Wardogs
Bulkhead · Shooter, Action
Overview
WARDOGS is a TACTICAL ALL OUT WARFARE FPS where one hundred players split across three teams fight over the control zone. Set in the derelict industrial mountains of Eastern Europe on a destructible battlefield where teamwork pays and cash is king.
Read moreShow less
WARDOGS is an All-Out Warfare FPS that combines tactical gunplay and combined arms combat with building and destruction mechanics in a large-scale, up to 100-player militaristic sandbox.
The game mode - Inspired by ‘King of the Hill’ - has three teams fight for control of randomized 2x2km ‘Control Zones’ within larger maps. The team with the most players within the Control Zone earns points - the first team to reach 100 points wins the match. The variables in zone location and individual player tactics mean no match ever plays out the same.
In WARDOGS – Every. Decision. Matters.
Every player starts their journey with $10,000. Each life, you purchase a custom loadout from a wide selection of weapons, gear, utility, and vehicles to help your team win the match.
Every teamplay action you perform rewards cash. From reviving squadmates, transporting friendlies to the zone, or controlling the objective. We don’t just encourage teamplay; we reward it. It’s the player’s choice how they want to play, earn and spend their profits.
Cash persists from match to match, so spending big on better gear, equipment, or a vehicle at the right time has the potential to turn the tide of battle and could yield massive returns.
You Choose How You Want to Play & Profit.
There’s no one way to play, earn and progress. Instead, WARDOGS gives players the freedom to take on the Control Zone in any number of ways. Whether you’re a lone wolf helping out your team or part of a dedicated squad, how you approach the battlefield is entirely up to you.
You could chase the 'Hot Zone' to earn double the cash, purchase a ghillie suit and snipe from a distance, or ferry supplies to teammates by helicopter. Additionally, you could choose to fortify a strategic chokepoint by building your own forward operating base, or if you're feeling destructive... man an artillery tank and rain down destruction on the enemy.
There are no set rules of engagement. It’s ultimately your choice how you want to approach the battlefield.
Bring the Chaos to Tactical Warfare.
Destroy apartment blocks with rocket launchers or tear your way through towns in heavily armoured tanks. The world around you reacts to your presence. Conversely, strategize with your teammates to build upon and fortify key locations within the map for a tactical advantage.
Every Moment in WARDOGS is 100% Player Driven and tied together with local voice chat to either talk tactics with teammates or troll enemy players. This is not another ‘Battle Royale’. This is not another ‘Extraction Shooter’. WARDOGS is a new Tactical take on the All-Out Warfare FPS genre that rewards decision making, communication and teamwork – and allows you to play how you want within a modern militaristic setting.
From the game's Steam store page.
THE GAMEQ VERDICT10,000 reviews analyzed
What players are actually saying
1. Summary
WARDOGS is a standalone, modernised version of Arma 3's King of the Hill mode: three teams, a moving hot zone, an economy where you buy your own kit, base building, logistics and helicopters. Players who like it say it fills a gap they have wanted filled for years, slower and more cooperative than mainstream shooters but much easier to get into than a milsim. They like being free to play builder, pilot, trucker, medic or rifleman, and they like that the cash system pays you for helping your team.
Most of the complaints trace back to progression. By the second week after launch, dedicated players had unlocked high-tier armor, armor-piercing ammo, attack helicopters, armed Humvees and artillery, while newer players and those with little time found their starter rifles bouncing off helmets and nothing affordable to use against the vehicles. Planned seasonal wipes reset levels, cash and unlocks, so that grind would start over every season. Reviews also object to an economy that pays better for sitting in a fortified base than for pushing the objective, to cheaters and griefers, to crashes and anti-cheat launch errors, and to two policy decisions: dropping Linux/Proton support and removing Steam Family Sharing. Fewer players raise those two, but the ones who do are angry. Some negative reviews praise the core game and say they will change their verdict once balance changes land.
2. What keeps coming up
What players praise
The Battlefield-meets-Arma middle groundHigh
1,546 reviews compare WARDOGS with Arma, Battlefield, Squad or Hell Let Loose. The comparisons are specific: Arma 3 King of the Hill as a standalone game, "half Battlefield, half Arma", Squad or Hell Let Loose without the steep learning curve, older Battlefield games (Bad Company 2, BF3, BF4) from before movement shooters took over. The most upvoted review in the slice calls it "not as arcadey as Battlefield and not as hardcore as Arma". Much of this praise is aimed at the rest of the market: no sliding, no bunny hopping, no flashy skins, "what Battlefield 6 should have been". Some reviewers say the game has them "hooked", one calls it the "most fun shooter I have played in YEARS", and a few dozen call it their game of the year. Negative reviews make the same comparisons against it, saying it does neither the Arma side nor the Battlefield side as well as the originals.
