DLCIron Harvest: Rusviet RevolutionLoading store offers
Iron Harvest
Iron Harvest combines real-time strategy with mechs, cover and destructible buildings. At 
Eneba, it costs $2.97; consider whether you want its campaigns as well as skirmishes and multiplayer. The three campaigns work solo or in co-op, so your preferred way to play can help determine whether this package suits you. Compared with Steam, Standard on Steam saves you $1.52; Steam's price is $4.49.
EnebaIron Harvest Steam Key (PC) MIDDLE EAST/ASIA/OCEANIA/AFRICA-90%from~ $2.97Save $1.52 vs SteamBuy nowAll-time low ~ $2.39across Steam & third-party stores
Loading store offers
Wishlist price
Set a target to receive an email when an eligible offer in your selected region is at or below that amount.
Price History
Past 36 months · Updated dailyHistorical Low~ $2.392024-07Current Low Across Stores~ $2.97Enebavs. Historical Low+24%
Prices cover Steam and 39 authorized stores; only legitimate offers are counted. The chart shows weekly market-wide lows and Steam's official price across the past 36 months.
01About Iron Harvest
Command troops and dieselpunk mechs in real-time battles in Iron Harvest, set in an alternate world after the First World War. Use cover, demolish buildings and capture resources to develop your base. The campaign spans three storylines and more than 20 missions, playable solo or in co-op. Skirmishes and multiplayer matches provide other ways to play. Steam player reviews: 74%% positive from 11,715 reviews. Supported interface languages: Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Czech, Korean, Portuguese-Brazil, and Turkish. Released August 31, 2020.
Credits
Developer
KING Art
Publisher
Prime Matter · Deep Silver
Lowest recorded in 36 months
$2.392024-07-29 · FanaticalBase game · same records as the chart above; USD history, not a regional Steam low.Language support
| Language | Interface | Subtitles | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simplified Chinese | Yes | Yes | — |
| Traditional Chinese | Yes | Yes | — |
| English | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Show 10 more languages
| Language | Interface | Subtitles | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|
| French | Yes | Yes | — |
| Italian | Yes | Yes | — |
| German | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Spanish | Yes | Yes | — |
| Polish | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Russian | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Czech | Yes | Yes | — |
| Korean | Yes | Yes | — |
| Portuguese-Brazil | Yes | Yes | — |
| Turkish | Yes | Yes | — |
Steam PC edition data · 2026-10-20
02Before you buy
Play modes
The Steam PC version includes single-player, co-op and multiplayer; campaigns can be played together.
Controls and language
Full controller support is listed. English is among the interface languages, with English audio and subtitles.
Content
The campaigns span three storylines and more than 20 missions, alongside skirmishes and challenges.
03Frequently asked questions
What kind of game is Iron Harvest?
It is a real-time strategy game set in an alternate post-World War I world, featuring dieselpunk mechs.
Can I play the campaign in co-op?
Yes. The campaigns can be played together in co-op.
Does it have competitive multiplayer?
Yes. Multiplayer includes ladders, ranked matches and leagues.
What factions and units are included?
The description lists three factions, over 40 unit types and nine heroes.
Popular Steam reviews
Native-language selection · 10 reviewsSelected helpful reviews in this language show both recommendations and criticisms. This selection does not represent the overall positive rating; opinions reflect the version reviewed.
