What’s the catch? Pay to progress — reported by 46 users.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 1.0.5325 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.5325, updated 2026-09-16.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.0.52.18 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-07 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version VARY, updated 2026-09-10.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Great graphics. I don't like getting attacked all the time, no real protection. Definitely a pay-to-play game. Uninstalling as of now. False Advertising
This company uses false advertising to promote their game. The game is nothing like the ad I watched. Gamers HATE when companies do this and we don't like when you respond followed with: "Thank-you for your feedback and we are working on…
I'm gonna leave a review so ppl stop downloading your game. you ads look nothing like your game. your game is a cheesy wannabe rts with cookie cutter design elements that has been seen in thousands of mobile games now. build a city. keep…
Pay to progress
This game heavily relies on your wallets. At first, the game just want players to enjoy its graphics and mechanics. But in the long run, pay-to-win players and alliances dominates the whole server leaving free-to-play players behind…
This is another p2w game that is a copy of State of Survival but with different graphics. Everything is there, Behemoth, training soldiers, upgrading buildings, research tech, all the same stuff but the graphics are different and the game…
Great game. Very strategic game play. F2p Or P2W like most games. I do enjoy it. Only problem is, as much money as the devs make from people spending, They could a lot better on event rewards. This has been a outgoing issue, and probably…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.