I first tried this game in 2012 and dropped it after a few months because at that time its monetization design was too aggressive and took outI first tried this game in 2012 and dropped it after a few months because at that time its monetization design was too aggressive and took out all the fun from the game unless you pay. I've given this game another try in the beginning of 2016 and thankfully the game is now friendlier to its players, so I'd now give it a 5/10.
Pros:
- pretty interesting battle system: attackers only move vertically while defenders only move horizontally. Your task is to place the units in your army in such a way that during the battle (which you won't be able to control directly after the initial setup) your units which are good vs infantry fight exactly vs infantry, those which are good vs vehicles - fight vehicles, and those good vs buildings attack the buildings. The same with base defenses: you need to set up your various units and towers in a way which would hopefully leave no "optimal" set-ups for attacking players
- thankfully the combat simulator is now available in the game without installation of any browser extensions - and it works well and it's really fun to experiment with different unit positions in it
- an interesting strategic layer, MMO-like, where you join a 50-ppl alliance, keep moving your base to the center of a huge world map, fighting small AI-controlled bases and bases of other players on the way
- an ok economy system where you need to optimize placement of different type of buildings, to take advantage of bonuses for certain buildings neighboring certain other buildings
Cons:
- you can basically do only 1 battle per hour. If you don't log in for more than 1 hour, the "command points" stack up for about 10 hours, after which, if you don't log in and spend them, they will not grow further. Which means, you MUST log in at least every 10 hours into the game and do about 10 battles, or you will start lagging behind other players. This is still a big improvement compared to what they had in 2012 (must log in every 6 hours). I guess most players will now just log in once in the morning to play 10 battles, and then once in the evening, to play another 10 battles, and move their bases in-between (which triggers an about 2-hours resource generation pause). I'd prefer a lot more if this game allowed you to fight battles for as long as you want in a row (e.g. the whole weekend, for hours on end) and then leave the game and not log in for as long as you want. That's how MMORPGs work, and I find that just fine. But this "spoon-feeding" mechanic where you may have a whole evening available but can't do anything until command point accumulate, is crippling the otherwise nice game
- if you want to speed up things, buy resources, or raise the limit on when your silos/point etc overflow, you need to pay. Frankly, for how much I like this game, I'd be ready to pay $10 or maybe even $20 for it (since it's a pretty solid game, and it's pretty fun), but only once. The same way I'd buy a strategy game on Steam. Pay once, play forever. But this game unfortunately follows the idiotic f2p model where they sell you temporary bonuses and boosts. Which means, you will pay and pay, as long as you play. Sorry guys, but I'm too smart to fall for that trick. I know there are tons of idiots and kids out there who are bad in math and pay in f2p games but I assure you that very few of them come from the C&C fanbase. C&C fans grew up during the times when f2p was associated with free Korean games with cartoonish graphics. I stay away from those!
- apart from the graphical style (which is very close to C&C3), this game is so different from C&C gameplay and RTS's in general, that I (as a C&C and Dune 2 fan) simply don't understand why they called this game C&C. Yes, I know EA owns the brand and wanted to lure C&C fans into this browser MMO/puzzle/strategy mix, but I'm pretty sure that the audience they finally got was mostly not that of C&C fans
Overall, it's an ok puzzle/strategy game which is pretty interesting at start but unfortunately shows its ugly money-begging face after a few days of play. The design of the game would be much better if it were a paid Steam game (maybe with a free demo) or maybe a subcription-based game like WoW (but in a lower price range, more like fixed $5 per month, with the first month given for free). Still, my updated review is not negative now because even if you play it completely for free and accept the wait between battles, and accept that you must log in twice a day, even if you aren't in the mood - the game is still somewhat fun. The irony is that, with this game's bad initial reception by C&C fans, it must have earned less with its f2p crap than it would if it were initially designed as a pay-once or a subscription MMO game. I'm a customer they have lost. I know they need to earn money, but I find their monetization system unfair because it's manipulative and breaks the game.… Expand