RecommendedSteam player
In my opinion, you can look at this game from two perspectives; if you're just looking for a fun time and want to play a really good Campaign, play around in AI Skirmishes and with pals, the game's great and I highly recommend that you pick it up, the narrative and overall story are pretty damn good, the game has an amazing aesthetic and unit designs, and has solid mechanics that are being polished up on regularly However, if you're a Veteran COH 1/2 Player and you're looking for a competitive experience at the same level of complexity; pass on it for now and wait 2-12 Months post-release, then come back and see how you like it, the Devs work pretty fast in making changes and fixing the game, as in 3 Patches in 3 Weeks sort of fast and they have a lot of content they want to push out Post-Launch, so just keep an eye out. EDIT: For those of you who are concerned about the omitted content, i.e Ranked/Co-Op Campaigns, the Devs have made an official statement claiming that stuff is all coming this month, with Co-Op Campaigns coming next week Sept. 7-11; there's a link to the Roadmap in the Comments SectionShow moreShow less
143.1 hours at review1,119 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
Backer here. I admit I was rather underwhelmed with this game but that was my fault for hyping myself up for several reasons: -VERY unique setting taking place between WWI and WWII. -Im a sucker for dieselpunk, and on top of that, using designs from one of my favorite artists of all time. -Units operating in squads that use cover (If the AI can find it). -Base building and management. -BEARS -Big stompy mechs that can knock over buildings, trees, and other obstacles. -Resources are infinite, meaning long drawn out wars are possible. -Each faction has a unique rock-paper-scissors like feel to their counters and other factions. -The devs listen to the fanbase, but (in my opinon) make some very strange choices based off them. What made me shelve it: -Dev decisions to tweak units in abstract ways. Like medics that used to heal units up to a 'cap' based on remaining squad members which made sense. Now they use materials to completely heal a unit regardless of members and it tends to be *incredibly expensive.* While this does make the fallback option more viable, it kills a lot of unit sustainability. -Pathing. Oh my goodness the pathing. Units will run to a position and try to find cover (which is cool) BUT they don't prioritize directions, so you may have half the squad hop a wall to stand in the way of an MG. Or just ignore it all together and stand there. -Environment lacks natural cover like downed trees, craters, and they all sometimes have a location that will allow some ez cheeze turtling on a level that would make a SUPCOM player squeal. The biggest thing, however, is that the game feels very half baked. Official launch day had a small variety of maps, so much so that I had to put it away and hope that eventually more will be added. They're trying, I'll give them that much, but at this point I think it would be best if a map editor was made for steam workshop. At least then we'd get a lot of variety fast. The game still feels rather incomplete, like it was pushed out the door before it was finished, and its this most of all that disappointed me to the point of not recommending it. Sorry lads. Fantastic idea, but I'm going to keep this shelved for another year. I'm still pretty hopeful though.Show moreShow less
7.3 hours at review903 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
Update: I should change my review to a negative... as it is clear that IH will not become a great game :( The Devs don't appear to have the game designs skills needed to create an asymmetrical RTS. I have updated my list with further details (after 130 hours of play) and keep an eye on this game (as I'm an RTS junkie) to see if things change around. -------------------------- Is Iron Harvest a good game? Yes. Is it a great game? No. Did it have the potential to become a great game? Yes. A RTS that follows in the footsteps of CoH and DoW. The good and the bad: +++ Campaign (story is great and requires skill to win, but the AI's only move it to spam units at you in mass numbers). ++ Setting. + Mechs & destructible buildings. - - - Multiplayer (Clicks > Tactics (in a bad and frustrating way), boring mirror maps, low player count, etc...). - - Sluggish unit response and odd pathing (this is so bad that I suspect it is a technical issue). - - AI (skirmish is not worth playing). - Price (if you’re not a hardcore RTS fan wait for a 40% sale). - Missing features (these are slowly being inserted). (I will update this review as things change).Show moreShow less
67.9 hours at review409 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
