They Are Billions CD Key

Users wrote

Many Steam reviews describe They Are Billions as a brutally challenging RTS/ tower defense hybrid that demands careful planning and constant vigilance. Players repeatedly mention that one mistake can cascade into a total defeat, especially in the early game. The survival mode is praised for its tension and high replayability, while the campaign is often criticized for pacing and balance issues. Common complaints focus on clunky pathfinding, a limited save system, and a perception that the game has limited ongoing updates or support.

Last updated: 2026-03-05

Most Mentioned Advantages

• Very challenging and rewarding gameplay (60 mentions) - Gameplay is extremely challenging and unforgiving, which many players find thrilling. You must plan around chokepoints, manage long build-up times, and defend against waves that can wipe you out quickly. When you finally stabilize a base and survive a wave, the sense of achievement is strong. The difficulty attracts players who enjoy deep strategic planning and are not easily discouraged by failures.
• Impressive base-building with large zombie hordes (40 mentions) - Base-building is deep, with layered walls and chokepoints that force you to design efficient layouts. The game supports huge zombie hordes on screen, creating intense siege scenarios. The combination of economy management and defense planning provides meaningful choices rather than simple reflex play. The sense of progression comes from gradually expanding your defenses and upgrading structures.
• Strong survival mode and replayability (25 mentions) - Survival mode offers varied maps and a challenging loop that keeps you coming back for more. The random map layouts and escalating waves create fresh challenges each run. The variety of survival scenarios and community maps contribute to replayability. This mode is widely cited as the most engaging part of the game.

Most Mentioned Disadvantages

• No manual saves / ironman mode (50 mentions) - Many players dislike the absence of manual saves during campaigns and missions. There are long sessions where one mistake ends a run because saving mid-mission is not available. The ironman-style progression locks progress to the end of the run, making experimentation risky. This design can feel punishing for players who want to learn through repeated attempts.
• Pathfinding and AI issues (35 mentions) - Several reviews report poor pathfinding and units getting stuck or taking inefficient routes. This leads to wasted resources and failed attacks during critical moments. Some reviewers note the AI ignores threats or does not react promptly, undermining control. Pathing issues feel especially frustrating given the game's emphasis on precision.
• Campaign pacing and balance problems (28 mentions) - Some players find the campaign pacing slow and repetitive, with hero missions feeling tedious. The early tech-tree gating can slow progress and make goals feel distant. Several missions are criticized for being overly long or restrictive, reducing variety. Overall, the campaign is seen as weaker than survival mode.
• Lack of content and uncertain future (20 mentions) - Several reviews mention a lack of new content and long gaps in development. Some players feel the game is abandoned or not supported with updates. While survival mode remains popular, many players wish for more campaign content and ongoing support.
• UI/controls and performance issues (15 mentions) - Critiques include a clunky user interface and confusing controls. Some players report crashes or performance issues on certain hardware. The absence of features like quick saves or reliable speed controls adds to the frustration for some players.

Compared Games

• StarCraft (3 mentions) - Described as Survival StarCraft with zombies and cited for RTS depth and strategic planning, including StarCraft II references.
• Warcraft III (2 mentions) - Described as reminiscent of Warcraft III maps, including hero-driven segments and base defense challenges.