Rule the Waves 3

About

"Rule the Waves 3" is a naval simulation game that covers the period from 1890 to 1970, allowing players to design and build their navy's ships, manage their fleet's operations, and engage in tactical naval battles. With campaigns starting in four different time periods, players must carefully manage their naval budget and navigate political tensions while forging their own unique history. Battles are resolved using a realistic tactical system, providing a challenging and immersive experience.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo

89%

Audience ScoreBased on 628 reviews

graphics35 positive mentions

replayability3 negative mentions

Incredibly detailed ship design and fleet management mechanics that allow for deep strategic gameplay.
Engaging and immersive naval warfare simulation that spans from 1890 to 1970, providing a rich historical context.
The game offers a unique experience for naval history enthusiasts, with a strong focus on realism and historical accuracy.

The user interface is outdated and clunky, making it difficult to navigate and read, especially on higher resolution screens.
The battle generator can lead to frustrating scenarios where the player has little control over which ships participate in battles.
There are occasional bugs and glitches that can disrupt gameplay, including issues with save files and AI behavior.

graphics
160 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
22%
71%
8%
The graphics of the game are widely described as simplistic and reminiscent of older eras, often compared to spreadsheet interfaces or early 90s visuals. While many players acknowledge the lack of visual appeal, they emphasize that the game's depth, mechanics, and immersive naval simulation experience far outweigh the graphical shortcomings. For those who prioritize gameplay and strategic depth over aesthetics, the game offers a rich and engaging experience despite its dated graphics.
- “The graphics may not be much, but this allows it to be a very powerful engine for naval combat.”
- “If you can look past primitive graphics and sophisticated spreadsheets and allow yourself to be immersed, it's lots of fun, especially if you like tech, warfare, and history.”
- “Don't worry about the 2D graphics—this is a deep, engaging, and fun experience to play.”
- “You also have to be fully aware that you'll need a vivid imagination to immerse yourself into the world you create as the graphics on offer are little better than Atari-era.”
- “The only really bad thing I can say is that the graphics are objectively bad.”
- “Combine all of that with a fairly high price and 90's level graphics and I just can't recommend this game.”
gameplay
76 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
18%
74%
8%
The gameplay of the game is characterized by its depth and complexity, offering a rich experience for players who appreciate intricate mechanics over graphics. However, many users find the user interface confusing and poorly designed, leading to frustration with the game's mechanics and a reliance on RNG elements that can detract from strategic decision-making. While the game has a steep learning curve and lacks clear tutorials, those who invest the time to understand its systems often find it rewarding and immersive, particularly in its representation of naval warfare and historical events.
- “Despite the spreadsheet-like first impression, this game is rich in features and mechanics that make it a really immersive experience for those who value mechanics and depth over graphics and polished UI.”
- “The main gameplay loop involves balancing your naval budget so you don't go broke, trying to not get booted from the admiralty by losing too much prestige, passing turns as your scientists research technology, and responding to various events that can and will happen.”
- “Fascinatingly in-depth mechanics combine with a loving attention to detail, producing a strategy and tactics game above all else.”
- “New in RTW 3 is the missile age, but it is not really working out in terms of gameplay.”
- “This is a massive oversight by the devs and should not be happening in a game that costs over $25, and whose gameplay consists mostly of looking at spreadsheets and moving around 2-dimensional ships on a 2-dimensional map.”
- “The information the game gives you to make decisions is lacking or outright false, and the devs haven't even implemented a tutorial for many mechanics, with a poorly thought out UI that doesn't give you the information you want.”
story
20 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
15%
70%
15%
The game's story aspect is largely centered around player-driven narratives, allowing users to create their own experiences through strategic decisions and fleet management. While some players appreciate the sandbox elements and the unpredictability of AI opponents, others criticize the lack of a cohesive narrative and the limitations imposed on ship selection during battles. Overall, the game emphasizes personal storytelling over a predefined plot, with mixed reviews on its execution and engagement.
- “The other reviews already do a good job of talking about the technicalities of the game, so let me tell you a story.”
- “Don't expect this to be a sandbox where you can bash ships together and create grand battles with your favorite ships - because the game is here to tell a very different story, where one of the main messages is to critique quasi-Mahanian grand fleet strategies of the early 20th century, and to show the limitations even of the more modern air/sub/missile warfare that came to replace it.”
- “Back in the RTW and RTW II days, I poured countless hours into creating a long-form after-action report (AAR) narrative story of the Imperial Ottoman Navy (modded); RTW has all the little missing features.”
- “The plot twists and turns, but mainly my alliance gets majorly stomped with some limited decent wins.”
- “Don't expect this to be a sandbox where you can bash ships together and create grand battles with your favorite ships - because the game is here to tell a very different story, where one of the main messages is to critique quasi-Mahanian grand fleet strategies of the early 20th century, and to show limitations even of the more modern air/sub/missile warfare that came to replace it.”
- “X and provide more contextual tool tips in some areas like the ship builder, and some graphically interesting ways to relay major events like a capital ship getting hit or sinking, it'd better tell the story that you are creating with your choices, and be more accessible to a broader audience.”
