Field of Glory II Medieval is a turn-based tactical game set in the High Middle Ages from 1040 AD to 1270 AD. Developed by legendary designer Richard Bodley Scott it brings the best from the tabletop world into the best digital framework.
Modeled estimate, not a reported figure. How we estimate →
Every price cut of more than 20% we have observed, in each market that quoted one, with this game's chart position on either side of it. These are episodes, not a model: a sale is one event, and one event cannot tell you what the next one will do.
Reviews, worldwide (the counter carries no country): 0.57/day in the week to Jul 23 → 0.57/day in the week after.
For scale, across Steam · Top Sellers · Brazil over the last 30 days: the 25 chart moves that followed a price cut of more than 20% went a median of 10 places towards #1, and the 2,413 moves with no price cut behind them went 2 away. One store, one chart, one country — it is the only place we have enough observations to say even that.
Prices outside the United States have been collected since 6 August 2026 and chart positions since 19 July 2026, so a cut older than that has no market to compare and a market that joined later has no history yet. Nothing here is converted between currencies.
About
Add-ons
Each DLC is estimated with the same model as a game, then summed — a modeled figure, not reported DLC sales.
Sums Steam only; GOG publishes no volume signal, so the true total is higher by an unknown amount.
| Store | Price | Audience | Score | Chart | Est. revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SteamYou are here | $8.99−70% | 987reviews | 77% | — | $406K |
| $8.99−70% | 44ratings | 76% | — | not modelled |
Matched by title — a reused name can pair the wrong games. * is a critic aggregate. Prices and positions are each store's United States storefront; Epic charts worldwide. Audience and Score too, except Steam's, which is worldwide.
Engagement
Reviews
Themes across 59 recent reviews and how positive each mention is. A keyword signal, not full sentiment analysis.
Reviews
1/10 didnt had any fun. 1st this game have specific rule set, so when u hit tutorial for 1st time, u get thit with wall of text and i mean massive wall. controls are clunky, but duable. There is no story, only game and battle field. Quickly learn that curtain strategy is always way to go, so that changes any aspect of challenge, map randomness or army u facing. Speaking about armies, AI always have way more stuff then u do, so any historical accuracy is none existant, speaking from balance perspective, difference in units wild, especially when comes to knights, who boy, they are like driving tanks. Highest difficulty in this game called King, doesnt make AI any smarter, it makes rule set harder, its not a difficulty in hard part, but more like, how much patience u have to put up with it. This game has heavy idea on strategy and positioning, but intruduces wide rng element, so with bad roll ur best plan can go absolutely south, in other hand, a bad plan, can be wining way, its bit confusing, making game strongly on strategic aspect, but then adding such high rng variable. Multiplayer and how it works, will take u back at least 20 years to what u used to in current games. Its probably the worst multiplayer experiance i had in my life, its slow, tedious and extremely unfriendly with ur time investment, Regards graphics, u get a lot of cubics rubbing against each other, but i have to admit, it grown on me, cus they look funny. I am sorry, i am sure this game has dedicated players who have fun, but for me, it was disappointment.
Media
Related
Related
Price dynamics, follower growth, revenue and sales trajectories with interactive tooltips
This and every other Pro feature is free until October 20, 2026. A free account is all it takes.
Genres
Stats
All-time low is the lowest price we've recorded for this game since we started tracking it.
Languages: English, French, German, Spanish - Spain
Hours played at review time, across 59 reviews with recorded playtime.
