Some warnings 14 users report having to pay to progress. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 275 reviews, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 3.8.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 3.8.0, updated 2026-10-21.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
No Dragons, No Magic, Just Pure Strategy!
Join the other 2.5+ million players in our fast growing, worldwide community of kingdom building strategists! Be brave, calculated, and cold-blooded to thrive in this epic multiplayer auto-chess / city-building medieval war game.
Step into the medieval era, progress your empire through the ages and engage in fierce battles. Lead mighty warriors, dressed in the finest armor, wielding lethal weapons, as you embark on a journey of exploration, and conquest.. Dominate in one of the most genuine and historically accurate war games ever made for mobile. Leave your mark on the annals of history, your troops await your command!
Every weapon, piece of armor, and tactic is based on real history.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Pay to progress: raised by 14 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 20 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
275 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Pay to win — You are a typical game designer lazy who want to drain our wallet for your well being.connard.
Pay to win — This is the biggest waste of time, that is meant to be a pay to win. It puts you against people you have no chance of beating then shows you a golden cannon for $40 that will wipe them out. This game is such a sham that even…
Slow Progress but fun — The game has some long upgrade and crafting times, but overall it’s decently fun to hop on throughout the day. The combat is fun with the card selection and use of tons of different equipment. The only reason its…
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 3.8.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 3.8.0, updated 2026-10-21.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
Greetings, noble ruler! New challenges and greater glory await: - New armor: Vlad Blood Armor. Forged in crimson for the fiercest warlords, it's ready to strike fear into your enemies. - Halloween skin for the Military Fork. Give your army a haunting new look just in time for the season of shadows. - Clan Duel (Beta). A brand-new feature that lets your clan test its might against rivals. Your kingdom awaits its next great victory. Rally your forces and claim your place among legends!
Appworthy
dawn-of-agesAssessed 2026-10-27 from 275 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.