TLDR at the bottom An alternate 1920's history themed RTS with giant mechs, flamethrower mortars, rail guns and exosuits The game takes place in Europe after a change in the course of history that brings us giant mechanized walkers and a growing feud between three nations bordering at another great war. The game features 3 factions, Rusviet, Polania, and Saxony, each with their own unique playstyles and entirely different set of units. Notes - The game does have a seasonal structure and a season pass. It is free and unlocks cosmetics - Leveling the pass is done via specific accomplishments (ex: play 3 campaign missions, get a silver star on 2 or more missions) and not experience - The season releases in chunks (3 parts to this season. Part 2 coming in ~2 weeks) - There is an ingame currency that is earned via achievements (ex: Get bronze stars on every campaign mission). This currency currently has no use and is theorized to be used to buy in-game unit skins The Good - Singleplayer story is really good - Visually, the art style is bar none, unique, well done, and highly detailed - Destructable environments - Lots of unit variety. None of the factions feel the same as another - Balancing seems alright - Devs are fantastic and quick to reply - Wonderful soundtrack - If you get the deluxe edition, the Artbook is very nice The Bad - Many of the features on this steam page are not implemented - There is no co-op in the campaign and no co-op for the challenge maps as advertised - There is no leaderboards system. The button is currently just darkened on the main screen and does not work. - There is no ranked play. It is marked as 'coming soon' in-game. - There is no quick match ranking. It is marked as 'coming soon' in-game. - "Vast selection" of multiplayer maps is 3 1v1, 2 2v2, and 1 3v3 map. No new maps were added since the beta - Multiplayer is skirmish only in terms of bots & humans fighting together or eachother at maximum of 2 teams. - Game is way too expensive for the features its lacking, having a near AAA price of $50 - Clunky movement as units collide with one another yet their pathing determines the fastest way is to push through eachother, leading to clogging and stuck units - Many abilities take forever to activate, leaving the 'selected target' most of the time not relevant anymore. (Ex: Sniper shot at an empty sandbag as the target moved elsewhere during the 5 seconds it took to actually fire the shot) - Sort of as expected with a new release, however it was reported during the beta: the games controls are clunky and buggy. Units frequently do not de-select, units turn their back when they're not supposed to (a deadly decision for mechs), unit pathing takes them into harms way opposed to clearly faster routes, etc. I'd like to add as well regarding my low time: The beta registered as a separate product on Steam and does not reflect my full game time. Conclusion For $50/$70 I have to recommend against it. Many of the advertised features aren't present and comparing to what should be here, the game feels almost like an early access title. I personally was going to pick up the game for the advertised co-op campaigns and co-op challenge maps, giving my friend and I a new RTS to play through (a very rare release these days), neither of which are present and like the other missing features, have no ETA of when they'll arrive. Additionally the ranked play that is advertised is not available either, with the ranking system alone not implemented and marked as coming soon. Many features that are being advertised are not present, and for the $50 price tag, I cannot justify the purchase. TL:DR; The game is well made but has its issues. Overall not recommending due to the many missing advertised features and the hefty price tag to accompany it. Come back in a few months and see if what is being offered is actually in the game. If you want a singleplayer campaign and some idle skirmish, go ahead and pick it up, but do not expect competitive or co-op play.Show moreShow less
1.7 hours at review546 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
I write this review after reading various comments here on Steam and I think most players have not understood what this game is all about, especially those who write reviews after playing an hour and a half. I read a lot of criticisms that don't make sense to me criticism 1: this game doesn't even come close to company of heroes. The only thing in common between the two is the cover system (which by the way is not the same thing) and the map control with the resources to be taken. Iron Harvest is a much slower game than company of heroes (and personally I think more strategic). Company of heroes is much more fast-paced and action-based, Iron Harvest is more static (and I think that's right because this game is a reinterpretation of World War I which was a war of position). I have been playing COH 1 and 2 for a long time and especially for 2 the tactical possibilities are not so numerous. If you go on multy 90% of the time you will have to deal with infantry spam by allies, mg and mechanized spam for the axis and you spend time going back and forth on the map. In Iron Harvest, the most expensive and powerful units are the slowest and often won't have time to retreat them so you have to think carefully which area of the map you want to defend and if that unit will need support. Also I don't think this game claims to be better than Company of Heroes which is probably and will remain the best RTS ever. criticism 2: Making mechs