positive critical· bar length = how often the theme comes up
The game itself is 10/10 in every aspect, except that the music can be omitted and replaced with optional medieval heavy metal. You can do a lot of damage to experienced players just by planning ahead and positioning your troops correctly during deployment. Here's my first ever multiplayer experience: [h2]~[/h2] [b]From the memoirs of Alvaro Lovesendes, Lord of Expanding Portugal:[/b] [i]The battlefield was extremely flat. almost no trees. not a single hill. The Berber troops on horseback charged simultaneously from all directions, they also had terrifying camel riders who sowed real terror and disgust. The commanding general Alvaro Lovesendes, Lord of Expanding Portugal never got to join the hard battle because of his heavy armor, but was spared unharmed for the same reason. The battle ended with the Portuguese retreating back due to excessive losses.[/i] [b](Portuguese 1320 AD) vs. (Berber Marinid 1320 AD)[/b]
peanut would love some pets and treats :) 🌸＞ フ | _ _ l ／` ミ＿xノ / | / ヽ ﾉ │ | | | ／￣| | | | | (￣ヽ＿_ヽ_)__) ＼二つ
Clunky and slow RTS where 95% of your playtime will be trapped in repetative animation sequences.
This is quite literally a flash game from 2003 sold for the price of an AAA title. People who actually paid for this need to have a serious ponder at their life's choices.
长期游玩条顿骑士团与神圣罗马帝国两大日耳曼派系，经过多场高难度对局实测，我想反馈游戏巨盾弩兵的分配存在严重史实矛盾与对战失衡问题。 首先说神圣罗马帝国的不合理之处： 神罗历史上依靠德意志城邦民兵、长矛方阵立足，步兵本是阵营核心特色，但游戏里神罗没有任何巨盾混合弩兵，步兵只有纯长矛方阵、单独立弩手两种纯队。纯矛兵没有远程输出，敌人能直接绕后偷袭；纯弩手缺少贴身近战护卫，极易被骑兵冲碎。想要搭建完整防守阵地，必须拆分两队搭配，操作繁琐、容错率极低，阵地玩法体验很差。 再讲条顿骑士团： 条顿掌控普鲁士大量工商业城镇，本土常备巨盾盾弩民兵，早年还批量配备火门枪，历史上本就擅长山地、城堡阵地防御，理应拥有充足的混合步兵。但当前版本条顿巨盾弩兵招募上限仅5支，阵地战术被严重限制。 最违背史实、强度超标的是波兰派系： 史料明确记载中世纪波兰贵族极度轻视步兵，步兵多为底层流民征召，军饷微薄，甚至被嘲讽为“乞讨部队”，本土根本没有标准化、大规模的巨盾+火门枪+长矛混合常备步兵，仅有少量外籍雇佣兵临时补充。可游戏里波兰能招募13支顶配火门枪巨盾弩兵，全能混合“花队”数量远超条顿，数值完全不符合历史定位。 全能混合巨盾弩兵远近攻防一体，天然克制单一纯职能步兵，如今出现“轻视步兵的波兰手握大量顶配混合步兵，步兵底蕴深厚的日耳曼派系反而受限”的双重标准，对战公平性大打折扣。 我的修改建议： 1. 下调波兰火门枪巨盾弩兵招募上限，匹配其步兵多为廉价流民、雇佣军的史实，削减过量全能单位带来的阵地碾压强度； 2. 上调条顿骑士团巨盾弩兵上限，贴合其城镇守备民兵完善的历史背景； 3. 为神圣罗马帝国增设基础无火门枪巨盾弩兵，弥补日耳曼本土派系缺失混合步兵的短板，平衡阵营玩法。 《荣耀战场2》主打历史兵棋推演，兵种设计应当贴合史实，希望官方参考史实与玩家实战体验，调整三个派系的巨盾弩兵数值分配。 补充 实在很难不觉得派系设计双重标准太离谱，对比波兰和条顿的步兵配置，差距完全不合理： 一、先看波兰步兵配置有多豪华（截图实锤） 1455-1500波兰军表直接解锁上限13队巨盾混合兵，队内16%火门枪+50%弩+34%防守长矛，属于远近一体全能花队，单队就能独立守住隘口、山地，不需要额外分兵掩护。 