Roles beyond the gunfight: building, logistics and flying all countHigh
You can build a forward base, run supply trucks, ferry squads by helicopter, spot with binoculars, snipe, play medic or fight in the hot zone, and each of these earns money and experience. Reviews that praise this name the roles they enjoy, like the one who likes "the scoping, medical and driving/pilot aspects", and one sums up finding a role with "I hated this game then I got some binoculars". Reviewers who describe themselves as dads, older players or weak shooters say they can earn their keep without winning gunfights ("Even if you're bad at FPS, you can still be useful to the team"). Detailed reviews add that logistics and building change matches: cutting supply lines, building drills and defending bases can decide who wins.
Teamwork the economy pays for, and proximity chatMedium
Because revives and supply runs earn money, positive reviews say teammates actually revive you and help out, which feels different from shooters where teamwork is optional. Some say it is "Best with friends", though several add that solo play is fun too. Proximity voice chat comes up in 148 reviews, often as anecdotes: negotiating with the enemy, bargaining to be revived, strangers turning into squads at spawn. The same reviews often add that a good match depends on getting a team that talks, which leads into the frustrations below.
Runs well for a 100-player combined-arms gameLow
About 180 reviews praise performance, some of them on old hardware ("Very well optimized if it can run smoothly on my 10 year old" setup, as one puts it), and some call it polished for Early Access. Complaints about poor optimization, stutter or frame drops come up less often. That praise sits next to the crash and launch-error complaints further down: players who got in mostly found it smooth, while a minority could not play at all.
Where players are split
The cash economy: teamwork incentive or a reward for camping?High
1,144 reviews talk about money or the economy, and they disagree about what it rewards. Fans like that every life costs money, that kits carry over between matches, that revives and supply runs pay, and that "you have to spend money to make money". Critics, many of them with dozens of hours played, say the payouts reward the wrong behaviour: building, spotting from a tower, running logistics or firing mortars from a fortified base earns steady low-risk income, while buying an expensive infantry kit and pushing the hot zone mostly loses money. In their telling, teams sit in their bases, nobody contests the objective, and the team that builds drills and mortars first wins. One describes the usual meta as "building a mega fob and mortaring" everyone. Several point to prices that look upside down: "helis are cheaper than a full infantry loadout", and the same goes, they say, for armed Humvees and self-propelled artillery.
Three teams, and the running joke that is Blue teamMedium
Fans say the three-faction format keeps matches unpredictable and stops one team from simply holding the zone. Team balance draws steady complaints all the same: players pick their colour freely, stack onto whichever team is winning (often Green) and switch sides mid-match, and with no skill-based balancing a match can stay one-sided for an hour or more. "Blue team" appears in 218 reviews, from jokes ("blue team maybe one day we will get a win") to serious claims that Blue is structurally disadvantaged or ends up with the less organised players. Reviews disagree on whether that comes from map design or from who chooses Blue.
Gunplay and time-to-killMedium
Reviews that discuss the shooting often praise it: recoil that matters, satisfying grenades, a time-to-kill between arcade and sim. That includes some negative reviews, which like the shooting and blame other systems ("The gunplay and core concept are great", one begins before turning to progression balance). Others call it clunky, bullet-spongy or inconsistent, and several of those complaints turn out on reading to be about armor tiers (see the progression theme below) rather than weapon handling. 72 reviews mention hit registration or desync problems, especially with explosives and helicopters.
How the developers are handling Early AccessLow
Bulkhead gets real goodwill. Fans call the team transparent and communicative and say the developers listen to the community, and some negative reviews say they trust them to fix things. Some veterans are angry instead that balance problems were left until the first seasonal wipe rather than hotfixed; one calls "refusing to fix glaring issues" on those grounds "flat out lazy". The Linux, Family Sharing, streamer-queue and ban-appeal decisions described below have also left some players saying they no longer fully trust the studio.
What frustrates players
Vertical progression: the gap between grinders and everyone elseHigh
36% of negative reviews touch on the grind, level-locked gear, armor tiers or the struggle of new and casual players. Better armor, helmets, armor-piercing ammunition, attachments, attack vehicles and even basic counters like anti-air are locked behind class levels that take dozens of hours per class. The same stories come up again and again: emptying a magazine into a tier 3 or tier 4 armored player who then kills you in three shots, a starter sniper headshot that does not kill, armor-piercing ammo locked until around level 80, a Humvee or tank that takes 70 to 100 hours of driving to unlock. Several reviewers say the first week felt fair because everyone had the same basic gear, and the fun faded as the gear gap opened. A few hold the game's pitch to busy adults against it; one veteran writes that it "isn't built for us casual playing dads with jobs".
