The actual on-field behaviors of the units themselves don’t help matters, as shaky pathfinding and strange scripting unite to form a frustrating combination. Flamethrower units are too effective at shutting down infantry and defensive placements, anti-armor units are too slow and too easily overwhelmed to effectively check a mechanized opposition, and defensive placements aren’t strong enough against specialized units to counterbalance their lack of mobility.

Theoretically, the different classes of units form a rock-paper-scissors dynamic that should keep things in balance through careful asymmetric tuning, but it doesn’t hold up in practice. It’s in moments of imbalance like these when Iron Harvest begins to struggle. These smoking, hulking monstrosities are as imposing on the battlefield as they are in Różalski’s artwork, and the tenor of battle changes so dramatically once they enter the battlefield that the first faction to tech up to them tends to run away with an insurmountable advantage.

The mechs of Iron Harvest also make a strong visual impression, frequently towering over the infantry and making a glorious mess of things as they barrel through small buildings and other bits of scenery. It’s an approach that pairs well with the surprisingly potent writing and cutscene direction, giving the story a cinematic feel that I haven’t seen in the RTS genre for years. The missions in Iron Harvest‘s surprisingly traditional singleplayer campaign follow this philosophy, as enemy behaviors and mission structures are tightly scripted to encourage the player to keep pressing onward. This simplistic approach to the strategic layer, along with a population cap that limits the amount of units a faction can manage on the field, ensures that there is little-to-no reason for players to defensively “turtle” up in Iron Harvest. Iron Harvest offers just enough of a technology tree to position the giant mechs and other upper-tier units as short-term rewards for economic growth, but there’s little beyond that for long-term fortification.

These points, such as iron mines or oil pumps, can provide resources for constructing more units or other facilities at the faction’s base, all in service of building a better army for further conquest. Players issue commands from an overhead view, guiding them to capture or defend strategic points from the opposition. On the battlefield, Iron Harvest is a modern squad-based RTS. In Iron Harvest‘s pastoral nightmare there are three nations with real-life European counterparts - Polania (Poland), Saxony (German), and Rusviet (western front of the Soviet Union) – who are brought into conflict over the pursuit of destructive, world-threatening technology. Illustrator Jakub Różalski’s artwork on the title card and loading screens strike a fascinating contrast - farmers tend their fields as terrifying, building-sized mechs lord over the horizon. The best case for the 1920+ universe comes before the player makes it on the battlefield. The post-WW1 Europe described in the alternate history of KING Art’s Iron Harvest is very willing to indulge in that explosive pursuit by exploring a titanic struggle between giant diesel-fueled mechs and its effects on the nations caught in their wake.Īs part of the 1920+ universe (along with popular board game Scythe) Iron Harvest puts these mechs front and center and asks whether the destructive fantasies of dieselpunk warfare can co-exist with more grounded, squad-based tactical play.

It can also provide an opportunity to blow shit up with giant robots. The lens of an alternate history can provide many storytelling opportunities, from the stark contemplation of terrifying outcomes narrowly avoided to the realization of a utopian dream just out of reach. WTF It’s 2020 – why are we still putting stealth missions into RTS games? LOW Poor AI/pathfinding, uneven balance, large armies are awkward to control. HIGH Brilliant illustrations, solid writing, great music.

Iron harvest reviews