Codex of Victory

Codex of Victory is a sci-fi turn-based strategy game set in a future where humanity is divided. Players command the forces of humanity against the Augments, a transhuman cyborg race seeking to ‘upgrade’ ordinary citizens. The gameplay combines base management, where players expand an underground HQ and manufacture advanced drone units, with tactical turn-based combat on hexagonal maps. Players must carefully upgrade their army and strategically deploy them in battles that are often described as intricate puzzles, requiring calculated moves to achieve victory across an extensive single-player campaign and online multiplayer.

Codex of Victory: A Competent but Flawed Heir to a Fading Genre

In the annals of video game history, certain titles emerge not as revolutionary landmarks, but as competent, niche offerings that faithfully serve a dedicated audience. Codex of Victory, developed by the Russian studio Ino-Co Plus and released in March 2017, is precisely such a game. It is a turn-based tactical wargame with real-time base-building elements, set against a neo-feudal sci-fi backdrop. While it successfully captures the essence of classic hex-based strategy games, it is ultimately hampered by a derivative narrative, a lack of innovation, and a presentation that belies its mobile game origins. This review will delve deep into the game’s development, its mechanics, its world, and its lasting legacy to determine its true place in the strategy pantheon.

Development History & Context

Codex of Victory was developed by Ino-Co Plus, a Russian studio with a pedigree in strategy games, having previously worked on titles like Majesty 2: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim, Fantasy Wars, and the Warlock series. In a 2016 interview, studio head Alexey Kozyrevexplained the studio’s pivot back to the wargame genre after the 4X ambitions of Warlock 2. The reason was pragmatic: a 4X project “requires much more content and work than a wargame,” and they lacked the publisher funding that Paradox Interactive had provided for their previous titles.

This development occurred against a backdrop Kozyrev described as a “renaissance of turn-based strategies,” following a long period of scarcity. However, he noted the market was becoming “oversaturated,” forcing niche titles like Codex of Victory to fight for attention. Developed by a core team of eight people over approximately a year, the game entered Steam Early Access in July 2016 with a deliberately low price point of $9.99 to build a community and gather feedback before a full release. Kozyrev was candid about the challenges of self-publishing a “new IP and a niche game,” acknowledging that few publishers were willing to take on such a project.

A key point of discussion during development was the game’s interface and mechanics, which many perceived as being designed for a mobile free-to-play market. Kozyrev refuted this, stating that mechanics like accelerating global time (as seen in XCOM or Majesty) were distinct from mobile F2P systems that accelerate individual upgrades. However, he did confirm that a tablet version was being considered post-PC release, a telling admission that speaks to the game’s streamlined, touch-friendly design.

Narrative & Thematic Deep Dive

The narrative of Codex of Victory is its weakest element, a by-the-numbers sci-fi conflict that fails to capitalize on its intriguing premise. The story is set in a future where humanity has colonized multiple planets but regressed into a neo-feudal society ruled by kings and dukes. This societal structure is juxtaposed against the transhumanist threat of the Augments, a race of cyborgs who began as humans adapting to harsh space conditions but evolved into a faction intent on “liberating” humanity by forcibly converting them into augmented beings.

On paper, this setup is ripe for exploring profound themes of transhumanism, the ethics of bodily autonomy, and the nature of evolution. In practice, as noted by critics and players alike, the story is a simple “backdrop.” One user review on VG Times succinctly stated, “The plot is weak. It is very annoying that the story is shown only from one side of the conflict.” The narrative presents a clear-cut good-vs-evil dynamic, with the Augments as unambiguous villains and the human kingdoms as the noble defenders. The potential for moral ambiguity—are the Augments truly evil or merely the next step in human evolution?—is completely squandered.

The characters are equally underdeveloped. You play as a generic “Lord” of the human kingdoms, and your allies and adversaries are archetypes without depth. The story is conveyed through text pop-ups and mission briefings, with no voice acting to lend weight or personality to the events. As the review from Save or Quit noted, “some level of voice acting would have helped the game infinitely to weave a much stronger narrative.” The story ultimately serves only as a vehicle to string together the missions, a missed opportunity to elevate the game beyond its mechanics.

Gameplay Mechanics & Systems

Codex of Victory’s gameplay is a fusion of two distinct modes: real-time base building and turn-based tactical combat on hexagonal grids.

Base Building & Global Strategy:
The base building is heavily inspired by XCOM‘s “ant farm” design. Players expand an underground HQ in real-time, constructing facilities like factories, research labs, and workshops. These buildings allow for unit production, research of new technologies, and upgrades. Resources and “blueprints” are collected to progress, but the system is more linear than it appears. As noted in multiple reviews, the campaign structure is rigid; facilities and missions are unlocked in a “strictly pre-defined order,” limiting player agency. The global strategy layer involves moving your forces between territories on a planetary map. Enemy forces can reinforce areas, creating dynamic difficulty spikes. A key mechanic is the management of “global time”; moving armies and building facilities takes time, forcing players to strategize about which missions to tackle and in what order to be efficient.