Who raises it changes with playtime. Among negative reviews from players under two hours, 16% mention it, usually describing a first match spent outgunned by high-level players with no way to buy armor yet. Among negative reviews from players past 25 hours, it rises to 43%, and these reviews often say they enjoy the game but cannot keep up with the unlocks. Some positive reviewers defend the grind as what keeps them playing ("It's a good thing this game has a grind to it"), while others recommend the game and still add "the grind is real".
Vehicles, artillery and snipers that are hard to counterHigh
Attack helicopters (the Havoc and rocket- or minigun-armed Little Birds), armored Humvees and the artillery tank are described as too cheap, too durable and too deadly, able to camp spawns and wipe infantry for much of a match. The counters are described as weak or locked: RPGs that take several hits ("3 RPG to a HUMVEE doesn't kill it"), shoulder-fired AA defeated by flares at point-blank range, AA defences that take too long to set up and sit behind higher unlock levels. Mortars and artillery that shell bases for entire matches, and long-range snipers in bushes and towers, are the other recurring targets ("a mortar and sniper simulator with Battlefield-like heli spamming"). Pilots have their own grievances: AA and CRAM/CWIS defences that shred helicopters instantly, and lag spikes that lock flight controls. Vehicle, artillery and sniper balance appears in 46% of negative reviews from players past 25 hours.
Crashes, launch errors and a rough launch weekMedium
Some players cannot launch the game at all. They cite anti-cheat error codes (WD-L020, WD-L004, "no valid heartbeat") and hardware-specific crashes, often after hours of troubleshooting and before a refund. Others play fine for a while and then crash mid-match, which costs more here than in most shooters: a crash can lose an expensive kit or vehicle, and there is no queue protection to get your server slot back. Launch week itself brought DDoS attacks, long queues and streamers being let in ahead of paying players, a complaint that several reviews written on launch day still carry as an edit. Stutter, hitching and high VRAM use come up less often.
Cheaters, and the sense that reports go nowhereMedium
Players describe wallhacks, aimbots and ESP users, often attributed to particular regions on Asian and European servers, and say reports have no visible effect ("no matter how many reports I send nothing is done"). Some say the problem is getting worse, and several tie it to the anti-cheat switch described below. A smaller group reports false bans, including claims that Logitech G HUB triggered them, with support tickets taking weeks. Community servers with active admins are one workaround players mention, though one review complains of "badmins" kicking players to deny them their match bonus.
Seasonal wipes that reset levels, cash and unlocksMedium
The planned progression resets drew immediate hostility, partly because players say they were not told clearly before buying. One uninstalled "the second the tutorial told me" about the resets; another points out that wipes are "Not mentioned anywhere on the steam store page". Many can accept losing cash, but losing class levels means repeating a 50 to 100 hour grind every season, and players with limited time expect dedicated players to rebuild their advantage within days. Wipes come up in 12% of negative reviews and in 17% of negative reviews from players past 25 hours. A minority welcomes them as the only thing that will reset the gear gap, and a few positive reviews say they are counting down to the fresh start.
Griefing, teammate looting and toxicityMedium
Friendly fire and full looting make griefing easy, and veterans describe it in detail: teammates stripping your gear while you are downed and then leaving you, teamkilling inside helicopters, destroying friendly buildings and vehicles, driving the spawn vehicle to the enemy, and switching teams to spy. Players ask for a vote-kick, loot protection for downed teammates and harsher teamkill penalties, and several say that retaliating against a griefer is what got them banned. Racist abuse in proximity chat is a smaller but serious recurring complaint. Cheating, griefing and toxicity together appear in 23% of negative reviews overall and in 36% of negative reviews from players past 50 hours.
Linux support pulled and Family Sharing removedMedium
The switch from Easy Anti-Cheat to Elytra anti-cheat ended Proton/Linux and Steam Deck play that had worked in the playtests, and Linux players describe it as a rug pull with vague "eventual support" messaging. Steam Family Sharing was removed shortly after launch with little explanation. 110 reviews mention Family Sharing, 90 of them about the removal: players who were on a relative's copy say they were locked out, some say the feature was advertised when they pre-purchased, and one calls it a "Scummy move" after "Over 2 million copies sold and you turn off steam family sharing". Both complaints come disproportionately from early refunders who often never got to judge the gameplay: 22 of the 69 reviews that mention Linux, Proton or the Steam Deck come from players under two hours.