optimization
17 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
18%
65%
18%
The optimization aspect of the game has received mixed reviews, with players noting a lack of clarity on how various elements, such as crew ratings and captain traits, impact performance. Many feel that the auto design feature is poorly optimized, often producing designs that are impractical or outdated. While the game runs smoothly on most systems, the absence of meaningful performance metrics and the inability to evaluate ship effectiveness detracts from the overall experience.
- “The auto design feature is in serious need of optimization.”
- “You've spent many, many hours working toward the satisfaction of that final victory (or defeat) only to discover there is no victory, no defeat, no final score and no evaluation on your performance.”
- “Although the actual art design of any given ship has zero impact on performance, the new ship designer and generator allow for a much greater level of detail.”
- “You have no idea what effect captains and admirals have on performance, if any.”
- “When you look at your build screen, you see more than just the gun size; you see how much it has been upgraded in performance over earlier models, but just how much that affects performance is completely unknown and there is no mechanic to discover that information.”
- “In the time I've played, the doctrine training doesn't appear to have any noticeable effect on ship/crew performance.”
replayability
11 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
18%
55%
27%
The game offers exceptional replayability due to its deep customization options, strategic ship design, and the engaging challenge of overcoming various gameplay scenarios. Players appreciate the opportunity to experiment and learn from failures, fostering a strong attachment to their creations. While the graphics may not be impressive, the rich content and community support enhance the overall experience, making it a game worth revisiting repeatedly.
- “Add to this an XCOM-style level of attachment to the ships you've painstakingly designed, named, and upgraded (and are now exploding into a thousand bits because you skimped on the turret-top armor), and you've got a game that is both educational, fun, lends itself to experimentation, and is endlessly replayable.”
- “It's not the prettiest game out there, but it makes up for that with astonishing detail and endless replayability with a passionate and helpful community and dev team.”
- “Thus in the end you've sailed from 'from tedium to apathy and back again' only to discover that the game has almost no replay value.”
- “It's an addictive problem to solve, and one that has no real solution - meaning endless replayability.”
- “There are so many interesting parts of this game to learn about and become master of that replayability never seems to be a problem.”
stability
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
14%
86%
The stability of the game has received mixed reviews, with many users reporting significant bugs and glitches that affect gameplay, while a few claim the game is free of issues. Overall, it appears that while some players experience frustrating technical problems, others find the game to be stable and enjoyable.
- “Let me begin by saying this game is 100% bug-free.”
- “First off, the game is very, very buggy!”
- “Tl;dr: buggy as all heck.”
- “There are, inevitably, still some glitches, bugs, and rough edges in the game.”
grinding
5 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
20%
80%
Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be excessively tedious and frustrating, often overshadowing the enjoyment of combat and navy building. While the combat system has its moments, the repetitive nature of battles and the imbalance in mission difficulty contribute to a laborious experience that detracts from overall engagement.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “As it stands, the mildly interesting combat system is not worth the frustrating, laborious, tedious process of building up a navy. This is ironic, because in games like Ultimate Admirals, From the Depths, and similar titles, building the navy is often the best part.”
- “Only real complaint is that battles can get tedious, both in terms of a single battle pointlessly dragging on for various reasons (e.g., a chase that won't end) and multiple battles playing out very similarly and getting boring. The game will give you a lot of too easy/too hard missions that you can't auto-resolve to skip.”
humor
5 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the humor in the game largely stems from the absurdity of naval technology and the comical failures of their creations, such as over-armed ships and exaggerated fleet sizes. The exaggerated scenarios, like dodging the same torpedo multiple times and witnessing hilariously inflated AI fleets, contribute to a lighthearted and entertaining experience, despite some frustrations with the game's limitations.
- “I don't know a lot about early naval technology, but I have learned that 24 2-inch guns on a 19th-century corvette is super funny.”
- “It is hilarious and fun to see your goofy creations fail spectacularly.”
- “The lack of an option for historical budgets also tends to lead to hilariously inflated AI fleet sizes from navies that could never afford navies half the size they get in the game.”
emotional
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Users describe the emotional aspect of the game as a roller-coaster experience, highlighting moments of frustration due to persistent error messages that disrupt gameplay, particularly during fleet exercise scenarios. This combination of emotional highs and lows contributes to a complex player experience, where moments of engagement are often overshadowed by technical issues.
- “An emotional roller-coaster.”
music
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
The music aspect of the game is notably absent, with users highlighting a complete lack of any musical elements, resulting in a stark and silent experience akin to a blank sheet of paper filled only with text.
- “There's no music in any form; it's simply a quiet white sheet of paper with small text.”
- “The soundtrack is repetitive and lacks variety, making it hard to stay engaged.”
- “The music feels out of place and doesn't match the game's atmosphere at all.”