EARLY ACCESS: The game is in a *bad* state. You have to be really motivated to put up with the tediously pointless micromanagement. There is a ton of potential, but we aren't there yet.

Another point is that this cannot be played casually. I suspect that a single campaign takes about 40 hours to complete. If you don't have that kind of time then I would steer clear.

Terra Invicta is a standalone game from Pavonis Interactive - an indie game studio, formed primarily from the creators of the fantastic Long War mods for XCOM 1 and 2. Following a Kickstarter campaign, they created a grand strategy about aliens invading Earth.
At first glance, it looks like a very watered-down version of Crusader Kings. But then you realise that this game has correctly modelled orbital mechanics, and requires you to learn delta-V, transfer windows and orbit types for the purpose of spaceship combat. Then you learn that you have to design your spaceships in an incredibly meticulous process, in which you select the weapon type, engine type, fuel type, armour type, armour thickness on the front/side/back and even the type of armour, various additional modules, etc. And all of this you have to balance against the weight of the ship (affects delta-V), the cost of the ship, the cost of the fuel, the cost of the ammo... It's spreadsheet porn. Finally, you have a surprisingly open-ended spaceship battle side of the game, which you can autoresolve, or play manually.

As for the politics on earth, you have about four agents to manage. Everything is a modified dice roll. The modifiers can be something as simple as popular support, but you can also pay resources to increase the likelihood of success. Other modifiers are, for example, how destabilised the country is, how much public support you have, how rich the nation is, etc. Agents have stats such as persuasion, espionage, science, security, etc. Agents start off with an occupation, for example "diplomat" or "mercenary". A diplomat can improve relations, but cannot attack things, while a mercenary can attack things by default, but not improve relations. However, you can attach organisations to your agents, which unlocks new abilities. Say you use your diplomat to take over Iran, and use this influence to attach Hezbollah to your diplomat. The diplomat can now attack alien assets or attempt assassinations, based on their "command" stat. I think the idea of sending Hezbollah to waste some ayys is a very strong selling point.

There is criticism, however: the current state of QoL is not acceptable. There is far too much repetitive clicking that serves no purpose. The game is tragically unbalanced, and the only viable strategy is to play Western nations, because controlling them costs the same amount of administrative points as controlling anywhere else. Finally, you end up with strange things such as low-democracy countries being unable to invest in military tech level (???); or the well-intentioned but poorly-implemented climate change mechanics leading to countries having a -20% modifier to their ENTIRE ECONOMY for no reason (with no explanation), as early as 2023. They could've made alien plants grow faster from climate change or whatever, but instead we get a hamfisted, nebulous, and unfinished mechanic.

I like that they tried to model economic development vs societal inequality; I like that high scores in democracy lead to your nation's unity moving towards a resting point of 50% which can be good or bad; and I like that they attempted to model short term gains vs sustainable development and pollution/climate change. But at the end of the day, countries are on a one-dimensional spectrum from "totalitarian" to "full democracy" - where one is better at literally everything (including military!). And the player has the same totalitarian control over all countries, anyway, regardless of how democratic they are. I feel as though the game spends too much time haranguing about exploitation, climate change and inequality - and too little time on programming an economy that would convincingly model this. It all feels arbitrary and scripted, and the person who feels most alienated as a result ends up being the player.
(Given a certain, bizarre undercurrent in the XCOM modding community... it would explain a lot. I don't know whether these are the same people, though.).

For a game with this much complexity, a SERIES of tutorial scenarios will also be important. The current tutorial is not acceptable (plus it's glitched).


I'm quite impressed with what they've done so far, but my "recommendation" is... going out on a limb. We'll see where it goes from here. It's definitely in Early Access.

EARLY ACCESS: The game is in a *bad* state. You have to be really motivated to put up with the tediously pointless micromanagement. There is a ton of potential, but we aren't there yet. Another point is that this cannot be played casually. I suspect that a single campaign takes about 40 hours to complete. If you don't have that kind of time then I would steer clear. Terra Invicta is a standalone game from Pavonis Interactive - an indie game studio, formed primarily from the creators of the fantastic Long War mods for XCOM 1 and 2. Following a Kickstarter campaign, they created a grand strategy about aliens invading Earth. At first glance, it looks like a very watered-down version of Crusader Kings. But then you realise that this game has correctly modelled orbital mechanics, and requires you to learn delta-V, transfer windows and orbit types for the purpose of spaceship combat. Then you learn that you have to design your spaceships in an incredibly meticulous process, in which you select the weapon type, engine type, fuel type, armour type, armour thickness on the front/side/back and even the type of armour, various additional modules, etc. And all of this you have to balance against the weight of the ship (affects delta-V), the cost of the ship, the cost of the fuel, the cost of the ammo... It's spreadsheet porn. Finally, you have a surprisingly open-ended spaceship battle side of the game, which you can autoresolve, or play manually. As for the politics on earth, you have about four agents to manage. Everything is a modified dice roll. The modifiers can be something as simple as popular support, but you can also pay resources to increase the likelihood of success. Other modifiers are, for example, how destabilised the country is, how much public support you have, how rich the nation is, etc. Agents have stats such as persuasion, espionage, science, security, etc. Agents start off with an occupation, for example "diplomat" or "mercenary". A diplomat can improve relations, but cannot attack things, while a mercenary can attack things by default, but not improve relations. However, you can attach organisations to your agents, which unlocks new abilities. Say you use your diplomat to take over Iran, and use this influence to attach Hezbollah to your diplomat. The diplomat can now attack alien assets or attempt assassinations, based on their "command" stat. I think the idea of sending Hezbollah to waste some ayys is a very strong selling point. There is criticism, however: the current state of QoL is not acceptable. There is far too much repetitive clicking that serves no purpose. The game is tragically unbalanced, and the only viable strategy is to play Western nations, because controlling them costs the same amount of administrative points as controlling anywhere else. Finally, you end up with strange things such as low-democracy countries being unable to invest in military tech level (???); or the well-intentioned but poorly-implemented climate change mechanics leading to countries having a -20% modifier to their ENTIRE ECONOMY for no reason (with no explanation), as early as 2023. They could've made alien plants grow faster from climate change or whatever, but instead we get a hamfisted, nebulous, and unfinished mechanic. I like that they tried to model economic development vs societal inequality; I like that high scores in democracy lead to your nation's unity moving towards a resting point of 50% which can be good or bad; and I like that they attempted to model short term gains vs sustainable development and pollution/climate change. But at the end of the day, countries are on a one-dimensional spectrum from "totalitarian" to "full democracy" - where one is better at literally everything (including military!). And the player has the same totalitarian control over all countries, anyway, regardless of how democratic they are. I feel as though the game spends too much time haranguing about exploitation, climate change and inequality - and too little time on programming an economy that would convincingly model this. It all feels arbitrary and scripted, and the person who feels most alienated as a result ends up being the player. [spoiler](Given a certain, bizarre undercurrent in the XCOM modding community... it would explain a lot. I don't know whether these are the same people, though.).[/spoiler] For a game with this much complexity, a SERIES of tutorial scenarios will also be important. The current tutorial is not acceptable (plus it's glitched). I'm quite impressed with what they've done so far, but my "recommendation" is... going out on a limb. We'll see where it goes from here. It's definitely in Early Access.