Recent reviews by mitina.e

UPD: my main point about party numbers may be wrong as of current version, as several other players have pointed out.

I want to make this clear from the start: I don't think it's a bad game. I think it's maybe somewhat above average, and has some fresh, interesting ideas. Also, I would totally recommend it if you want to just chill out and do some sword-swinging.
__

TL:DR: the earliest versions were a masterpiece, even with missing features and full-on autoleveling. Then they have made some tweaks that destroyed a lot of tactical/strategic variety, as well as atmosphere. Now, however, my main issue is that everything in the world depends on the player's party, from enemy's numbers to contract rewards to costs of hiring additional people. But, the core features are quite good and "region-locked exploration" is a promising step.
__

When I got Wartales as the very early and incomplete version, it was awesome, arguably the best "tactical RPG" I know, even devoid of many features. But, as the versions progressed and the changes were made, it became worse. Today, it's... just another tRPG, I guess. With a couple interesting ideas and a number of annoying problems, just like most games.

The changes themselves are quite subtle. (sorry for long explanations, it's fairly intuitive when you play).
As an example, there is a very nice implementation of turn order: both your and your opponents' men are "distributed evenly" in the turn order for the round, so if the number of combatants is equal, you and enemy take turns acting with a single fighter, until all fighters act. However, for the AI, the order of its units acting is fixed, while you can act with any of your guys (who didn't act in this turn yet). While "unfair" towards the AI, it provides many interesting choices and tactics.
Now, if the enemy has twice as many people as you do, for each of your actions, they make two. So, even if you kill (or otherwise deal with) the guy who acts next, another enemy will act after that and probably you'll be in some trouble. So, the difference in numbers turns out to be very, very important.
What did they change? Now, the number of your enemies is always quite close to yours, and in cases it somehow isn't, the extra units will arrive later (when you already killed many enemies) as reinforcements. So, the (rightfully dreaded) experience of being outnumbered is cut from the game. Now, a lot of battles follow the same pattern: you neutralize the enemy who acts next, then he doesn't do much (or anything at all, if killed), rinse, repeat. A hundred of perfectly forgettable battles.

See comments/other reviews for more examples. The early versions did convey the right experiences: you struggled to stay afloat with money, thoughtfully picked your contracts, took care of your men. But the updates made the game progressively worse. My best guess is, the game designers knew what they are doing and made bold (and really good!) decisions, but then some salespeople took over the game and made it "accessible for wider audience" or something - just another game.

UPD. A list of more concrete thoughts, as brief as possible.
1. The battles are similar to each other, despite good core mechanics that could allow much more variety.
2. Many units from other factions that you can imprison and then recruit (unlike Battle Brothers). Sadly, with auto-adjusting enemy numbers to your party size, the game punishes you for such experimenting. Yes, it works for region-locked difficulty too, only the levels are fixed, and also Guard is still autolevelled!
2a. Also, battles with larger parties take forever to play. I'm not saying it's wrong, just... a consideration.
3. The troop deployment is atrociously illogical (many "islands" distributed evenly along the map). It speeds up the battles though.
4. You're not burdened with strategy (thinking, planning, resource management), especially compared to the early versions. On strategy map, you only need to sometimes take a contract or two between free, sandbox-like exploration. On tactical map, the most dangerous enemy is the one who acts next.
4a. This means that I actually recommend the easy difficulty - it's the same experience, just less grinding. For anyone wondering: strategy is not the same as difficulty. Difficulty means the enemy has 100500 hit points and you have 1. Strategy means you do something other than charge head on.
5. There is a camp management layer. I believe it was originally aimed at giving you the experience of caring for your fighters (make them a mutton stew, share a drink, and they become happier). With updates, the camp became cluttered with buildings (seriously, beehive?), and now feels like a pixel-hunting mouse-clicking chore.
6. The plot is good in the first region (Tiltren), and very mercenary-appropriate in the Arthes County. Some argument can be made for Vertruse. The rest... belong in a bad Warhammer game. (for Alazar, I made this conclusion by reading the release announcement).
7. Level requirements for weapons - is an artificial and counter-productive mechanic (and also smells of MMORPG influence). Hiring a low-level character and equipping them with a nice weapon is definitely a choice, and it actually sometimes makes sense within the game's framework.
7a. Considering that looting weapons from battle is randomized, I'd prefer they didn't have any level (as in, quality tier) at all. Getting the fire bow requires enough grinding/luck as it is, and repeating it for a higher level bow... is annoying. (as an exception, low level fire bow is still good). Or, make all weapons upgradable.
8. Happiness mechanic is now an influence generation mechanic only.
9. Paying money by rests, rather that by hours, makes food and money basically the same resource. Also, you can march your companions to near death, so that they get less money for their time...
10. Plague ravages the lands, infectious are killed on sight!.. Also, you can buy a cure from most healers for a price of, say, an axe. Or, you can just eat meat and be fine. Common medicine made from two common flowers also helps.
10a. Random people from tavern are better fighters than the Legion, Guard, Inquisition.

