apljee 最近的评测

Did I like it? Not really. Would I reccomend it? Sure. Order of Battle: World War II is a fantastic game, and you should keep in mind that this is more of a demo -- not a f2p game. As the developers have stated, they need a source of income and we should actually be glad that they didn't make the choice to implement microtransactions or some blatant moneygrab just so that you could play some other levels.

Personally, I was expecting something more of a mash-up between Hearts of Iron and Civilization V. I liked the looks of it, and I thought it was an interesting concept and since it was free I gave it a shot. After doing the first level I think that I was expecting something different than the game turned out to be. However, if you are looking for a turn-based strategy game set in World-War II, this might be your cup of tea. I thought this would include things such as research, real production (not to scratch on that but it was pretty much just a buy this troop and place him somewhere system, no real production going on (like in Hearts of Iron, for example.) I also would have reduced unit scaling and made there be some more units but that last bit is much more miniscule.

I look forward to seeing where this game goes and maybe one day I'll give it another shot. Currently, my stance is that I don't like it, but I would reccomend it because some people might enjoy it. It just wasn't for me but it *is* a good game.

I'm like 97% sure I have the most hours played on this game.

good game, awful dlc policy

arguably the best gsg paradox has ever made, bogged down heavily by the additional $300 you need to spend in order for it to be complete experience. i'm one of the lucky ones who have owned the game for years and have been able to accumulate dlc over time - it's a nightmare trying to convince any of my friends to give the game a try.

overall id suggest the subscription pass, but there are other problems with that (i.e. paying more than the value of the dlc over time)

paradox does get points for incorporating some of the more essential dlc into the base game. amazing game but i wouldn't bother if you're on a budget or not interested in getting the dlc.

I can still buy the game but I own the game.

11/10 would play again

is good game xaxaxaxaxa

i guess it was ok :/

Here's my thoughts on the controversy over Total Wars Battles: KINGDOM.

After playing about 1 hour of the game, I got through the basic tutorials and I eventually made it to around level 4 or level 5. From there, I unlocked a few new buildings which gave me access to new units, the ability to build homes on sand, etc. Although I do sense some browser game elements along with a mesh of facebook game elements, this game does have potential to be something good. There are some p2w elements within the game, such as how you need Gold to buy specific troops and gold can only be gained at small amounts (5-10 gold per special quest, 1 special quest per level) or you can buy a whack-load of gold very quickly. This tends to be a bit tedious as there are wait times for just about everything in the game. (Getting stone, chopping wood, etc.)

Pros:
- Fairly nice graphics
- Hexagonal grid works well
- Good potential to be something different
- Can gain gold without buying it
- Interesting, seemingly non-linear missions system
- Somewhat interesting water system, flowing water, crops only grow near water, dams can block off water steams and water destroys buildings.


Cons:
- Major P2W elements (you must spend gold to buy ______ troops)
- Long wait times for most things in the game
- Microtransactions
- Feels like a browser game
- Gaining gold without buying it is tedious and takes a long time
- Limit to 9 troops per battle, with extremely small troop sizes
- Doesn't feel like a total war game
- Total War engine isn't evident - it's more turn-based
- Wait times, even in combat.
- P2W elements in combat (buy mercenaries before combat, other upgrades)

Overall:
Overall, I would rate this game a 4/10. It does have some nice elements but if you look at the list above, there is just too many cons for the game to seem good in my shoes. If issues like the ones above got fixed, then the game would be more interesting to me and I would most likely spend more time on it.

Do I Reccomend It?:
No. This somewhat feels incomplete, like a browser or a facebook game, and those styles are extremely evident with the microtransactions, small battles, wait times, and many other features that just make it feel like you're playing a cheap browser game where you have to wait 8 hours to mine a single block of stone (where you'd only get 10-40 stone...) It is also quite difficult to level up, considering how the starting area (unless it's not a pre-generated starting area) is surrounded by water and forest, you get little options to expand and thus little options to build buildings which are required for majority of things. Although you might start with 150 gold, it tends to run out. With the one hour I played, I was already down to 84 gold because I was so tired of waiting.

I played as England, took over all of the British Isles and then bribed half of France to join me.

11/10

7 months ago I accidentally chose to possess the director of the bureau (I forget his name) and I had to pick between killing my two favourite characters, Dr. Germanguystein and Angela Weaver. I then proceeded to slam a 30-pound cement block onto my testicles, as I cried in pain because Director ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ got to live.

11/10 would play again

Great game, although I haven't finished through the game I can tell you if you're unamused by the ol' 2004 graphics, turn around and slam a brick at your face, because graphics aren't what you need in this game.

This game is great, where I've hardly put much time into it, I can honestly say I love it deeply.