makes infantry useless. Those who think so have not understood the game. Basically there are 2 phases in an Iron Harvest game. Phase 1 in which the infantry must ensure control of the terrain to have resources. In this phase there is a lot of micro management (you have to learn what the armament crates contain on each map) and phase 2 in which the mecs arrive and the game becomes static . The point is that a skilled player will know how to win in phase one and you will have to calculate well when to move to phase two. During phase 2, infantry will still be needed to repair mechs and capture resources. criticism 3: The factions are all the same. For the infantry (once again if you compare it with COH) the factions are similar but the different rifle armament forces you to play differently. However, there are some differences that affect the gameplay (for example, Poland has no doctors). The real difference is in the mechs. Polania is all about speed and the ability to maneuver. Saxony hit hard from a distance. Rusviet focuses on attack and aggression. criticism 4: Lack of content It is true that the game could contain more maps for the multy but the developers promise content in the coming weeks and months. The campaign is great with many missions and there are various game modes. That said, it is true that there are things to be corrected, such as the AI in single player games which is insufficient, some small bugs etc. But I see a trend in the RTS community which is always to bash new releases and then complain that the RTS genre is dying. This attitude has already killed series like Command and Conquers and Dawn of War (Dawn of War 3 was a ♥♥♥♥ …granted). This is a small studio that I believe is doing a good job and I think it is important to support projects like this because objectively it is a good game. Otherwise we will continue to play only Company of Heroes, Age of Empire and Starcraft forever… The choice is yoursShow moreShow less
16.2 hours at review373 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
Was part of the Kickstarter for this game. Pledged more then $200 never received ANY of the rewards. Physical or otherwise.Show moreShow less
2.5 hours at review525 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
Full review here: https://waywardstrategy.com/2020/09/14/heavy-metal-an-iron-harvest-overview/ When it was first announced, I bought into the Kickstarter at a level high enough to be eligible for physical rewards. I didn't know who Mr_werewolf was at the time, and hadn't played Scythe... I was, however, very interested in the premise and impressed by the art and more than willing to take the gamble. For me, at least, that gamble ended up paying off in a big way. Iron Harvest is a squad combat game. It's tactically focused, with low unit counts and a focus on map control for resourcing instead of worker management. In Iron Harvest, players start with a single command center building and 2 infantry squads (this is of course different in the campaign). Players have access to only 2 structures, and they are unable to field more than one of each of these structures at a time. Each structure can be upgraded to a Tier 2 (T2) version of that building to unlock higher level units from that structure. As might be expected from a game of this type, units are able to take cover behind sandbags and fences for a defensive bonus, they are able to garrison inside of structures on the map, and have 1-button retreat and reinforce commands that enable them to get out of combat and get back to fighting trim at the player's base quickly and easily. Combat is one of the hallmarks of the game. I would describe it as relatively slow and tactical. Damage tends to happen slowly enough to allow a player to retreat in-danger squads in plenty of time. There are some cases where this is less true, as when a Light MG squad is targeting basic infantry, or when some of the heavier mechs are on the field. Players typically have plenty of time to react to things like grenades being thrown, or squads being flanked, et cetera, while there is still a sense that the player must keep watch over their units and not dawdle when reacting to threats. I think it strikes a nice balance with how long things take to die and the level of player control (micro) involved in keeping them alive and allowing player skill to carry combat. To risk a slight comparison to COH2 and DOW2, combat in Iron Harvest (at the time of this writing at least, since balance may change dramatically over the coming months) feels a bit more 'blob' focused than those games. Masses of units don't have as many good early game counters, since in Iron Harvest, artillery squads, flamethrowers, heavy machine guns (HMGs), and many other tools that are useful for handling large groups of infantry tend to come out in the midgame or early-midgame, making it possible to gain an early advantage by simply outnumbering your opponent with basic infantry. To be fair, however, this is also possibly a factor of how new the game is, and a more mature meta may soon evolve that shows the weakness of such tactics. Time will tell on this one. There are some tolerable