Long trips back to the fightLow
Players with short playtimes complain about downtime: respawning kilometres from the hot zone, waiting for a helicopter ride or driving for several minutes, then dying to someone you never saw and doing it again. Fans answer that this is the genre and that transport and logistics are part of the game, but some players who expected Battlefield pacing dismiss it in a line ("It is a running sim").
No party system or queue protectionLow
Players who want to play with friends complain that there is no way to form a squad before joining a server, so groups must pick the same server and team colour and hope there is room. They also mention losing your slot after a crash, confusingly duplicated server names and a server browser without quick play.
Vehicle handling and physicsLow
Ground vehicles are described as sliding like they are on ice, flipping on rail tracks and getting stuck on props, which makes the logistics role more frustrating than it needs to be. Helicopter flight divides people: some enjoy the skill ceiling, others find the controls twitchy and sensitive to lag.
Controls, tutorial and accessibility gapsLow
A handful of reviews report broken or hidden keybindings, controller support being downgraded after purchase, no HOTAS-plus-keyboard support, forced head bob with no comfort option, and a tutorial that skips vehicles.
3. The player conversation
Positive reviews tend to be short ("best FPS in years", "Been waiting for a game like this since Battlefield 2"): the median positive review is 59 characters long, against 258 for the median negative one. Negative reviews are often detailed and written by players with 30 to 150 hours who clearly enjoy the core game. "Great game, but" is a common shape on both sides. Thumbs-up reviews add the same balance caveats that sink the thumbs-down ones, and some thumbs-down reviews say they will switch once the gear gap and vehicle balance are addressed. The two sides largely agree on what is good and differ on whether the problems are tolerable during Early Access.
Short-playtime and long-playtime players complain about different things. Players under two hours mostly describe launch errors, the Linux and Family Sharing changes, long travel between deaths, and being outclassed in their first match. Players with dozens of hours describe a game that changed under them: the first week felt fair and chaotic, and by the second week the lobbies had filled with high-tier armor, attack helicopters, artillery, mortar-heavy base camping and more cheaters. A thread running through the negative reviews is that hours played count for more than aim or tactics ("only time invested" matters, one says), and wipes would ask for those hours again.
Edited reviews, most of them first written in launch week and updated during the second week, are far more negative than fresh ones (52% versus 75% positive). The edits visible in the text tend to add new grievances, such as a teammate taking a downed player's weapon or levelling slowing down after an update. Negative reviews dated in the second week mention progression and balance far more often than crashes or server trouble.
4. What the developers could do
- Narrow the gear gap between new and veteran players: armor tiers, AP ammo and level-locked counters let long-playtime players shrug off starter weapons. Stronger starter kits, flatter armor scaling and faster or earlier access to basic counters would answer the complaint behind 36% of negative reviews.
- Rebalance attack vehicles, artillery and their counters: players describe attack helicopters, armored Humvees, the artillery tank and mortars as too cheap and too durable for what RPGs and AA can do to them, and ask for price, health and per-team caps alongside stronger, earlier anti-vehicle tools.
- Make pushing the objective pay better than camping: critics of the economy say building, spotting and base mortars pay better than contesting the hot zone. Shifting payouts toward the zone and making infantry kits cheaper relative to vehicles would go straight at the "mega FOB" meta.
- Rethink and clearly communicate the seasonal wipe: players object more to losing class levels than to losing cash, and to learning about wipes after purchase. Publishing the schedule and scope on the store page, and considering partial wipes that keep levels, would address a complaint found in 12% of negative reviews.
- Put visible teeth into anti-cheat, moderation and ban appeals: cheating, reports that seem to go nowhere, and false bans with weeks-long support queues all feed distrust. Faster action on reports, feedback to the people who file them and a working appeal path would help as much as better detection.
- Add anti-griefing tools: reviews ask for a vote-kick, protection against teammates looting downed players, stricter teamkill penalties and limits on mid-match team switching, which would also ease the toxicity complaints.
- Fix crashes and launch errors, and add queue protection: anti-cheat launch failures drive early refunds, and mid-match crashes cost players their kits and their server slot. Crash fixes plus reserved rejoin slots would remove an expensive and avoidable frustration.
- Address team balance, parties and the Linux and Family Sharing decisions: stacked teams, the lack of pre-match squads, and the removal of Linux/Proton support and Family Sharing each generate steady negative reviews. Explaining the two policy changes clearly would cost little.