Tactical Combat:
The core of the game is its turn-based combat. Players command a variety of robotic units—tanks, mechs, artillery—on hex-based maps. Each unit has distinct movement (AP), attack range, armor, and health stats. The combat system was designed to avoid classic “save-scumming” pitfalls; saves are only allowed between missions, and a unit’s loss is not permanent, as entire classes of units are upgraded at the base rather than individual units gaining experience.

However, this design philosophy has a significant downside. Many critics, including a detailed Steam user review, pointed out that the game often feels less like a tactical wargame and more like a “puzzle” or “solving sudoku.” The reviewer from GameGuru.ru echoed this, stating each mission has “one variant of solution.” The AI is frequently criticized for being simplistic and reliant on numerical superiority rather than clever tactics. It often employs basic schemes, waiting for the player to enter its attack range before swarming. This, combined with a sometimes unforgiving ruleset (e.g., not showing enemy artillery ranges), leads to frustration and mission restarts rather than strategic adaptation.

Customization and Progression:
A strength of the game is its unit customization. With over 25 unit types, each can be fitted with a variety of upgrade modules that alter their stats, from increased health and regeneration to extended range and damage. This allows for meaningful army composition and tactical flexibility. Progression through the 20+ hour campaign steadily introduces new units and enemy types, maintaining a decent difficulty curve despite the AI’s shortcomings.

Notable Omissions:
A glaring omission, highlighted in multiple reviews, is the complete lack of a skirmish mode. This severely limits the game’s replayability beyond its linear campaign and basic online multiplayer. The multiplayer itself, while functional, was described as “clunky” and failed to capture a significant audience.

World-Building, Art & Sound

Visual Design:
Codex of Victory employs a cel-shaded, cartoonish art style that reviewers consistently compared to Red Alert 3 or mobile games. The “neo-feudal sci-fi” setting is a novel idea, blending futuristic mechs and tanks with medieval titles and heraldry, but this unique flair isn’t fully explored in the narrative. The visuals are clean, colorful, and functional. Units and environments are well-defined, and the game runs smoothly. However, the aesthetic drew criticism for its “mobile looks.” The UI is simplistic, using standard fonts like Arial, which feels out of place in a futuristic setting and further reinforces the impression of a mobile port.

Sound Design:
The audio package is perhaps the game’s most lackluster aspect. The soundtrack is generic and repetitive, failing to leave any memorable impression. The complete absence of voice acting makes the already weak story feel even more detached and impersonal. Sound effects during combat are serviceable but minimal, contributing to a overall experience that can feel “silent and bland,” as noted by KeenGamer. The lack of audio-visual feedback during actions, like attacks, lessens the impact and satisfaction of gameplay.

Reception & Legacy

Upon its release, Codex of Victory received mixed to average reviews. It holds a 76% average from critics on MobyGames based on three reviews:
* StopGame (80%) praised its puzzle-like tactical depth but noted the simple story presentation.
* GameGuru.ru (75%) compared it to solving a sudoku puzzle, with a predetermined solution.
* GreatGamer.Ru (72%) called it a “competent, moderately interesting” niche wargame, but warned its “minimalist ‘mobile’ look” and “‘Russian’ difficulty” would deter many.

User reviews on platforms like Steam and Metacritic (where it has a 6.4 user score) echoed these sentiments. Players appreciated the solid tactical core and customization but criticized the weak story, poor AI, mobile-inspired UI, and lack of a skirmish mode. A common refrain was that it was a “good mobile game” misplaced on PC.

Its legacy is minimal. Codex of Victory was released into a crowded field of turn-based tactics games, dominated by giants like XCOM 2. It did not innovate enough to stand out nor polish its concepts enough to become a cult classic. It remains a footnote, a competent but flawed attempt by a experienced studio to carve out a space in a genre they loved. It demonstrated the difficulties of self-publishing a niche title and the perils of a design that feels compromised between PC and mobile audiences. Its influence on subsequent games is negligible.

Conclusion

Codex of Victory is a game of conflicting identities. It is a PC wargame with the soul of a mobile title, a title with a fascinating setting that tells a boring story, and a tactical experience that prioritizes puzzle-like precision over dynamic warfare.

For the starved turn-based tactics fan in 2017, it offered a solid, 20-hour campaign with a robust unit customization system. However, its lack of innovation, simplistic AI, absence of key modes like skirmish, and overall presentation that felt dated even at release prevent it from being remembered fondly. It is not a bad game—it is mechanically competent—but it is an unambitious one. It faithfully follows the formulas established by better games without adding anything meaningful of its own.

In the grand history of video games, Codex of Victory‘s place is as a curious artifact: a testament to the challenges faced by mid-tier developers in a competitive market and a reminder that competence alone is not enough to secure a legacy. It is a game that is, ultimately, as forgettable as its name.