✓Overall experience and event atmosphere
The overall event average was 4.36/5, while the average recommendation score was 9.07/10. Feedback emphasised strong organisation, atmosphere, a clear event structure and a steady amount of gameplay. Critical comments were more often directed at individual systems and gameplay structures than at the event as a whole.
✓Registration, Kuulaportti and chronographing
Kuulaportti, chronographing, registration and Ehasastore were among the highest-rated areas. Kuulaportti was generally considered easy to use, but payment, personal details, minor registration and vehicle registration caused some confusion. Chronographing was rated strongly, although more stations, preparation areas and clearer queue instructions were requested for peak times. The new wristbands divided opinion: some found them practical, while others found them uncomfortable or unnecessary.
±Game area, distances and transport
The game area averaged 4.14/5, and its size, road network and forest terrain were seen as both strengths and challenges. A recurring concern was the difficulty infantry faced in reaching remote missions, the civilian village and the northern area. Single-road bottlenecks, long walks and hard-to-reach respawns reduced participation. Suggestions included a shuttle, FOBs, denser capture points and objectives designed around infantry access.
±Missions, game objects and night operations
Missions averaged 3.82/5. Clear, physical and time-sensitive scenarios received the strongest feedback: the RSV, Power Plant, triangulation, capture points and the final convoy were frequently mentioned. Some respondents felt mission types were becoming repetitive and that ordinary infantry was overshadowed by vehicles or specialist roles. Night missions were mostly well received, but access to thermal and night-vision equipment created divided views.
±Rules, safety and game enforcement
Rules averaged 4.06/5, with very few low ratings. Open feedback still raised thermal sights, semi-only, machine-gun and precision-weapon engagement distances, vehicle and anti-vehicle rules, casualty mechanics and rule enforcement. Some respondents wanted tighter restrictions while others wanted more freedom, showing clear disagreement. The shared request was for consistent enforcement and bilingual rules explained with practical examples.
±Status and other digital systems
Digital systems averaged 4.16/5 overall, but Status averaged 4.01/5 and generated many technical reports. Recurring issues included crashes, lost logins, white map screens, inaccurate GPS, missing vehicles and poor operation on certain networks. Information was also considered too fragmented across multiple sites and channels. Kuulaportti, by contrast, received a very strong rating, although links and payment were expected to be more direct.
±Faction leadership and situational awareness
Faction leadership averaged 4.22/5, but experiences varied by faction and chain of command. Positive feedback highlighted clear tasks, good morale, approachable leaders and a functioning command structure. Critical feedback mentioned limited explanation of the larger picture, late orders, uneven task allocation, weak coordination between units and language barriers. Leadership results are therefore most meaningful when viewed as faction-level aggregates.
±Civilian village, story and the ingame economy
The civilian village and story produced strongly divided opinions. Some players considered civilian encounters, the casino, bar, religious characters and story scenes among the most memorable parts of the event. Others found the village too remote, too small or poorly connected to combat-faction missions. The ingame bank was seen as an interesting concept, but its purpose, login flow, income level and spending opportunities were unclear to many.
✓Bases, maintenance, food and event partners
Bases, food services and partners received strong ratings. Hand-washing points were mentioned unusually often as a success, while brgr.in food and the presence of partner stores were considered useful. Improvement requests concerned food access and timing, portion size and value, shower information, toilet paper, firewood, charging points, a safe weapon-testing area and generator noise at night.
±International access, accessibility and growth
For international and non-driving players, the main barriers were travel cost, local transport, moving equipment, language and fragmented information. Suggestions included airport or railway transfers, a shuttle within the game area, rental equipment, clearer bilingual communication and targeted information for international teams. At the same time, many respondents said they already actively recommend the event and recruit new players.
✓How the feedback survey worked
The survey was rated easy to complete, averaging 4.39/5, while question relevance averaged 4.13/5. Many respondents valued its breadth, but some found it long or felt the estimated completion time was too short. Suggestions included prioritising core questions, allowing short comments on more topics and using terrain photos to support the game-area map question.
The feedback presents Battlegroup 2026 as a very successful and well-organised event overall. The strongest ratings concerned registration, Kuulaportti, chronographing, bases and services. The most debated areas were mobility across the large game area, Status reliability, visibility of mission purpose, consistent rule enforcement, and how civilian play and story connected to the rest of the event.
Finland
Latvia
Estonia