UPD. The release actually happened while I was writing this. Congratulations! Despite all I wrote above, kudos for actually going all the way to the finished game, I know it's hard work.

My suggestions on how to deal with the numbers issue:
- Leave autoscaling option as is; the following applies only to region-locked mode. Maybe add an option to switch between the two, re-spawning everyone (maybe on rest) according to the new setting. (to be honest, I just want to make my old save region-locked).
- On region-locked exploration, make the number of enemies fixed (maybe with random +-N%) for every entity spawning on the map.
- Of course, the numbers in the later provinces should be higher. Use reasonable assumptions about the party's changes in numbers along with levelups, and grow the numbers a bit faster than that (this will make obtaining "temporary companions" a viable idea)
- Make the number of deployment slots proportional to the number of enemies, and independent of the party. This way, if you're badly outnumbered, you will be able to gather everyone in one or two corners and hold the line, while the "reinforcements" will happen more naturally, starting on the same map but taking time to arrive. (obviously no artificial "reinforcements" mechanic)
- Make the contract rewards dependent on the number and level of enemies, not on the player's party. This will disable the obvious exploit of the first region, and also makes more sense.
- Overall, let the world not care about players' party composition . Maybe with exceptions, when someone gathers people specifically to attack the player. The game has enough instruments to prepare and deal with fights that are hard with current party.

First of all, I like a lot of things about this game. The developers did a good job of making "an heir" to CK2. Most notably, players were afraid that "we'll pay again for the same DLCs that we've already paid for in CK2", but this is mostly not the case. They have been building on existing concepts from DLCs (i.e. dynamic religion) and introduced them in the base game.
Overall, the game is very enjoyable. However, I want to focus on the drawbacks in this review, so that the review is more useful.

Compared to CK2, the conquest has been made very streamlined. The new Claim throne, Buy claim and Forced vassalization Casuses Belli, that can be made available (with some investment) for any character, ensure that you can take pretty much anything you want in a single war. So, the experience is much closer to something like Total War games, maybe with a bit more planning involved.
For the same reason, the whole "marriage game" becomes kind of redundant. You can, of course, marry your heir to the emperor's heir, then wait until their children (of your dynasty) inherit the empire. But, this scheme takes two generations, and can easily be disrupted by assassination or even a bad case of flu. Now, you can also just claim and conquer the empire (Buy claim works unless you're also an emperor). Which path to choose... Hmmmm...

Another problem is the army mobilization system. In CK2, you needed to raise the levies in your holdings, then explicitly bring them to where they're needed. This led to a number of interesting situations, where you could beat a larger army before it gathers, or needed to avoid losing war before your army comes. In CK3, you just make a rally point anywhere in your realm and wait, like, 3 months, then do a decisive battle or something.

This, along with some other tweaks, makes the game... too simple. Remember how in CK2, restoring the Roman Empire felt like an achievement, and was a focus of the entire playthrough? In CK3, I did it yesterday as an afterthought in my playthrough where I roleplay "crazy mountain people".

