Critical Moves Episode 23: Broken Arrow – Realism, Tactics, and the RTS Identity Crisis

In Episode 23 of Critical Moves, Al, Nuno, and Tim unpack Broken Arrow, a large-scale real-time tactics game that blurs the lines between milsim ambition and arcade execution. Based on hands-on time with the preview build, the team breaks down where the game shines, where it fumbles, and whether it’s shaping up to be something genuinely special – or just another middle-of-the-road tactics game with a flashy coat of paint.

There’s a running debate throughout the episode about what Broken Arrow actually is. Al describes it as a military simulation RTS. Nuno pushes back hard, arguing that it’s neither, calling it a more complex take on Wargame. Tim calmly calls it what it is: real-time tactics. No base-building. No resource collection. Point-based unit acquisition tied to map control. The format reminds them of World in Conflict, but with a modern military veneer.

Nuno and Al both played the single-player tutorial and the Road to Kaliningrad mission. Nuno praised the mission design for its replayability and tactical flexibility. He liked that it didn’t railroad players into one solution, and appreciated the story-driven framing, light-touch narrative but enough to give the mission context. Al focused more on pacing, saying the scale and sense of progression felt authentic, but the immersion occasionally broke. For example, dropping generic supply crates to fully repair damaged tanks felt disconnected from the realism the game is otherwise aiming for.

Tim spent his time in multiplayer and found it refreshingly tactical. The lane-based structure gives you a slice of the larger battlefield, with plenty of room to maneuver and coordinate with teammates. What stood out to him was the cat-and-mouse game of artillery strikes. Spot the enemy barrage, counter-fire, relocate before retaliation. It felt authentic, satisfying, and added tension beyond the usual spam-and-rush dynamics found in less thoughtful strategy games.

All three were struck by the map scale and the emphasis on line-of-sight and field-of-fire mechanics. Holding ALT shows a unit’s vision cone, blocked by terrain and buildings – no more omniscient armies trading shots through solid walls. It forces you to scout, probe, and move slowly. Infantry becomes vital for spotting and securing ground, even if their implementation elsewhere feels underwhelming.

That’s one of the big criticisms in the episode. While the vehicle systems are detailed and flexible, subsystems, weapon types, unit customisation, the infantry feels like an afterthought. They don’t behave like infantry. They’re just another unit type with limited tactical use outside of vision and building occupation. Nuno argues the lack of cover mechanics or suppression systems makes infantry combat shallow compared to the layered complexity of tanks and air units. He hoped for something closer to Company of Heroes, but accepts that would require more micro than the game probably wants.

Still, the combined arms approach feels meaningful. You need infantry for vision, artillery for softening up positions, tanks to break lines, aircraft for support. Units don’t operate in isolation. You’re rewarded for thinking like a modern commander: clear, suppress, advance, redeploy. Al notes that simply sending a blob of tanks forward ends in disaster. You need to scout, plan, and strike with intent. When it works, it’s immensely satisfying.

The unit variety and customisation impressed Tim. In multiplayer, you can build custom decks with specific equipment loadouts, letting you tailor vehicles and units to your preferred tactics. While the learning curve is steep, he says it adds replay value and gives you ownership over your force composition.

Presentation got mixed reviews. Graphically, the game looks excellent at a distance. Terrain is well-rendered and immersive. But animations up close feel floaty. Voice lines occasionally break immersion, like the jarring “Heavy armour on the field!” line that felt more Command & Conquer than contemporary realism. Nuno defends the unit barks as helpful for gameplay clarity. Al just wants the tone to match the style. Still, the UI is praised, especially the minimalist way story elements are delivered during missions without breaking flow.

Sound design, especially explosions and artillery, earned high praise. The team agreed it contributes heavily to the game’s immersion. Artillery especially feels powerful, looks good, and plays into authentic strategies like fire-and-move doctrine.

There’s also hope around modding support and scenario editing. If implemented well, it could give Broken Arrow long-term legs. The panel notes that the game is currently slated for a June 2025 release, though that’s a release window, not a firm date.

The final consensus is that Broken Arrow shows a lot of promise. It doesn’t get everything right, particularly with infantry, but it combines accessibility with tactical depth in a way few games manage. The scale, unit variety, and authentic feel place it in rare company. It’s not a hardcore milsim, and it’s not a traditional RTS. It sits somewhere in the middle. And that’s not a bad place to be.

Think Wargame but more refined. Think World in Conflict with better scale. Think sudden strikes from 2 kilometres away and infantry that still can’t quite catch up.

Interested in trying it yourself? Wishlisting Broken Arrow on Steam helps the devs and gets you notified at launch. And if you’ve played the demo or just want to weigh in on the RTS vs RTT discussion, you can join us on Discord or comment at https://criticalmovesforum.com.

Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, or search your alternative preferred podcast provider.

Ahh, we’re on YouTube too!