Field of Glory: Kingdoms Review Summary

An excellent game with rich depth and unique factions, though held back by a poorly designed UI, steep learning curve, and unintelligent AI.

Export battles to FOG Medieval: Players greatly appreciate the ability to export battles from the game to Field of Glory II: Medieval, adding meaning and enjoyment to gameplay. The export process is described as simple and automated, enhancing the overall experience.

Improved over Field of Glory Empires: Players consider this game a significant improvement over Field of Glory: Empires, with renewed features and better mechanics. It fixes issues like the decadence mechanic, making it a superior successor.

Excellent and enjoyable game: Multiple players describe the game as excellent, amazing, and incredible, indicating a high level of satisfaction. The game is praised for being engaging and well-crafted, making it a standout strategy title.

Rich depth and detail: The game is commended for its depth, with players appreciating the intricate systems and love for detail. It offers a lot to explore and master, appealing to strategy enthusiasts.

Factions are unique: All factions are distinct, playing differently from each other with unique traits and playstyles. This variety enhances replayability and strategic diversity.

UI is poorly designed: Multiple reviews criticize the user interface for being badly designed, with small icons, poor readability, and cluttered elements. Specific issues include white text on grey backgrounds, scripted fonts, and bulky menus that detract from usability.

Learning curve is steep: The game has a steep learning curve with complex rules, a massive 325-page manual, and little in-game help. This makes it difficult for new players to understand mechanics and can be frustrating.

Character system is shallow: The character system is tacked on, shallow, and driven by random events, with little player agency and unclear loyalty. It can derail games without notice and is inferior to similar systems in other titles.

Authority system is flawed: The Authority system is criticized as arbitrary, abstract, and unhistorical, with losses not aligning with player actions and causing nations to collapse based on global rankings. It feels like a mobile game mechanic that slows progression and ruins immersion.

Building system needs overhaul: The building system is a messy, RNG-driven chore with too many buildings, unclear prerequisites, and little strategic depth. It lacks a database for planning, and spamming profitable buildings is more effective than building a coherent trade network.

Turn-based grand strategy: The game is described as a turn-based grand strategy with deep mechanics, historical setting, and elements like politics, religion, and warfare. It shares similarities with Paradox-style games.

Medieval strategy game: The game is specifically a medieval strategy title from studio AGEOD, focusing on medieval lords and grand strategy. This aligns with the historical setting mentioned in other clusters.

Unique trade system: The game features a trade system that is unique and tied to buildings, indicating an economic layer that interacts with infrastructure. This adds depth to the strategy.

Integrates with Field of Glory: The game connects with Field of Glory: Medieval for tactical battles, similar to the export feature. This integration is a key feature for players who own both titles.

Manpower and metal resources: Troops require manpower and metal for recruitment and supply, indicating a resource management layer that affects military capacity. This adds strategic depth to army building.

Turn processing is too slow: Multiple reviewers report that turn processing takes a long time, even for small countries or on top-end computers. This significantly hampers gameplay flow and is a common complaint.

Loading times comparable to similar games: Some reviewers note that loading times are on par with other grand strategy games like EU4 and Victoria, indicating that this aspect is not a major issue for those players.

Highly recommended for strategy fans: Multiple reviewers recommend this game to fans of grand strategy, 4X, and similar titles like Hearts of Iron IV, Civilization VI, and Total War. It appeals to those who enjoy deep historical strategy and complexity.

Worth its price: Some reviewers state the game is definitely worth its price, and even recommend buying at full price if you enjoy complex strategy. Others suggest waiting for a discount due to high price, but overall value is seen as positive.

Recommended for FoG Empires fans: Fans of Field of Glory: Empires are likely to enjoy this game, as several reviewers explicitly recommend it to them. This suggests a similar style and mechanics that appeal to existing fans.

Mixed feelings on recommendation: A few reviewers cannot recommend the game currently, citing reasons like difficulty, character system issues, or lack of reasons to buy without FoG II integration. This indicates some negative feedback.

High praise for depth: The game receives high praise for its depth and complexity, with reviewers specifically highlighting these aspects as strengths. It is considered a must-play for grand strategy and historical simulation fans.

Community fair range: $20.00 - $30.00.

Session length: 6.0h.

The game requires a steep learning curve and significant time investment (around 20 hours) to understand its complex systems, after which it becomes highly addictive and engaging.

Reported time to anchor: 20h.

Friction: steep learning curve; unhelpful tutorial; need to read manual; complex systems; early mistakes due to lack of understanding; overwhelming information.

Unlock drivers: understanding mechanics; learning from early mistakes; reading manual/tutorial; patience and time investment; having everything click.

Deep Strategy Enthusiast: Methodical, patient, often single-player with micromanagement and deep strategic planning. Motivation: Mastering intricate game systems and historical simulation through experimentation and patience. Stance: buy.

Asynchronous Multiplayer Enthusiast: Diplomatic, strategic, using PBEM and tactical battle porting, preferring slower-paced turn-based interaction. Motivation: Engaging in diplomatic and competitive multiplayer via asynchronous turns, fitting a busy lifestyle. Stance: buy.

Critical Veteran: Has tried to engage but becomes frustrated by opaque, unbalanced, or unpolished mechanics. Motivation: Seeking a polished and engaging historical strategy experience but finding flawed execution. Stance: no buy.

Comparisons to Paradox grand strategy games: Players frequently compare the game to Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings, noting it lacks depth but excels in its scope. One reviewer even claims it is better than Europa Universalis V, while another appreciates its lower DLC cost compared to EU4.

Improvement over Field of Glory: Empires: Many players see this as a modernized and improved version of Field of Glory: Empires, with noticeable changes and enhancements. While one reviewer notes it shares strengths and flaws, most consider it a solid upgrade.

Good integration with Field of Glory II: Medieval: The game is often mentioned alongside Field of Glory II: Medieval, with positive feedback on the ability to export battles for tactical resolution. Players recommend having both games for the full experience.

Compared to Total War series: Reviewers compare the game to Total War games, specifically noting similarities in appearance and mechanics. Some also mention it alongside Crusader Kings for character systems, indicating a blend of grand strategy and tactical elements.

Lack of language support: A few players point out missing translations, specifically Russian and German, which they see as a drawback. This suggests the game currently does not offer full localization for these languages.