces.
Suppression feels meaningful in a way most tactics games never manage. Pinned enemies shoot worse, their morale drops, and covering fire actually becomes a useful tactic instead of something that just looks cool on screen. I caught myself naturally setting up hammer-and-anvil moves or spotter-hitter combos without the game telling me to. The alternating actions per turn (the same system Battle Brothers uses) make the tactical layer feel way more dynamic than XCOM’s full side turns.
There are so many little systems that clicked for me. The barks are genuinely great although some are abit cringe, but most are hilarious and add real personality to the squad. Destructible environments and vehicle wrecks actually change the battlefield in meaningful ways, mostly meanignful for the enemies from my experience.
Progression also feels honest. Your units don’t just magically get better stats when they hit a level threshold. If you want your squad leaders to improve their accuracy, they actually have to shoot people. It’s a small thing, but it makes the improvement feel earned. Loot is satisfying too — when you kill an enemy carrying a gun you like, there’s a real chance you can pick it up after the fight (RNG permitting). Ship upgrades and off-map abilities matter more than I expected and open up genuinely different playstyles.
The fatigue and morale systems are another nice touch. You can’t just deploy your best squad leader on every single mission. They need time to wind down, which forces you to rotate your roster and think longer-term. The three-layered gameplay loop (strategic resource management → operation selection → individual tactical missions) keeps things interesting, and most missions have multiple secondary objectives worth pursuing.
The intelligence system is also excellent, though it clearly still has room to grow. The devs have been very communicative with frequent updates and clear dev logs, which makes me hopeful for what’s coming next.
The Rough Edges
Now for the rough edges, because there are quite a few.
The AI is still pretty passive and conservative. It often sits back instead of pressing an advantage. You can focus-fire one enemy and the surrounding units barely react, there’s very little unit cohesion or reactive flanking. If a fight breaks out on one side of the map, enemies on the other side often just continue their patrol route like nothing’s happening. It breaks immersion more than I’d like.
Mission timers are everywhere and I really don’t like them. They make me feel rushed when the game’s biggest strength is encouraging careful, deliberate play. I understand why they exist, but they work against the kind of thoughtful decision-making the rest of the game rewards.
The story is still quite thin and lacks real depth or a proper ending so far. I also wish there was more dialogue in general. The barks are fun, but I want more actual conversation especially from Lieutenant Hayflick. She’s supposedly the most valuable person on the ship and she barely gets to speak. The same goes for the squad leaders and faction representatives. A bit more personality and fluff would go a long way.
Visually the game is functional but nothing special, and only having three planets right now limits the scenic variety (even if other worlds are teasingly visible in the background).
Final Thoughts
Even with those issues, I’m still impressed by what’s here. The fundamentals are rock solid. Supply constraints bite, suppression matters, losing experienced squad leaders hurts, and the synergies you can discover feel genuinely rewarding. It’s not a finished game yet, but what’s already playable scratches a very specific itch better than most tactics games I’ve tried this year.
If you’re a Battle Brothers or X-Com fan looking for something in the same spirit, this is a decent game for me right now, with clear room to climb higher as it matures. I’ve written before about how games like Terminator: Dark Fate – Defiance can carry real wargame DNA under sci-fi skin — MENACE does something very similar, and I’m excited to see how it develops.
Should you buy it? Well, since there’s a free demo, I’d recommend trying it for yourself first. If you enjoy it, you can either wait for the full release or jump into Early Access. In the meantime, the demo is absolutely worth your time. If you’re on the fence, give it a shot. You might be surprised by how much it clicks.
