Seen people compare it to Alpha Centauri, which is a pretty lofty claim to say the least. Anyone know if this isn't just overhyped garbage?
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
This game legit?
Seen people compare it to Alpha Centauri, which is a pretty lofty claim to say the least. Anyone know if this isn't just overhyped garbage?
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
It is an overhyped garbage. Art direction is the only strong part of the game, devs are gays that engage in current thing, gameplay is advance wars with incredibly simplified settlers 2 like base building, writing is shite.
gay dev here reporting in from my main thread
i wish the game was overhyped lol. feel like nobody knows about it still. we've only got 70 reviews and barely any press coverage. if someone knows how to get me to be overhyped i will happily listen.
>Art direction is the only strong part of the game
we do have good art
>gameplay is advance wars with incredibly simplified settlers 2 like base building
this isn't wrong
>writing is shite
i think it could be better, but i think we did okay.
ty
we definitely took visual inspiration from alpha cen but yeah the game is very different
When are we getting AI capable of actually building new units and not just sitting still waiting to be murdered?
never for the campaign, it’s meant to be more of a theme park. you can’t do scripted moments and stuff if you can’t account for what nonsense the AI gets up to. at least at the granularity of the story we want to tell (imagine if all of total war played like the TW3 tutorial for example).
however everybody and their fricking cousin asks about this so it will probably come in the first or second feature patch. We’re putting up a user voting thing this weekend (probably?) so I’ll let The People Decide.
we do do this, but streamers are really hit or miss on if they actually raise the profile of a game. usually they are more of a force multiplier of success but don’t make success itself happen (outside of a few major ones). i shill this game here because I feel like it’s where The People are at and I won’t get rando banned for promotional content on places like Reddit or have to fight the tiktok algo or whatever.
I didn’t make this one but I’ll happily respond to anyone that talks about the game.
a 50% off coupon for anyone who posts on this thread is a way to garner hype
here's some 100% off coupons
5CBP2-8BP5G-38KWL
MJNPL-NN62N-LYMPF
I2N38-JI8Y9-HDMQK
missed them but cool of you to do that. Game does look fun
>streamers are really hit or miss
Then try let's players like I said. Whenever I want to know more info about a strategy game, I try to find gameplay of it on YouTube, so it helps a lot if you have a presence there through people playing your game. And it's a better way to find info than looking for stream VOD's that may or may not be uploaded somewhere. But I do agree that streamers are good for boosting popularity.
>if someone knows how to get me to be overhyped i will happily listen
Don't know if you've already tried this, but the way to get a game hyped up these days is to pay let's players and/or streamers to play it on their channels. However, I can't tell you which channels since this type of strategy game isn't really my thing, so I'm not sure which channels would be the best ones here.
congrats and good luck with your game, hope it sells well enough that you can keep doing your thing.
good luck with your game. I actually bought it but havent had time to play it yet.
Unironically try to contact Darren from whatdarrenplays. He used to play some new, less known strategy games. He doesn't have super large fanbase going but better then nothing I guess.
I like the art, text is a little small at times. Only in the tutorial so far, but feels like it has soul
>Seen people compare it to Alpha Centauri
What a fricking bullshit. The dev here himself said it was literally meant to be "advanced" Advance Wars.
It's overhyped as frick, at least on Ganker, because the dev posts here and shills it relentlessly.
How many more shilling threads you plan to shit out? Because we're three too many already.
It's not much like Alpha Centauri.
It's more like a distant cousin of Advance Wars and Unity of Command.
Also
>It combines elements of Advance Wars with 4X and Grand Strategy games to create what we call a "Grand Tactics" game.
Why do you still keep saying this.
It's neither a tactics game nor a grand strategy game.
"Grand tactics" doesn't even mean anything.
It's just a strategy game.
You know, something between tactics and grand strategy. It's called strategy. THERE IS A WORD FOR THIS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE SDAFKLJDASFKLJDASGLKDGJS.
we needed a fun marketing word. when you say "strategy" you could mean anything from fricking scrabble to super auto pets.
pic very rel from steam's "strategy" section
i know its cringe to try and force your own genre but "grand tactics" is also easier to say and remember "turn-based tactics game that has region control elements and logistics management"
if you really want to ream me you should ask me why we didn't nut up and just call it a wargame
'advanced' advance wars is succinct and effective. about to boot up the game and see for myself, but a battle focused tactics game, with slightly more complex resource management is appealing.
>when you say "strategy" you could mean anything from fricking scrabble to super auto pets.
Strategy game is a war game that encompasses an entire war. Although technically I guess Cantata would be closer to an operational wargame since the scenarios seem to encompass only parts of a war.
>i know its cringe to try and force your own genre but "grand tactics" is also easier to say and remember "turn-based tactics game that has region control elements and logistics management"
If it has region control elements and logistics then almost by definition it cannot be a tactics game, because those things wouldn't really come into play in a game that only encompasses a single battle (the actual definition of a tactics game)
Those are features from wargames with operational or higher scale.
