Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs

Junk007

6
Posts
2
Topics
2
Following
A member registered Jul 20, 2021

Recent community posts

(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. 

Seeya.

(2 edits)

Hmm... Let me try to remember. There was this stage where I had only a boat and 3 units I think. I had to conquer a city, like the objective said. Which I did... and—nothing happened. I just quit the game. Oh, there's some (not sure if it's only my impression; but I can tell you I played most of whatever strategic outhere) but is it normal that units no longer climb mountains? Or the forest doesn't seem to limit much movements? Btw, units defense is higher on plain than road—I can understand that—but higher or equal than within a city? I would 'naturally' think it more logical to have have a defense higher within a city than even a forest (well, no more mountains... it seems.) So, when I bugged at that campaign, I focused on Skirmish. And yeah—there was this Island game where I literally destroyed every buildings and enemies... yet, still no end. I thought that maybe it was a stealth submarine or plane. I tried to build a couple to scout. After 20 turns... I just quitted. In C&C the old ones, if I remember right, the Radar does more than just being a requirement, to avoid situations like that. And I think the Random Map in Skirmish has a prob. I tried to Save&Load and it failed. And yeah, you know, when you click on a unit, there is a small screen poping down in the middle. In a smaller map, this screen prevent me to move my unit. Oh, if I may, I'd like to offer some suggestions.

S1) Possibility to remove READY for the computer on Skirmish

S2) In-Game, have the possibility to check some information about General Powers.

S3) Describe in the Encyclopedia how much money earned by those Gems, and Rigs. If not, because each turn, it doesn't mention how much is added, I could not decide if I should focus more on Land or Seas without testing it by building boats... but by the time that I was ready... It was stupid, because my Land strategy would get me a sure win, anyway.

S4) Possibility to played/choose harder level of computer

S5) Never figure out how to erase my MANY saved games... because I like to try different variation of the same map. But then, it's waay too confusing with all those saves.

S6) I suggest not to be able to build on the road. And make it so that the road literally offer no protection while possessing a distinct advantage in speed boost instead. And/or, if the road is somehow destroyed, it is still workable, but will slow down instead of speeding. And maybe add some Control Range around the unit. But now, the movement range seems strangely irrealistically imbalanced.

S7) Some game mechanics are hard to grasp. Like when I shoot a range attack on an enemy building WITH an enemy unit, what's the ratio damage for both? (Building and Unit) In many game, you must destroy the unit first before it touches the building... but here, I don't get it.  Seems the game is similar to 2 great strategic games. People like me naturally have some... 'preconceptions' about how it SHOULD be... If you don't want it to be that case, then better put better explanations somewhere we can see it 'In-Game' to explain those little differences.

S8) Offer option to move screen with AWSD too (while playing with a mouse). Its 'currently' not very ergo-friendly.

S9) Oh yeah, there was something wrong with the tuto... I forgot what it was, but I didn't finish it. I said fuck it. And there's also some prob with the statistic screen when someone overplay... as if number too big is too much of a prob to be shown.

S10) I truly think that'd be nice to have something to save the previous chosen option in skirmish. When someone play a lot... always clicking the same thing is very bothersome. 

S10) While it is nice and all to have something similar to what most knows... I suggest you to create a 'mechanic' or whatever, in the game, to make it more 'unique', 'personal', and 'original'. That'd be more than: "Oh, it's good but that's it." instead, it'd become more like: "Wow! This is THAT... but even better!" Like for example: You could do the exact same game... but now, it's no longer old-fashioned squares. It's hexagones. Or a bigger strategic map, where a battle is just a scale of the 'real' "Eternal" part of the war. Your game name gives a lot of expectation by Grand-sounding it, while I haven't seen it to best 'yet' the original. (Personal Opinion) Just that, changes the whole dynamics. Just a suggestion like that.