Overall, while I like features like dynamic culture and religion very much, the game lost a lot of depth compared to it's predecessor. A playthrough or two are definitely worth it, but after that you've learned the game, have a solution for every situation, and there's just nothing interesting left to do.

Maybe DLCs will improve the situation, but I don't hope for radical change, because the devs seem to prefer simplification over depth. If you want depth - play CK2 (or Victoria 2, by the way).

P.S. Developers, if you read this, you're welcome to comment on it, I'm interested in what you think.

Yes, it's 2021, and yes, I am playing this Total War and not the other ones, because it's a masterpiece.

As you probably know, the game consists of strategic and tactical modes, the first being turn-based campaign, and the second being pause-able real-time battle within the said campaign. Let's talk about them separately.

Tactical mode is very detailed and feels realistic, like in other Total War games. You command up to 20 units, each about 60 warriors strong (can be changed), but the game accounts for each warrior individually. And each arrow flies a real ballistic trajectory and hits whatever it hits, not a pre-determined enemy. You can use actual physics to your advantage!

However, it's the strategic mode that really sets the game apart from the others in the series. You can, of course, make full-stack armies and beat the enemies in epic battles, but you can also fight a lot of interesting battles with small detachments consisting of 3-4 units of local militia, including fighting retreat and last stands in order to inflict many casualties. And the game just lets you use as many of these small forces as you can field, without any artificial limitations!
And that's not all! When your army wins a tough battle or two, you have casualties that won't just replenish by themselves. You need to send your units to the nearest place where this type of unit is available, and re-train them. This means that your best knights should return to a fortress half a map away, while militia is available basically everywhere, making them a very valuable part of your military*.
All in all, the mechanics of the strategic mode do provide a wide variety of interesting tactical battles, and also provide an opportunity to set your own objectives for the battle. Sometimes you won't try to win, but will try to halt the enemy by inflicting too many casualties, to destroy siege engines, to save a particularly valuable unit... All this is a natural consequence of game mechanics, and you will feel that you understand the war better.

Of course, the game is not without its drawbacks. The AI is quite bad (I recommend using DarthMod that addresses it to some degree), and certain mechanics (like Skirmish mode) and units (like pikemen) are fiddly and don't always do what you want them to do, which can be frustrating and make you lose a battle or two. The graphics were impressive at the time, but, well, it's a 15 year old game now. But honestly, I call it a masterpiece and play it gladly even with these drawbacks.

To further explore the possibilities of the game, I recommend Third Age: Total War mod, which takes place in Tolkien's Middle Earth and features beautiful and complicated tactical maps. The Americas campaign (part of the Kingdoms DLC) shows a very different, gritty attrition warfare, just by tinkering with unit stats within the core mechanics.

* Especially true for Venice and other Italian factions, since their militias are actually decent units that can hold their line and inflict losses even against the best enemy soldiers.

One of the best RPGs I've ever played, even if this statement is more about other RPGs' problems. I definitely enjoyed it much more than Baldur's Gate 2 which it is partially inspired by, as admitted by the author.

What I liked the most is the Heroines themselves. They are not just said to be misfits, it shows in the gameplay. You will need to deal with the Fighter panicking in battle and with the Cleric that... does know the Healing prayer... you'll see. But they are not just generic misfits, they have personalities and I'd also add that all of them have brains. And you know, if they were real people I would gladly have a beer with them sometime. That part of the game is perfect, not just 10/10 but 100500/100500, not a single point to detract.

Dialogues are interesting and deep, sometimes discussing an unusual point of view on known issues. My favorite is the discussion on traditional painting (deliberately vague here to not give any spoilers).

The world is well thought-of, with no obvious inconsistencies, and makes me want to explore and experiment with it. What would the living ink write if there are different options of correcting, and the meaning of sentence depends on it? (common example in Russian is roughly translated as "kill not spare", where do you place the comma)

What I actually didn't like (despite the author being proud of it) is too many in-game references to other games (books, etc). As my friend put it, this game is the more interesting the less references you understand. The game is abstract and funny and light hearted, but it is also deep and in a way realistic (as I've tried to convey in the paragraph about the Heroines), and the references are detracting a lot from that impression.

