好
哪里都不错
1.就是能不能改善一下战争 每次打仗都是生死决战 是否可以添加几个主要城市 然后每个城市划分一块地 打仗时敌军如果夺走这座城市 这座城市和它划分的地就给敌军
2.中印边界错误 阿克塞钦地区由中国实际控制
3.钓鱼岛与赤尾屿应该划分给台湾
1.就是能不能改善一下战争 每次打仗都是生死决战 是否可以添加几个主要城市 然后每个城市划分一块地 打仗时敌军如果夺走这座城市 这座城市和它划分的地就给敌军
2.中印边界错误 阿克塞钦地区由中国实际控制
3.钓鱼岛与赤尾屿应该划分给台湾
奈奈川白
Huge Potential, but Progression Feels Designed to Make You Spend Money
I’ve spent over 20 hours playing this game in the past week, and I’ve played both MA 2 and MA 3. I genuinely enjoy the concept, which makes the experience even more frustrating.
I purchased a subscription, only to be prompted to purchase three more. Nearly everything feels locked behind another payment, while the gameplay itself seems deliberately designed to keep players at a disadvantage.
There’s a difference between a challenging strategy game and a pay-to-win game.
If you start with a small nation, you have practically no income or industry. If you choose a superpower, you might have income, but you’re still severely limited by money and resources. No matter what country you choose, you’re immediately fighting an uphill battle.
You can spend an hour watching advertisements for rewards that barely make a difference. You start earning around 25 gold per day while buildings, upgrades, and other expenses can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions.
You might have 50,000 gold in your treasury while another country requests 200,000 in financial assistance. Decline the request, and your diplomatic relations suffer.
After approximately two in-game years, I was earning around 300 gold per day. Meanwhile, maintaining a single diplomatic relationship can cost tens of thousands. You’re expected to manage relations with over 100 countries while simultaneously funding construction, research, trade, military operations, and government ministries.
The diplomatic system is particularly poorly balanced.
You have to pay approximately 8 gold per day just to maintain an embassy with another country. Then, to request a trade agreement, you need diplomatic relations above 60.
How do you improve those relations? Primarily by giving other countries money, which your struggling economy can barely afford.
Even after spending money to establish an embassy, improve diplomatic relations, and secure a trade agreement, consistently purchasing resources from that country does nothing to improve your relationship.
How does that make sense? You’re actively contributing to another country’s economy through trade, yet there’s no diplomatic benefit. Trade agreements should encourage stronger relations, economic cooperation, and mutual benefits. Instead, you’re repeatedly spending money just to maintain access to basic diplomatic functions.
Even the lending system is incredibly unbalanced.
When you borrow money, you’re charged a flat 15% interest rate. However, when you lend money to AI-controlled countries, you’re offered just a 1% return.
If you somehow accumulate one million gold to lend, you earn only 10,000 gold a year later, while borrowing that same amount would cost you 150,000 in interest.
Why should the player receive drastically worse financial terms than the AI countries? Lending should be a legitimate economic strategy, not another mechanic that makes accumulating wealth nearly impossible.
The economy simply doesn’t support the expenses the game expects you to manage.
Countries with limited natural resources are especially frustrating because you must constantly purchase trade goods manually. There’s no proper system for establishing recurring imports, forcing players to repeatedly manage the same transactions.
Then there are the natural disasters and infrastructure failures.
You can spend hours constructing buildings, only to have earthquakes destroy them shortly after completion. I’ve invested hundreds of thousands into power infrastructure, only for facilities to randomly fail or be destroyed due to “lack of maintenance,” despite having no meaningful option to increase maintenance or prevent these failures.
The same applies to gold mines. You can spend significant time and resources constructing ten mines, only to lose six of them shortly afterward.
Funding ministries is another problem. Increasing a ministry’s funding slider by a single level might provide only a 0.5% improvement, yet cost more gold than your entire economy produces. To afford it, you’re practically forced to watch 15–30 advertisements or spend real money.
Meanwhile, countries can randomly declare war, destroy your economy, and potentially wipe out hours of progress.
The problem isn’t that the game is challenging. It’s that players have very little control over the systems constantly setting them back.
A good strategy game should reward planning, investment, and intelligent decisions. If I invest heavily in infrastructure, disaster prevention, economic development, or diplomacy, those decisions should have meaningful benefits.
Instead, it constantly feels like taking one step forward and two steps backward.
I understand that developers need to generate revenue. However, the priority should be creating a satisfying gameplay experience that people genuinely want to support, rather than surrounding an already frustrating game with advertisements, subscriptions, and paywalls.
There is so much potential here. The political systems, economic management, diplomacy, construction, and military mechanics could make this an outstanding mobile strategy game.
But right now, the balance between income, expenses, progression, disasters, diplomacy, and monetization needs serious work.
I want to spend my time developing a country and making strategic decisions, not watching advertisements and rebuilding the same infrastructure over and over again.