differences between each faction. I'm a sucker for faction diversity and there's definitely less than you see in COH2 - each faction has buildings with more or less identical functions, and infantry for each faction are pretty samey: each basic infantry squad is pretty different, with the Rusviet Vanguards having shotguns, Saxony Stormtroopers having rapid-fire weapons, and Polanian Riflemen having long-ranged rifles. Otherwise, there are pretty minor differences between infantry, besides which ones each faction has access to. For instance, only Rusviet have flamethrower infantry, and Polania have LMGs, and Saxony have Medics. Mechs are definitely the coolest thing about Iron Harvest. Being divorced from the reality of actual World War 1 or 2 combat units, you see vehicles as diverse as a bipedal sniper walker, a wheeled rocket launcher, a tank with spider legs, a hexagonal walker that shoots rolling bombs, and a giant walker that uses large sickle blades to hack apart enemy infantry and mechs. Of course, there are some mechs that are more situational (the Serp, the sickle mech I mentioned above, in particular is in a bit of a precarious place right now in terms of balance and utility) but that's fine by me. Most of the game's balance issues are pretty obvious at the moment and the roughest edges shouldn't take too terribly long to balance out. At the beginning of a multiplayer match, the player is asked to choose their faction and the hero they'll be fielding. Once that's locked in, the teams are dumped over to the Reserves system to pick a set of units that they'll be able to call into battle later on. Each player gets 6 'coins' with which to buy units to slot into either their Reserves 1 slot or their Reserves 2 slot: Reserve 2 tends to give access to heavier mechs, where Reserve 1 is mostly infantry, support weapons, exo-suits and the occasional light mech. With Reserves, players have access to some infantry they otherwise wouldn't be able to use, such as Medics for the Rusviet or Flamers for Polania. Overall I feel Reserves compares favorably to the Commanders system from COH2 - in some ways, it feels like a better take on the Elites system from DOWIII. It gives players the ability to choose their approach to the game via hero and call-in units, and allows even mirror matches to play out very differently on each side. I think there's some danger of over-optimizing in terms of Reserves, but I think it's at the core a flexible and interesting system. I hope KING Art are able to expand on it over time. Heroes (like sniper Anna Kos and her bear Wotjek, above) are called into the field via the Reserves system. Some heroes cost 1 of your 6 total Reserves coins, some cost 2. Some are available only in Reserves 1, some only in Reserves 2. Et cetera. I think there's a lot of room to get other custom units, heroes, and squads available in this system (though currently that isn't the case). Regardless, I think it's got a lot of promise even if the developer sees fit to not expand it, and simply refines it a bit over time. But so far, I've been very surprised by the quality of the story in Iron Harvest. I find myself rooting for Polanian sharpshooter Anna Kos and her family. The gameplay itself is pretty standard for RTS campaigns, but the story is definitely on the better side of things. I might write another article about the campaign specifically once I finish it, but for now I felt compelled to comment on the overall quality of what I've experienced so far. In an objective way it can be a harsh comparison for Iron Harvest to endure. While the mechs and heroes in IH are more diverse than COH2 can offer, infantry combat is FAR deeper in COH2, with smoke, varying kinds of mine, varying kinds of weapon on infantry, minesweepers, wirecutters, delayed charges, OKW cars that can suppress infantry, et cetera. Smoke especially as a counter system for MG crews, and the increased diversity of grenade and weapon types, are nods in Company of Heroes 2's favor. And yet, strangely enough, for me, I'm really digging Iron Harvest right now. I've heard people say that playing IH makes them want to play COH2, and that, at this point, hasn't been the case for me so far. The heroes, item pickups, mech variety... maybe it's that. Maybe it's the novelty? I'm not sure. Something feels more immediate about Iron Harvest to me, less fiddly in a way? In some ways it almost plays more like DOW2 than a Company of Heroes game, with its focus on hero units and players' ability to contest anywhere on the map equally without worrying about territory connectivity. And yet, damage in IH is more forgiving than either of those games in a way. I guess, ultimately, mileage might vary. Iron Harvest will prove too similar to COH2 or DOW2 to some, too different to others. I (and many other fans of the game) have been having fun with it on its own merits, and I think will continue to do so as the game matures over the coming weeks and months.Show moreShow less
21 hours at review258 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
