Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics

You played the "Challenge 2" of the first campaign. I just tested it and it is working (maybe an old bug I already fixed).

About the mountains, it was a design decision to make it block all land units (in earlier versions infantry could move on it just like in AW).

Forest slowing down units - implemented.

Buildings do give good defense bonus to units, it just isn't shown when hovering the mouse over it... something to consider, thanks for pointing.

Game not ending due an stealth AI unit: possible, it happened to me once. It's easy to check by using cheat codes (currently only my special dev build allows cheats). You can reveal an enemy stealth unit by moving an unit over it.

Yes, in C&C games the radar is necessary to show the minimap. I consider this an obsolete game mechanic. I once thought about a radar sweep ability, but it was scraped and ended being just a tech building.

1)No problem, but any particular reason?

2)Implemented. Just hover the mouse over the button for a few momments.

4)Implemented. There is Easy, Medium, Hard and Cheater difficulty levels for skirmish games (AI at campaign mode always behaves at Hard difficulty).

5)A delete button is now available at the load game menu.

6)Initially it was planned to implement different movement types for vehicles like in AW, but the idea was scraped. Further changes that alter the game mechanics would break most of the existing maps.

7)The building isn't damaged until the unit above it is destroyed. The only exception is for units that causes splash damage (the center tile takes a fraction of the damage just like the 4 tiles around surrounding it).

8)Will consider. The only inconvenience is that "A" coincides with the shortcut for (A)ttack.

10)I understand your point, but such large scale changes are kind of impracticable at this point as I'm planning the launch date (this game have been in development for more than 4 years). Of course, nothing prevents me from adding more features on future.

Thanks again.

(1 edit)

Sorry for the late reply, Space.cpp. I'm not too used to this site yet. I just re-download it again, just to check it out. Thank you for taking time for explaining; not everyone does, but I am very happy to see some suggestions been implemented. Of course, talking simply as a Player's perspective. I like the 'concept' of this game. Advanced Wars and C&C were both wonderful games. And that's why I have much expectations about this one. I hope that it'll become something that many people would be able to enjoy the 'Grand' final version. Now, for the Previous Points: P = Previous

P01) Let's just say it's probably the same reason why some people like to game 'mano-a-mano' instead of using guns. Some super-powers are just too 'eccentric' to have a decent brawl. An unbalanced super-power often remove the strategic part. But also, someone peculiar like me, like to test the AI, so, the removal of the super-power allow me to understand its logic better—well, not sure if that's why it might be better to leave it like that.

P02) I think we might have a misunderstanding somewhere? I just downloaded the game again, and quickly tried it. Does it have to be charged or something? It doesn't seem to work. And besides, I personally think that it would be better to work on Campaign and Skirmish. What I had in mind was more something along—"You are wondering what are the 3 detailed super-powers of yours... or the enemy's—well, just go to the menu—open the encyclopedia—and there, it'd explains it in details what's going on. I mean, a lot of game creators have this assumptions that Players should know, should understand, should, should, should... But look at those epic games: Advanced Wars's tutorial was animately annoying as hell. But everything was so simple to understand, so clearly established somewhere, and the concepts might be simple, but not at all problematic—which probably explain why it was more accessible toward MANY people. Even my friend's old-fashioned dad, who only swear by classical games like Chess, end up learning how to play. (And damn... he became an addict!) So the main point of P02 is more: if the Tutorial is not complete like the annoying (fortunately, skip-able) one in Advanced Wars, than at least, try to make sure that Players get their information somewhere, without having to come here. Yeah... you're right. Many Players are stupid, lazy, and prejudiced, or whatever you can think of... And yet, when trying to figure out a supposedly 'entertaining' game is more tiring than doing Advanced Algebra or whatever, than those creators should not be surprised by why their game becomes a niche game, instead. So, in my opinion, Accessibility sometimes is even more important than the game concept. Many players would rather prefer to play simple, shitty games that doesn't bug, than a fancy 3D high-concept that ultimately sucks.

P04) I didn't see anything about choosing difficulty level—did I do something wrong, or downloaded the wrong thing, or something? (I re-downloaded the game—REPLACED with the patch) Anyway, it doesn't seem to work for me.

P05) Didn't find it.

P06) This point is tricky. How do I say it, it's like the point that determine if the mechanic of the game is Strategic... or not. After a few plays, the impression I had was that it wasn't all that strategic. What I mean is, a strategic game—in my simple definition—is when someone play Paper, than you have to make sure to avoid playing the Rock, and have a Scissor ready. In this game... after a few tests, my conclusion was: it matters not really what super-power I use, it matters not really Forest, Road, etc.—All I need to do, is to make I overpower the enemy with Golds. And to do that, instead (like the AI), of building a Refinery, than a Barrack; my play became almost the same for every game:

T01: start Refinery A—T02: finish Refinery-A—T03: at the middle point of Gold-B and Refinery-A, start Barrack—T04: Do not finish the Barrack, start Refinery-B—T05: finish Refinery-B—T06: finish Barrack—etc. 