The combat system is of my least favorite type, just two sides using various abilities to deplete their enemies' hit points. Despite that, the author managed to make combat quite variative and interesting, largely thanks to the Heroines' flaws, but also thanks to the actual abilities to be used. I thought it impossible, so kudos to the author.

The game graphics, well, don't make my eyes bleed (which surpassed my expectations, to be honest), and also reinforce the light-heartedness of the game. The art, however, is beautiful (it is sometimes shown in-game).

The interface is atrocious, but this is the limitation of the software used (RPGmaker I believe). To be honest, a lot of other RPGs, including AAA titles, have just as atrocious interface (especially the inventory part) even if they have all means to make it better.
* For the author in case he reads this , my main suggestion would be to sort things into sub-categories both in the inventory screen and in the "item" menu in combat and put a delimiter string between them, like, "---- BODY ARMOR". For the consumables, the categories are less obvious, so I'd suggest "replenishing potions" (with healing, mana and energy potions), then "buffing potions" (please put the drink for Anastasia first), then "scrolls", then whatever else. Also, maybe add a hotkey for healing potion, as well as for other frequently used stuff. Also, in the equip screen when you're changing the equipment piece, it would be nice to also see the currently equipped item (so that I wouldn't need to remember its' additional effect) as well as what is currently equipped by others but can be equipped on you (make these strings grey or darker or something).

Note. I'm writing this review in English so that it reaches a wider audience, but I played in Russian because the author is Russian. I believe a lot is inevitably lost in translation, but definitely recommend the game nevertheless. Also, the game provides a peek into Russian cultural context, and I think it's extremely useful for anyone to familiarize themselves with different cultures.

Simply put, this is by far the best political simulation I've seen.

The main feature is that the game has a fairly complex economic model, so your political decisions (and there are so many of them!) are no longer abstract concepts. Instead, they are financed by an actual budget, and influence people's income and expenditures, as well as GDP and similar "integral" values.

But money is not everything. The game tracks values such as environmental pollution and health of the people, and leaving the capitalism essentially unchecked can easily ruin those, as well as people's lives and your re-election ;)

Speaking of re-election, another thing the game tracks is people's happiness with your party. There are certain groups of people, like socialists and environmentalists, that have clear interests and priorities in politics, but - and it is a core concept of the game - any particular person can be in different groups. Just like in real life, you can be a parent, own a car and a small business, and care about conservative values, and all these facts do influence your attitude towards the government, and who you will (or won't) vote for. To my delight, I actually discovered some social groups (like Commuters), that are not very obvious for an armchair governor, but do have clear interests and should definitely be included into consideration if you think about it. Overall, I find the game deeply satisfying in this regard.

The game is, of course, not a perfect substitute for a governing experience. What it doesn't do:
- conflicts with legislative and judicial branches are not modeled. This can be a nightmare (read Bob Woodward's books if you are interested), so for the gameplay streamlining purposes, you have more "dictatorial" power.
- Armed conflicts are also not modeled. This leads to an obvious result: army is a huge waste of money, and getting rid of it ASAP is a good choice. The in-game army does nothing to protect your interests abroad, and there is no risk of invasion.
- some changes happen more quickly than they do in real life. Playing as France, I started with about 45% of people being religious, and almost managed to bring the number to zero within 8 years. No genocide involved, it was achieved mostly through education. Obviously, the education won't make ALL the older people abandon their beliefs, so such a change would take a couple of generations at best.

But seriously, if it is at all possible to make such a comparison between a simulation and a real life, AND the game is actually playable, it's beyond awesome. So I recommend it, and I'm happy that it exists.

P.S. It would be really nice if you could change the constitution in-game to get more terms, or longer terms. And/or just have a "one more turn..." button, though it is kind of against the spirit of the game.

probably the best city planing game in existence. has a steep learning curve, but it's totally worth the initial frustrations., with which the scenarios are surprisingly helpful.