就算词条标注“较差护甲、普通素质”，13支的数量能铺多层防线，敌军冲锋全程持续吃火器、弩箭双重消耗，远程压制能力碾压所有纯步兵； 除此之外波兰一整条列表全是各类轻重骑兵、晚期火枪骑兵，机动突击、阵地防守两套体系同时拉满，攻防没有短板。 但史实上13-15世纪波兰步兵是什么水平？贵族全程重骑轻步，本土农民步兵军饷极低被叫做“乞讨部队”，全套巨盾+弩+火门枪的装备根本不是底层流民负担得起的，这类混合步兵仅仅是短期雇佣的捷克胡斯佣兵，根本不可能一次性拉出13支标准化常备部队。 二、反观条顿骑士团，步兵配置全方位被打压 历史上条顿坐拥普鲁士大量工商业城镇，常年训练全套装备的城市盾弩民兵，很早就普及火门枪，山地、堡垒阵地防御是标志性战术，本该拥有完整优质步兵体系，游戏里却极度受限： 1. 全能巨盾弩兵仅仅只能征召5支，数量还不到波兰的一半； 2. 剩下仅有的步兵只有防守长矛兵，细分两种短板单位：带基础护甲的普通矛兵，以及完全无甲、未经训练的廉价矛兵； 3. 纯矛兵没有任何远程输出，敌人可以直接绕开阵线偷袭后排，想要远程压制只能单独分少量巨盾弩兵，防线容错率极低。 同样是阵地防守打法，波兰十几支全能混合兵层层设防，条顿只能靠寥寥5支混合兵搭配一堆无甲白板长矛兵硬扛，对战体验天差地别。 三、不公平的核心根源：史实定位完全颠倒 1. 条顿：史实步兵体系成熟、常备复合盾弩民兵充足，游戏大幅压缩优质混合步兵数量，剩余步兵全是廉价无甲白板； 2. 波兰：史实步兵地位低下、只能靠外籍雇佣兵凑复合步兵，游戏直接拉满13支顶配火器混合兵，骑兵单位种类还一应俱全。 制作组看似给波兰巨盾兵写了“较差护甲”的负面词条，但招募上限带来的强度碾压完全抵消这点削弱。数量优势下多层远程火力持续消耗敌军，无甲长矛兵根本弥补不了条顿防线单薄的硬伤。 四、修改诉求总结 1. 下调波兰巨盾火门枪混合兵的招募上限，贴合其步兵依靠短期外籍雇佣军、无法大规模征召的史实； 2. 上调条顿骑士团巨盾弩兵招募上限，匹配条顿城镇守备民兵完善、早期普及火器的历史背景； 3. 小幅优化条顿防守长矛兵的护甲与素质，减少大量无甲未训练白板步兵占比，缩小派系步兵强度鸿沟。 游戏主打历史兵棋推演，却出现“重骑轻步的波兰手握顶配全能步兵，以城镇步兵立足的条顿只有少量混合兵+一堆白板矛兵”的离谱设计，双重标准实在让喜欢条顿、日耳曼派系的玩家难以接受。
legalzinho...
its a tps , giving u feeling a chess didnt liked it , still thumbs up as a support
The turn based in this is sooooo booorrrring
So, two expensive units of horse archers and one unit of heavy cavalry with spears cannot in an open field (in the open) rout one unit of infantry (spearmen), the question is why then do we even need this damned expensive cavalry?
Active players
Estimated daily and monthly active players (DAU/MAU) modeled from peak concurrency.
Players by region
Where this game's players are, estimated from review languages.
Players also reviewed
The games this title's players most often review too — audience affinity.
Related
| Game | Estimated lifetime revenue | Reviews | Review score | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1.7M | 868 | 81% | $59.99 | |
| $950.8K | 422 | 82% | $59.99 | |
| $127.6K | 104 | 86% | $59.99 | |
| $815.9K | 686 | 77% | $23.99 | |
| $628.4K | 2.8K | 77% | $9.99 | |
| $412K | 240 | 67% | $59.99 |
Related
| Game | Estimated lifetime revenue | Reviews | Review score | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $406K | 4K | 93% | $1.94 | |
| $405.9K | 1.3K | 92% | $17.99 | |
| $405.8K | 1K | 45% | $9.99 | |
| $405.8K | 872 | 72% | $29.99 | |
| $406.3K | 1K | 92% | $14.99 | |
| $406.3K | 2.2K | 95% | $9.99 |