Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
One big change I see lots of disagreement over is the new challenge based progression system, also obviously inspired by Battlefield. I personally like it as it makes progression feel more earned rather than just playing the game for x amount of time, but I can see why fans of the previous two games would dislike it as it is a major departure from the old system. If you don't like the challenges, you can just cheese them by playing in an empty server with bots.
If I were to rate the three games in the series, I would definitely put Isonzo at the top, Tannenberg second, and Verdun in last place. However, I don't think you should necessarily return Verdun. It's still a good game and it's own unique experience that costs half of a AAA title.
'Tannenberg' is chess
'Isonzo' is Go ( 围棋 )