Sorry, that's about all I got for now. I didn't really try the whole thing. Mainly focused on Skirmish. I'll let you know if I find more. I like the game, and hope for a much better stuff. It sounds like a lot of ranting, but that's because your idea is very good: combining Advanced War and C&C. But there's one thing you should know, C&C wasn't a turn-based game, there was a possibility to build Walls and stuffs. In overall, I think that the idea of 'MANY' generals is good, but realistically speaking, the game is unbalanced. I mean, I realized that the most pratical strategy to win most of the time, is simply: build soldier, and more soldiers. There's not even way to build defensive Towers (2 turns? When the map is usually big enough, and 3 hits destroy the thing... it is simply a waste of money. In order to adjust that, it would be better to refine some stats of the units, and if the number is too weird, then show some of kind of scale like 10 stars, instead of the numbers. Currently, there's many Generals, but the different strategies to win is very impractical due to movement and game unbalance. The turn number for building is not balanced too. The very useful C&C defensive buildings is very useless here. 2 turns to build them is too long, and some more important building should take slightly longer, to make the game more balanced. You are already very well started. Time to go beyond your predecessors. I hope to see more, and better refined. Thanks for this nice game, I'll wait for the wonderful one.

Oh, btw... not sure where I had to ask this question ZetanDS. But, without spoiling... I've reached a point where whatever I do... nothing else pop-out—so, no more progress. Does that mean that's where the 'current' story is? I'm not sure because usually... something will somehow warn you about it. So... I'm kind of lost about that. I truly hope that I didn't find it... though I highly doubt that. Thanks in advance!

Honestly, one of the best—the most memorable Visual Novel that I ever play-watched. I swear... the creator has not only a good taste in Character Creations, Story Developments, but also a very nice sense of Graphical Aesthetics. The characters are simply amazing—of course, it's not perfect—nothing ever was. But it is one of the most amazing out there. This is no cheap-lust and junk-food conversations. This is sensual at times, erotic and carnal at another, and yet; quite positively surprising, deep, and spiritual at every other times. Of course, there are freakish stuffs that I can barely stand like the decayed... but even then, I have to admit that they are amazingly made; and the dialogs are no cheap-talks and the characters are not only dumb, uni-dimensional folks like most Visual Novels out there. Great, really. I TRULY look forward to the updates and more. Dang! Good stuff! Thank you for your hard-work. I love this 'novel' depiction of Egypt that's certainly unique but still relevant. Dude... we don't know eachother—but hey, keep up the good work. If this... is not about to become a little masterpiece of its own... well—they better redefine the term 'masterpiece' then.

A very nice combination of both etopic games: Command & Conquer and Advanced Wars.  There are slightly some freeze and bugs, but overall, it does the job that it inspires. The only shame... is that I think the name lost its once-a-time opportunity for a most fitting name. I look forward to a more... complete version than this one. And hopefully the graphic—2D is no problem—could be more attractive instead of generic.

Aye 'sigh'. This game is the biggest disappointment I had for a little while. Graphic are classic, game expectation was high due to the strategic element. Can you  believe that I read the whole thing—Lexicon etc.—and then... there was no then. I couldn't even manage to play a single game vs a computer or something. The tutorial bugged: I couldn't build a wood log thing—couldn't quit the game. The lexicon bugged: temple or what not—unfinished descriptions. And then, when I gave up the tuto, and went for the endless war... well—the only endless thing I found was disappointment. Couldn't set a computer—couldn't quit the mod... What the heck is this? Such a lack of professionalism is really something else. I mean, you did mention there could be bugs—but then Hell—bugs is acceptable when there is something—a little thing—or anything presentable! What's the point of opening the game, spending more than a full hour to understand... just for NOTHING? The only thing that'd create, is frustration and disappointment. Anyway, finished ranting. Time to get the hell out there.

(Sorry for writing here. Didn't know where to write.)

Hi! First of all, thanks for making this wonderful, yet simple game.

Though I believe that some newer elements could improve the game even more. For example, at some point, when it is the middle-end game of a large battle—there's simply too many redundant units. Instead, I was wondering if there was a way to leverage that. Like building a unit that takes longer turns, but doesn't attack and defend. And if it wasn't destroyed, then it could transform into a stationary tower-defense, or something.