I genuinely want this game to succeed. That’s why I’m taking the time to write this review. I’ve enjoyed the concept enough to invest over 20 hours into it, but unless these fundamental issues are addressed, I can’t justify investing more time or money.
I purchased a subscription, only to be prompted to purchase three more. Nearly everything feels locked behind another payment, while the gameplay itself seems deliberately designed to keep players at a disadvantage.
There’s a difference between a challenging strategy game and a pay-to-win game.
If you start with a small nation, you have practically no income or industry. If you choose a superpower, you might have income, but you’re still severely limited by money and resources. No matter what country you choose, you’re immediately fighting an uphill battle.
You can spend an hour watching advertisements for rewards that barely make a difference. You start earning around 25 gold per day while buildings, upgrades, and other expenses can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions.
You might have 50,000 gold in your treasury while another country requests 200,000 in financial assistance. Decline the request, and your diplomatic relations suffer.
After approximately two in-game years, I was earning around 300 gold per day. Meanwhile, maintaining a single diplomatic relationship can cost tens of thousands. You’re expected to manage relations with over 100 countries while simultaneously funding construction, research, trade, military operations, and government ministries.
The diplomatic system is particularly poorly balanced.
You have to pay approximately 8 gold per day just to maintain an embassy with another country. Then, to request a trade agreement, you need diplomatic relations above 60.
How do you improve those relations? Primarily by giving other countries money, which your struggling economy can barely afford.
Even after spending money to establish an embassy, improve diplomatic relations, and secure a trade agreement, consistently purchasing resources from that country does nothing to improve your relationship.
How does that make sense? You’re actively contributing to another country’s economy through trade, yet there’s no diplomatic benefit. Trade agreements should encourage stronger relations, economic cooperation, and mutual benefits. Instead, you’re repeatedly spending money just to maintain access to basic diplomatic functions.
Even the lending system is incredibly unbalanced.
When you borrow money, you’re charged a flat 15% interest rate. However, when you lend money to AI-controlled countries, you’re offered just a 1% return.
If you somehow accumulate one million gold to lend, you earn only 10,000 gold a year later, while borrowing that same amount would cost you 150,000 in interest.
Why should the player receive drastically worse financial terms than the AI countries? Lending should be a legitimate economic strategy, not another mechanic that makes accumulating wealth nearly impossible.
The economy simply doesn’t support the expenses the game expects you to manage.
Countries with limited natural resources are especially frustrating because you must constantly purchase trade goods manually. There’s no proper system for establishing recurring imports, forcing players to repeatedly manage the same transactions.
Then there are the natural disasters and infrastructure failures.
You can spend hours constructing buildings, only to have earthquakes destroy them shortly after completion. I’ve invested hundreds of thousands into power infrastructure, only for facilities to randomly fail or be destroyed due to “lack of maintenance,” despite having no meaningful option to increase maintenance or prevent these failures.
The same applies to gold mines. You can spend significant time and resources constructing ten mines, only to lose six of them shortly afterward.
Funding ministries is another problem. Increasing a ministry’s funding slider by a single level might provide only a 0.5% improvement, yet cost more gold than your entire economy produces. To afford it, you’re practically forced to watch 15–30 advertisements or spend real money.
Meanwhile, countries can randomly declare war, destroy your economy, and potentially wipe out hours of progress.
The problem isn’t that the game is challenging. It’s that players have very little control over the systems constantly setting them back.
A good strategy game should reward planning, investment, and intelligent decisions. If I invest heavily in infrastructure, disaster prevention, economic development, or diplomacy, those decisions should have meaningful benefits.
Instead, it constantly feels like taking one step forward and two steps backward.
I understand that developers need to generate revenue. However, the priority should be creating a satisfying gameplay experience that people genuinely want to support, rather than surrounding an already frustrating game with advertisements, subscriptions, and paywalls.
There is so much potential here. The political systems, economic management, diplomacy, construction, and military mechanics could make this an outstanding mobile strategy game.
But right now, the balance between income, expenses, progression, disasters, diplomacy, and monetization needs serious work.
I want to spend my time developing a country and making strategic decisions, not watching advertisements and rebuilding the same infrastructure over and over again.
I genuinely want this game to succeed. That’s why I’m taking the time to write this review. I’ve enjoyed the concept enough to invest over 20 hours into it, but unless these fundamental issues are addressed, I can’t justify investing more time or money.
Show more
Aaveragebear593
Forced adds don’t DL
Forced add. Deleted within 10 mins
669SaNdMaN69
La catástrofes
Son muy caras te destrozan todo cada rato no podemos hacer nada para de tenerlas los terremotos son los más dañinos
LPLos pago
A earthquake fatally brokes all economic
Какой смысл экономику развивать, если ее постоянно уничтожает землетрясениями. 2 землетрясения уничтожили сотни строений, которые пару часов реального времени строились, и это с учетом полного финансирования министерства чрезвычайных ситуаций
ИГИгра горно!