Steam tags aren't really anything to go by, they're just from people tagging whatever they think fits. Judging from the labels most people don't have any idea what makes a strategy game different from a tactics game.
dev here again. im trans btw
lol, thx for the code btw. nabbed two for my brother and I. tried to grab the last one for my nephew, but someone claimed it. good on ye tho; game looks neat
For those who don't actually know, it goes like this.
1. The game encompasses a single battle. This is clear and obvious. It's a tactics game.
2. The game has different battles happening on the same map and most likely has features related to production and logistics, but it isn't an entire war, just a theater or a front of a war. This is an operational level game.
3. The game encompasses an entire war from start to finish on a single map. This is a strategy game.
4. The game features multiple wars on the same map, and also the times of peace in between. Most likely involves politics and diplomacy and peaceful alternatives to war. This is grand strategy. Like a 4X game - a term that has a big overlap with grand strategy games.
It's not simply about what elements the game encompasses, it's about the level of direct influence the player has. If the game encompasses multiple wars, but the player's main input is in controlling individual units on the field, it's still a tactics game.
>If the game encompasses multiple wars, but the player's main input is in controlling individual units on the field, it's still a tactics game.
Maybe, but I can't think of a single game that's like this.
Or are you talking about something like Call of Duty that chains its levels into a campaign?
I said "on the same map" as a qualifier for a reason.
"On the same map" is an extremely awkward qualifier though. Does Total War happen on the same map? There's an overworld map sure, but there are also multiple battle maps that are entirely separate. What about FFT? It has the same deal of an overworld map and individual battle maps.
The difference is, of course, that in TW a significant part of your decision-making takes place on the world map, while in FFT the only thing you really do on the world map is prepare for the battle maps. In TW the focus is on the world map and the battles are means to an end (you can even skip the battles entirely with autoresolve), while in FFT the focus is on the battles themselves.
>Does Total War happen on the same map?
The largest map determines. It's a strategy game. Not a tactics game. Pretty much all strategy games include tactics anyway whether it's on a separate map or not.
I don't see what's awkward about this.
You sound confused for no real reason. All of this has been established and accepted decades ago.
>The largest map determines. It's a strategy game. Not a tactics game
So Final Fantasy Tactics is a strategy game?
An RPG with a tactics minigame.
i denounce the talmud, international israeliteery, greater khazaria, and communism in every form.
Sounds like a pretty clear denouncement of communism to me.
That said, it probably isn't wrong to just call it a 4X game.
It has all the 4X'es. Explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate. 4X doesn't imply grand strategy, since politics and diplomacy are actually optional features for this genre, while being very central to GSG.
4X is often used for similarly "non-realistic", non-simulational, non-historical games so it's the right target audience.
If you want to be a snowflake, you can differentiate by calling it an "operational level 4X", to make it clear the scope is more limited than in something like Alpha Centauri.
But then doesn't aoe2 become a 4x by that logic? I never really got what makes 4X different, most strategy games have exploration, base building, resource gathering and combat.
I've only played through something like 75% of the first scenario I think (wow, what a massive slog this game is) but I think the flaws of the game are already evident.
How is it possible to claim direct inspiration from Advance Wars but so completely miss the reasons why people actually like that game?
The great thing about AW is that it's quick to play, while still having enough depth to be interesting as a strategy game. It's quick enough that you can complete a two player match in about 40 minutes which makes it an ideal PVP game. The other great thing is that the art direction and the UI design are very nearly perfect. Everything has perfect clarity and you can understand the situation perfectly from a glance.
Cantata is the complete opposite.
I could forgive the clunky UI and slow pace of game if I got some strategic depth in return, but I don't think this game can even claim to be "more advanced Advance Wars". Take the logistic mechanics for instance.
Remember that AW, too, had logistics? The game tracked the ammo and fuel usage for each unit. If a unit started running out of either resource you had to park it on a friendly city to refill.
Cantata only tracks ammunition. You read that right, there is no fuel. There are no special buildings or spots you need to go to reload, it's enough that your unit is in your "territory" to stay supplied.
You can extend your territory by building very cheap supply camps, which you can place anywhere next to your conscripts. The moment you build one, all units in range get magically resupplied. The result is logistics are basically a non-factor. You don't need to think about them.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The way AW added depth to the combat is also ignored. In that game, the damage units dealt on different types of units was cross-referenced from a damage table where each unit type had different effectiveness against each other unit. So you had this rock paper scissors type of thing going where a copter would be strong against a tank, an anti-air would beat the copter and a tank would again be good against anti-air.
In Cantata, units simply have HP and damage. The damage value is deducted from the HP of the attacked unit regardless of the type. So the more HP and ATK your unit has, the better it simply is. Once you have the infra to build the one or two best unit types you have there is no reason to build anything else (other than conscripts to capture territory)
Even air units don't seem to be differentiated. There's one unit you can build that looks like some aircraft, but it can't cross water or go above walls. The only thing different compared to other units is that it does 4 DMG which means it's simply better. Wow. Deep.
So the game is actually simpler than Advance Wars while being a massive slog to play.
This is not a good game.
Oh, and apparently there is no real AI either. The only opposition in the campaign is units spawned by scripted events. All they do is charge toward your units and attack. There is no way to play skirmish against AI. And who the hell would want to play multiplayer when a single match takes upwards to 8 hours or longer.