Oh, right. I think that while it is nice to have a end-game summary chart that absolutely doesn't tell me something—like: what-the-heck is the 'odds'—I think simply being able to look at the rest of the foggy map would be nice, and would let us understand better. (Knowing that I built 67 Soldiers is absolutely not as significant, then knowing what would've happened if I did not win at that turn.

The game assume too much that we should know about concepts, such as: support? range support?

And the second point, that I could simply not grasp. Is that there were some games were I had an Artillery surrounded by Soldiers. And yet a random enemy unit had managed to break through. Theoretically speaking: my Soldier was a defensive unit, and he was surrounded by not only 2 other soldiers, but also covered by an Artillery right besides. The funny thing is, the enemy was only a single Soldier with a Cavalry unit. 

So, you see—that... I just absolutely don't get it. The only thing that comes to my mind is either there's a bug somewhere, or there's something unclear that I haven't understood about the support and range-support thing.

My poor-understanding of the support and range-support (that I assumed by myself), is that support boost the defense of an unit right besides the artillery, by 3. And range-support boost the attack of the defense of the unit, within the coverage by 2. Please, correct me if I am misunderstanding. Thanks.

I tried to look further into the details, but I just couldn't find any. There's no Faq or Guide, and the tutorial never explain about the 'support' thing. I did not lose the game... but the fact that I won without mastering the thing remove the strategic significance of this victory.

I hope that either someone could enlighten me, or guide me toward the 'right' answer. Thanks for creating this game. I look forward to a more 'complete' version.

(2 edits)

Hi! First of all, thanks for making this wonderful, yet simple game.

Though I believe that some newer elements could improve the game even more. For example, at some point, when it is the middle-end game of a large battle—there's simply too many redundant units. Instead, I was wondering if there was a way to leverage that. Like building a unit that takes longer turns, but doesn't attack and defend. And if it wasn't destroyed, then it could transform into a stationary tower-defense, or something.

Oh, right. I think that while it is nice to have a end-game summary chart that absolutely doesn't tell me something—like: what-the-heck is the 'odds'—I think simply being able to look at the rest of the foggy map would be nice, and would let us understand better. (Knowing that I built 67 Soldiers is absolutely not as significant, then knowing what would've happened if I did not win at that turn.

The game assume too much that we should know about concepts, such as: support? range support?

And the second point, that I could simply not grasp. Is that there were some games were I had an Artillery surrounded by Soldiers. And yet a random enemy unit had managed to break through. Theoretically speaking: my Soldier was a defensive unit, and he was surrounded by not only 2 other soldiers, but also covered by an Artillery right besides. The funny thing is, the enemy was only a single Soldier with a Cavalry unit. 

So, you see—that... I just absolutely don't get it. The only thing that comes to my mind is either there's a bug somewhere, or there's something unclear that I haven't understood about the support and range-support thing.

My poor-understanding of the support and range-support (that I assumed by myself), is that support boost the defense of an unit right besides the artillery, by 3. And range-support boost the attack of the defense of the unit, within the coverage by 2. Please, correct me if I am misunderstanding. Thanks.

I tried to look further into the details, but I just couldn't find any. There's no Faq or Guide, and the tutorial never explain about the 'support' thing. I did not lose the game... but the fact that I won without mastering the thing remove the strategic significance of this victory.

I hope that either someone could enlighten me, or guide me toward the 'right' answer.

Thanks for creating this game. I look forward to a more 'complete' version.


Ps: This is an edit. I just played again just to be sure that I don't talk craps. And then, yeah—I just don't get it. I had this Soldier on the base, surrounded by another 2 Soldiers. An Enemy Soldier just managed to conquer my base with a single unit, while he's not even specialized in Offense. So, I was wondering—because I truly have no clues of what's going on. These kinds of little things mess up my masterplans. Is that some kind of Dices system... where dices was nowhere to be mentioned? Like—when you wrote that an unit's attack is 4—what you really mean, in fact, is that it is 4 dices? I truly wish that somebody could enlighten me on this point. Thanks. That's like a little nebulous part of my day.