Northgard Battlegrounds: the auto-battler where you place buildings, not units

There is a Northgard Battlegrounds review that deserves to open this article, because it says exactly the right thing.

"I think this is a very fun game that fundamentally does not work in its current form. It's by a landslide the most interesting autobattler I've personally played so far; instead of placing units most of the strategy actually comes from placing buildings."

It is all there. The idea, and the problem.

The idea

You choose one of Northgard's renowned clans and raise your Townhall on empty lands.

You build and expand your settlement, shape your strategy, harness the Gods' favour, and prepare your warband. Then you face rival players in asynchronous battles: your clan challenges others and defends its own strength.

And here is the sentence carrying the whole game: your settlement's layout is your greatest weapon.

You place economic buildings near resources to boost their production, raise military structures to recruit, build mythical sites to unleash powerful creatures. Each turn you decide how the settlement evolves, forging synergies between your structures and your warband.

That is a real proposition. The classic auto-battler has you buying units and arranging them on a grid. Here, you do town planning, and the battle is merely the result.

For a series like Northgard, whose subject has always been territorial occupation, it is also the right adaptation.

Why it stalls

206 reviews, 66 per cent positive. And the complaints are mechanical, not aesthetic.

Build variety is too thin. One player spells it out: without buffs, you do not win. Units beat economy, and the whole game revolves around getting strong units and stacking buffs. There is no real point investing in the economy, so your options boil down to picking one or two directions.

Read that carefully: in a game whose central argument is the placement of economic buildings, investing in the economy would not be worth it. That is the contradiction weighing on everything else.

Balance and scaling. Another player, who says he really wants to enjoy this game because the core design and visuals are great, explains that you regularly run into opponents whose stats should be mathematically impossible at that point.

And repetition. One player spent six hours on the demo, gave the full version an hour to see if there was anything new, and concluded there is not.

The defence, which exists

One player points out, not unreasonably, that a share of the negative reviews come from people who did not understand what kind of game this is. He observes that the most-viewed negative review is mostly frustrated with fundamental aspects of an auto-battler, and angry about losing.

He adds that the game is good, that there is not a ton of content, but that it is early access.

That is a fair remark, and it bears repeating: an asynchronous auto-battler is played by submitting a composition and watching the result. If you want control during the battle, this format will never suit you.

And the studio replies

A detail I note because it is visible under several negative reviews: the developer has responded. Funday Games is present in the comments, including under the harshest criticism.

For an early access title whose main problem is balance, that is the best possible sign. Balance is fixed with numbers, provided somebody is listening.

So where does it land, at 13.49 euros.

There is an idea in this game I had not seen anywhere else, and experienced players of the genre say so themselves: it is the most interesting auto-battler they have tried.

And there is a balance that cancels that idea out, since the economic branch, which is supposed to be the subject, is not worth playing.

That is frustrating, it is fixable, and it needs time. Wishlist it, come back after two or three balance passes.

Do you play auto-battlers? This one deserves a look despite the score, tell us what you make of it on the InsertCoins Discord.