Concept is great, artwork is fantastic, gameplay is solid, and I'm a big fan of RTS games. Why don't I recommend this? Playtesting This game plays like a game that has not been playtested. The campaign missions are bugged, and either very easy to exploit or next to impossible to complete due to the fact that the missions are heavily scripted and you can see a lot of issues just trying to play it as "designed". The game is about positioning and strategy, as in, you will not be able to react to an opponents move if you are out of position. This is workable, in theory, if you have adequate ability to not only form a front line against them, but also have some piecemeal reserves. That is, not so many troops that you can just outright plug up the front lines, but enough to form a front line and enough in reserve that you can draw some from multiple locations to react to an enemy attack and plug that up. Unfortunately, you are stuck with ridiculously low unit caps that force you to place a front line and only a front line. Because of the balance of the game, low end units that still use unit cap are abso-fuggin-lutely useless. The mechs completely outclass EVERYTHING at an infantry level; even anti armor infantry are easily defeated by even the lowest mechs (with some mechs being able to handle multiple units of them without breaking a sweat). Add on to this that higher level mechs completely outclass lower level mechs with the same disparity. Note: you will spend the majority of the time outside of the first 5 minutes of a mission up against the unit cap, not struggling for resource. By the end of some missions, I would have 50k resources banked, which would let me fill out my unit cap about 25 times over. Now, this goes back to the playtesting. Mechs are 100% superior to infantry, and if they could capture nodes and repair you wouldn't build anything else. Then with higher tier mechs, there is no reason to build lower tier mechs and the high tier ones are far more resource efficient even if the purchase price is higher. Now, add to the fact that it costs resources to reinforce/repair units, what do you think this leads to? Spam the highest tier mech you can and don't bother with anything else except a couple of token engineers. You throw all of that on to unplaytested maps (some where the dug in defender cant actually shoot at the attacker out in the open, heyo!) and what do you get? Something that is more frustrating than fun to play. And I don't mean frustrating as in "challenging" I mean frustrating as in "why would I want to play a game where there is only ever one solution that leads to victory, and that solution doesn't always work because the maps/units are bugged?". All in all, I like the game. I was a backer way back when this was first being crowdfunded, and I still support my decision to do so. I got my money's worth even if I'm unhappy. However, in it's current state I can't recommend someone purchase it, only to turn around and be faced with the same frustrations I am. On a positive note, the devs are very active in updating, balancing, and expanding the game. Let us hope they continue to do so. If you are looking to buy this in it's current state, don't. Wait a while, pay attention to the development, and see if they make enough of an improvement to be worth it. I will continue to play it, but more as a "investment in my investment" than purely for entertainment. I will update this once I can honestly say I would recommend this to someone to buy.Show moreShow less
24.8 hours at review503 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
90% of the negative reviews are people complaining about missing features which have since been added. The developers are super active, constantly shooting out regular roadmaps for updates and have consistently delivered since launch. A large portion of the updates and balancing are taken straight from the subreddit and discord; the devs are very responsive to the community. Speaking of community the playerbase is rather small at the moment (release seemed a little early) however with the dedicated development team the game definitely has room to grow. Compared to finished games like Coh2 it's a little lacking in content, however since launch they've added lots of skins, maps, modes and have constantly patched the game to keep the multiplayer balanced. A bit overpriced, but I've got my money's worth and still play it often; try the free demo that they've extended for another month.Show moreShow less
78.8 hours at review235 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
Honestly, not that great of a game. I'm a sucker for the alternate history stuff, and that bit's cool, but compared to something like company of heroes, it has a lot bringing it down.Generally, combat is very clunky and slow. Unit control is a bit screwbally, and pathfinding is questionable. The differences between the factions are *largely* window dressing, and there are minimal options and structures, let alone options in playstyles to work with.A worthy successor to Company Of Heroes, this is not.Show moreShow less
15.4 hours at review435 people found this helpful
Source: original Steam user reviews. Helpful votes are an archived snapshot, not live data. Last collected: 08/15/2026.