Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
10 
Report this post
I can see why you might be a bit disappointed if you expected the game to be a advance wars copy, because thats not were the main influences for this game came from, but rather from various different wargames mainly (but other turn based strategy games too).
Artillery is not supposed to do a lot of direct damage, but it's rather a tool to break down enemy morale and destroy fortifications, softening up the target before the close combat units go in and do the real fighting.
The roguelike elements are not really on display in the demo unfortunately, as it only contains the first mission. In the full game with the full campaign, they will be more evident as for example units you loose on a mission will be gone forever and unavailable to use in future missions.
If you want, I could give you some tips for how to play if you told me exactly what parts of the game you had trouble with and found too difficult.
Either way i appreciate the feedback and I'm sorry that the game didn*t meet your expectations.
There is a demo called Mech Tech thats kind of like a real-time Advance Wars roguelite you might be interested in.
But now that I tried the demo I'm actually optimistic, it's still a fairly simple wargame, but looks like it has a lot more depth than I expected.
Moral(or Combat Readiness) is quite annoying mechanic as it really slow down the pace of the game. Units lose combat effectiveness when Morale decrease and it double fast if they take any losses. Which may and will lead to easy losing units when enemy reserves counter attack on your less than in perfect shape units. So far optimal tactic was slow advance, softening enemy fortified units with arty and then wiping them out and resting. If enemy units attack they can easily wipe out low morale unit if there is like 2 or 3 enemy units attacking. It can be quite brutal.
I really don't like that Morale lower both defensive and offensive combat stats - it make easy to snowball failure. And it really make for slow pace as its fight-rest almost always. Sure I seen perks and units that help in fast recovery but still.
I think part of the problem is that low Morale lower stats at all degree. I think putting them in threshold would help(maybe). What I mean by that? You already have units change colour when Morale stat reach certain threshold - make so the they only suffer lowered stats when they reach it - like unit with 100-76 morale have stats like on 100 morale, units on 75-51 like on 75, etc. Although that would probably need more testing but it would probably increase pace a little and reduce failure rate(maybe). Maybe low Morale should only affect offensive stats?
Other than that maybe make Recon units to be able to do partial move(like move a little and then be able to move another time if they didn't move full range - so if they have 6 movement range and move 3 they can move another 3 after that, or maybe make it that they can move extra time if they do not attack(and do not move full range)). That would make them real scouts as they could move, see and run away instead of face checking if enemy is there.
Reinforcing unit strength is both costly and slow.
Also please make so Air Units Tab do not close after end turn - I keep forgetting about having one and either do not use or use it at the end after I moved all my units.
I quite enjoyed the demo, shame that its just one mission.
I dont really see the point of the morale threshold, sure it would increase the general combat readiness of the unit, but I don't feel it would be that big of a difference, and the same rule would apply to enemy units also.
Regarding the morale system overall, the point of it was to really force the player rotate his units and consider his options, rather than just mindlessly moving and attacking with all his units without any forethought.
I know that slows down the pace of the game quite a bit, but I don't mind that. In fact, that was one of the goals of this game, to make a game that made you really have to take your time and consider your moves.
I agree with your Recon unit assessment. There has always been a part of me that thought they were a bit too weak, despite various buffs to them throughout the game's development.
I do have that partial move mechanic that you describe in the game. But right now it is in the form of an upgrade that is unique to Recon units.
And having them start with it is definitely something i have considered. But that would of course also increase their value, making them more expensive to purchase, so that is something I have to consider also.
But I'm definitely not opposed to the idea.
Using the Reinforce unit action, is again like with the morale system something that I want the player to really have to think about before he decides to spend his RP on using it, or whether the points are better spent elsewhere.
Keeping the air tab open after you end a turn should be an easy implementation, so i can fix that).
Well early on in the games delopment i did play around with the idea of hex tiles. But one of the main reasons for not going with it was simply that it would be too much work, since it would mean all the units needed more animations and art and stuff like that.
But also i really liked the look of the "square/diamond isometric tiles" look. I fealt it was kind of a unique style, that you don't see all that often.
That's not a Roguelike aspect, dude. That has nothing to do with Rogue or any Roguelikes. That's just a basic-ass feature in wargames like these. Have you ever played Close Combat? That's how these games work! Please stop calling it a Roguelike, it is clear you are using it as a marketing buzzword in a clickbait manner: It's not true at all, but it gets you sales from people who don't know.
Well what is the definition of a roguelike then?
Cause maybe my definition of that is wrong then.
Games like Into the breach and Slay the Spire are games i consider Roguelikes. And they are games that i took a lot of inspiration for Rogue Conflict from.
