Skip to main content

Browse GamesGame JamsUpload GameWinter Sale 2025Developer LogsCommunity
On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
thedook55170 days ago

Interesting concept but needs a lot of tuning. Defending side seems to have all the advantages. The closest objective to the attacking force is 26" away from the closes a regular unit can be deployed (without ambush or scout).  Seizing objectives on turns 1 and 2 seem very difficult for the attackers, based on a 12" charge, with diminishing points returns. 

granting VPs for destroyed units disadvantages high model count armies from a balance perspective. Destroying a 500pt tank and a 70pt squad gives the same amount of VP.  

Reply
MagusCoral169 days ago

Thank you so much for the feedback!

Looking at this, I do agree that the battlefield should either be smaller or the objectives closer. That would probably help with making a turn 1 or 2 seize a bit more viable. The primary reason for why I placed the objectives where I did is that most of the VP for the attackers would come from unit destruction which is an attacker only VP objective and that seizing objectives would be primarily to deny further VPs to the defender team. That way, if the attackers seize two objectives by turn 3 and knocked out a few units you would end up with a pretty even score.

I do agree that maybe there would have been a better attacker VP strategy. Is there something you would recommend? This was all I could think of to keep the game balanced.

Reply
AboutFAQBlogContact us
Copyright © 2026 itch corp · Directory · Terms · Privacy · Cookies