I think the same. I wishlisted it, let's see how it evolves!

Detto.

Looks complicated.

Space is the next frontier and it has its price.

Idea: let a tiny percent of the earnings go to a space charity (Space Research fund?).

It shows heritage from both XCOM and the novel The Three Body Problem. Plus probably more, but those two come to mind fast.

Hoping the best for this title.

Oh, it's this game. I feel like I heard of it back when TotalBiscut was still alive.

It looks interesting enough to join my wishlist, but it also looks like it could be one of those overly ambitious games that tries to do too much. I won't even consider actually purchasing until it's out of development and fully released.

Yup.

It seems like there is a competition for assets on Earth and on space. Then the eventual arrival of alirn ships might lead to a second half of the game. Maybe with skirmishes involving scout ships at first.

Overall, it might work a little bit like Alien Legacy. There you had to thrive as much as you could in a resilient way so that your faction can face the looming threat in the final stages of the game.

The difference is that in Alien Legacy there are no human factions at each other's throats nor diolomacy. That would be what Terra Invicta brings to the table, this twist and modern looking graphics, battles, minigames. Alien Legacy was great and one of a kind. This might be a second effort in that line. Looks full of promise. A game to play after reading The Three Body Problem, especially. Or playing any of the games related to XCOM.

It was on my radar for a while, and I picked it up right away. Unfortunately it's one of those games that make the player gamble all the time with dice rolls, which I hate in a strategy game, especially in this one that expects you to get even more involved in the gambling by spending extra influence to increase the odds (which seemingly can never reach 100%, just to spite me). Combined with subpar performance (I meet the recommended reqs and it still doesn't maintain 60fps on most screens and zoom levels on low settings even when paused), I'm unfortunately going to have to ask for a refund. It pains me, because the concept is awesome and I'd like to see the game reach its potential. I'll try it again if they address these issues.

Well, it is in development. They say that very clearly. So that everyone knows that the game is not finished yet. Optimization and bug ironing is expected to arrive, eventually.

Just remembering how sometimes demos were way more demanding on hardware than the final game.

About having a degree of uncertainty when dedicating resources to influence regions, it is no different from other games when the result depends on odds. In this case, the developers added this very gamey detail of showing the odds openly, in order to help the player figure out the possible effect. Games like Star Wars: Rebellion never showed the odds when you sent characters in missions: one was to figure out.

There is so much real gambling-like stuff in modern games (loot boxes, etc) that calling anything without a sure result "gambling" misrepresents a game profoundly. So everytime you shoot in XCOM without a 100% sure result you are "gambling"?. I do not get it. I guess some people like to use the word in order to throw shadow over games.

By the way, the old UFO games did not show the odds. XCOM did in order to make things easier (it is a gamey game, while UFO was simulationist), and people who did not really understand what a 80% or 90% really means were pissed.

Possibly due to this thrend we are to see less games showing odds openly, and with less elements of uncertainty, since a portion of the player population seem to have trouble with that. Maybe.

There is some uncertainty involved in a game (like in most videogames) and someone does not like uncertainty? That is OK I guess. Calling that gambling is not OK, it only misrepresents games.

Some of the XCOM games lied - there was a hidden modifier that could only change things in the player's favour, which was added on top of the percentage that was shown in the UI. So people who complained about missing an 80% or 90% chance were not only not understanding probabilities, they weren't noticing that it was skewed in their favour.

https://www.reddit.com/r/XCOM2/comments/45u81x/yes_xcom_2s_rng_cheats_in_your_favor_heres_how/

Spending resources on an activity that may or may not pay off is gambling by my definition. Referring to game mechanics, I could just call it RNG but I want to distinguish from the kind of RNG that the player is not actively involved in (e.g. procedurally generated characters, timing and composition of enemy spawns, etc.). I'm okay with the latter as long as it evens out to make for a playable game every time.

But when the game makes me roll the dice to determine whether my most basic, required actions succeed at all... yeah, I'm not okay with that. I don't like it in classic games either, even though I grew up with them. The changes to the combat system in Civ 5 were the best thing to ever happen to that series. Unfortunately western RPGs/strategy games that eschew that kind of RNG are pretty rare.