Slay The Spire is a Deckbuilder Roguelite, which is its own distinct genre. Into The Breach is a strategy game. This game is a Strategy Game. That isn't a bad thing!
Roguelikes are games that are, and this is a little tautological, like Rogue. Rogue is a RPG dungeon-crawler where you entered a dungeon where your character had no knowledge of any items or how anything worked, and you had to experiment and use limited resources to discover what items helped you and what items hurt you and if you died, then you would be forced to restart the entire game and you would need to rediscover what items were what.
What helped you progress was the accumulated knowledge you received from losing and being able to apply it and surpass what killed you the previous time. Permadeath refers to having to restart the game when you died, as opposed to units dying forever when killed. That aspect is normal for strategy games such as yours.
Games in the Roguelike genre are Nethack, Rogue, Angband, Tales of Maj'Eyal, Shiren The Wanderer, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, Tangledeep, and others along those lines. There's quite a lot!
Just to clarify, Roguelites are games that take on the basic aspect of having to restart the entire game when killed and often having to discover what does what through trial and error and in-game experimentation. Slay The Spire, Spelunky, Hades, Rogue Legacy, games like that are what fall more into the Roguelite category, some more strongly than others. This is what most games that call mistakenly themselves 'Roguelikes' actually fit into.
Your game is like Into The Breach primarily in the ways that matter, so I would call it a Turn-Based Strategy game.
I also think the game is pretty dang cool, which is why I care enough to correct you. I actually appreciate that you actually asked me what I thought the genre should be and I understand why you were mistaken from your explanation.
I apologize for being hot with my reply, it turns out you did not deserve it at all.
EDIT: PS both Slay the Spire and Into The Breach are amazing games so you have very good inspiration there.
When i google what games are considered roguelikes, then games like Slay the spire and Into the breach are always mentioned.
And when i look up the definition for what a roguelike is, it basically says that is a game where you lose all your progress when you fail a run (like in my game).
And when i look up the definition for roguelite, it says a game where when you fail a run, you don't loose all progress, but retain some of it (not like in my game).
So, that's my reasoning for "labeling" the game with the roguelike term.
It was not meant to be some kind of market trap to fool people into buying the game).
(And yes, I know the name of the game is awful, i hate it too)
This is what the wiki says, and it is correct. Losing progress when you die is an aspect of it, but it has to be understood that Roguelikes are a total package. You ALSO need the procedurally generated levels, turn-based gameplay, grid-based movement, permanent death of the player character that restarts the entire game, and, most importantly, the DUNGEON CRAWL. That is the thing all those games I listed under Roguelike had in common.
Your game isn't a dungeon crawl, it is a strategy game, and all those parts? Are also aspects that exist in traditional strategy games like Final Fantasy Tactics, Super Robot Wars, or Fire Emblem. That's the thing that you are missing, and is the reason why Binding of Isaac is a Roguelike despite missing the 'turn-based, grid-based movement' aspect, while Slay The Spire is a Roguelite. It is a deckbuilder instead of a dungeon crawler.
The reason why you hear Slay The Spire and Into The Breach be called Roguelikes is because people saw it as a marketing buzzword for money and started to apply it to games that have nothing to do with Rogue, and because Youtubers want those sweet sweet clicks they call everything a Roguelike too, and perpetuated it, which leads to people like you being confused and mislabelling your game.
Also you can keep the name Rogue Conflict, it's fine. It's a perfectly reasonable name for a non-Roguelike.
And not to turn it into a philosophical debate, but game genres have always crossed over each other and borrowed elements from one another, blurring the lines of what defines a genre.
So to put any Label on a game (like roguelike) is just to act as some kind of a guideline for the players, so that they know what they might get into when buying the game.
When they read that the game has "rogue like features", I hope they will understand that it is a game that shares elements from other games with the same labeling (like the ones i mentioned earlier).
That blurring is called 'Roguelite', you can use it if you want. Roguelike is the very specific genre whose description I gave you.
But "rogue-like features" doesn't really fit your game. The person who made this thread even pointed that out. 'Random maps' and 'Units die permanently when they are killed' are features in other Turn-Based Strategy Games, and I think you might actually get more attention if you actually, like, used the proper genre name instead of claiming it to be a Roguelike. See, this guy going OH IT IS A STRATEGY GAME HELL YEAH!, as they are direly underserved, especially on Steam.
Whereas "I say my game is a Roguelike" is a dime-a-dozen and I see a lot of people just ignore them because people doing that could mean ANYTHING.
Also, it is just kinda aggravating to me, because Roguelike is a genre I love and people stealing the name for marketing is really annoying!