Weird enough, as long you expand like this, you just don't get caught by any difficulties... It is way too linear. The games where I tried to build fortifications were the games I actually struggled the most. C&C, the fortifications were VERY useful. But here: not at all. It is more burdensome because it is not cheap, it doesn't have much coverage, very weak in durability, it is not mobile, and worse, it takes 2 turns. In C&C, even if 5 or 6 soldiers try to invade you, a single  Machinegun can kill them all. You have no choice to bring a tank. Not even a bazooka guy can last. But here, three four soldiers come and bang! no more fortification. I actually don't even remember if I ever killed somebody with it. Strategically speaking, my perception is: fortifications are an un-necessary burden. Better build soldiers as Meat-shields, instead. So I think... mixing both Concepts is very neat. It is just that it also needs to change the rules somehow. It CAN'T use the same totally logic because it is turn-based.  Right now, I just get this feeling that once I did my Starts like previously mentioned. All I need to do is to expand logically (not all fronts at the same time).  I barely bother to build anything other than Soldiers. And once I have enough of them to act as moving Meat-Shields, I also saved enough Golds to build Stronger Units... directly skip whatever tanks, etc. And all this... I barely even used the super-powers; because I could not remember which was what. I think it is exactly because of those mechanics, that the strategy is rigid. Well, I don't understand the problems from the perspective of a creator, so forgive me for saying things that might sound unrealistic. I just think that in your game... whatever means you use, you should make it clear that Scissor is stronger than Paper, and weaker than a Rock. And whenever there is a Scissor somewhere, there's also a Rock.

And for your point: "breaking the existing maps..." I think it is worth it! Honestly speaking, I personally think that this kind of Strategy/Turn-Based should be made on Hexagonal Maps, instead. The reason is VERY simple. It looks more realistic. I mean, there's no 'diagonal' units (obviously surrounding the enemy, but can't reach it.) Visually speaking, the diagonal units is within the range, but game speaking, it is somehow considered as located 2 cases away. Something weird that one can get used to... but that doesn't make it attractive, in my opinion. The second thing is—all your maps are REALLY symetrical, and that's nice and all for a 'mano-a-mano' (which I can't do, because I can't remove the Ready of the AI); but a bit... flat, in my opinion. I couldn't find a way to adjust the AI to increase the difficulty, but I couldn't find it, so I tried to find a map to compensate for the AI, which I couldn't do... because they were just... too perfect! And that, brings me to the most important last point.

P07) The Splash Damage is exactly one of those information that should be explained, and accessible somewhere.

P08) It doesn't really have to be AWSD; it could be for example: SEDF or whatever. Of course, the best, ideally, is to allow the Players to set their own configuration. My 'only' Left-Right Up-Down is at the extreme right of my computer. I am right-handed, and using right mouse... Now imagine me trying to 'navigate' the game.

A) This is a new point. I just start it with the  Patch. I think there must be something wrong because many of your rectifications I couldn't find it. Besides, the mouse wasn't very accurate. I had to click like near a centimeter away from the target to get it right.

My last point is this. If you ever intend to commercialize this game... I strongly suggest you to create the campaign—not ONLY as a form of tutorial, or something you had no choice to do because all games of the genre had one. But more see it like... the greatest opportunity for a strategic game—especially NEW game—to create a strong emotional bond between the player and the game. Right now, what I am experimenting, is an interesting, but flawed combinations of two past great-games. And that's it... no emotional attachment what-so-ever. Think, when you think about C&C... you don't think about the dynamics of the game, you think about Kane, and how crazy that bastard was... and the story follows. The same for Advanced Wars. All tho childish COs with their unique powers. Or Warcraft, Arthas and such. Or even Starcraft with Sarah Kerrigan etc. I actually never seen a single popular strategic game that doesn't have a good story. And it is exactly because those... that Players are willing to immerse themselves in whatever fantastical universe. This is just my personal opinion. If you were able to make it so that your game have a little unique, nicely designed 2D story; it would not only allow Players to differentiate you from those 2 past-great games, it would also let Players immerse themselves, much better than right now. Think about Starcraft, or Warcraft. Which of those don't have compelling heroes, or stories? I—myself, became fan of those strategic game for those universes. If someone wants to to play chess... there's ton of versions out there you can download. But... if someone wants to BUY a game of chess. Better make sure your board and pieces attract the buyers—and THAT, is what I mean.

In any case, please don't take my comments as rants; it would do me great injustice. I honestly hope for your game to be more complete and flawless. And I hope that it would help you somehow. 


(1 edit)

I apologize for not having explained it more clearly: the version available here on is very outdated. Only a small group of testers had access to new versions since then.

About the defense towers: they are kinda underpowered because I wanted to favor an aggressive playstyle. They are useful, but you shouldn't rely just on them for defending your base.

About the AI: I'm aware the AI isn't strong enough to beat a high level player, but it is good enough to provide some challenge. Also, I suggest to not take the AI as a parameter for balance. For example, early versions of the game had some serious balance issues that went completely unnoticed until I started playing multiplayer against some friends.
I'm open to keep polishing the balance based on feedback from multiplayer matches.

"Besides, the mouse wasn't very accurate. I had to click like near a centimeter away from the target to get it right."

This is news to me. Can you provide a screenshot or/and steps on how to reproduce?

I implemented WSAD controls as a toggleable option.
Just to be sure: You know you can move the camera with the middle mouse button, right?