Strategy and tactical games general

[DemoGraph]

For all the stuff not yet deserving its own thread.

***

I've decided to try Nephilim saga. I play on normal because it's the first Japanese-style tacticool I tried (except for an hour of Rance few years ago).

And I feel like I'm having my *** handed to me. I get all S ratings for missions (6 so far), but I still feel as if I'm losing. Killed units respawn at the end of the mission. But if they didn't, I'd definitely lose a bunch of second tier horses and other nonrookie already. Since the game difficulty seems to assume that you don't lose anyone, I should've already went into a spiral of decline (as it was in Wesnoth campaign).

The campaign is mission-based, so there's no opportunity to grind. Missions lack in difficulty but try to compensate for it with gotcha moments. The campaign is full of plot twists that take away units from you, and give new ones, every mission. And there's no way to plan your army composition in advance (without savescumming).

Also, predetermined campaign features random marketplace drops. I'm already biting my elbows, because I missed buying one of the leadership-boosting coats in one of the previous missions.

So far, I feel like I'm not overcoming or planning or playing strategy game at all. I'm riding a theme park masquerading as tacticool.
X-COM geoscape (or HoMM- or AoW-styled long missions) are much more "strategical".
Even Troubleshooter-styled "Groundhog day" repeatable missions felt more satisfying.

[Cipher]

I am sorry, what game is this?

[DemoGraph]

I am sorry, what game is this?

[Tangerine]

It's basically Ogre Battle combat with the Fire Emblem tactical layer.

[Acrux]

And rises to neither one

[J1M]

For all the stuff not yet deserving its own thread.

***

I've decided to try Nephilim saga. I play on normal because it's the first Japanese-style tacticool I tried (except for an hour of Rance few years ago).

And I feel like I'm having my *** handed to me. I get all S ratings for missions (6 so far), but I still feel as if I'm losing. Killed units respawn at the end of the mission. But if they didn't, I'd definitely lose a bunch of second tier horses and other nonrookie already. Since the game difficulty seems to assume that you don't lose anyone, I should've already went into a spiral of decline (as it was in Wesnoth campaign).

The campaign is mission-based, so there's no opportunity to grind. Missions lack in difficulty but try to compensate for it with gotcha moments. The campaign is full of plot twists that take away units from you, and give new ones, every mission. And there's no way to plan your army composition in advance (without savescumming).

Also, predetermined campaign features random marketplace drops. I'm already biting my elbows, because I missed buying one of the leadership-boosting coats in one of the previous missions.

So far, I feel like I'm not overcoming or planning or playing strategy game at all. I'm riding a theme park masquerading as tacticool.
X-COM geoscape (or HoMM- or AoW-styled long missions) are much more "strategical".
Even Troubleshooter-styled "Groundhog day" repeatable missions felt more satisfying.

So the complaint it basically, "I don't want to lose any units, ever"? And, "I don't like that this game prevented me from going into a death spiral for losing a unit"?

[DemoGraph]

So the complaint it basically, "I don't want to lose any units, ever"? And, "I don't like that this game prevented me from going into a death spiral for losing a unit"?

Both statements are not what I've said. Reading 101, bro.

[rusty_shackleford]

Stop cheating

[N7Kopper]

For all the stuff not yet deserving its own thread.

***

I've decided to try Nephilim saga. I play on normal because it's the first Japanese-style tacticool I tried (except for an hour of Rance few years ago).

And I feel like I'm having my *** handed to me. I get all S ratings for missions (6 so far), but I still feel as if I'm losing. Killed units respawn at the end of the mission. But if they didn't, I'd definitely lose a bunch of second tier horses and other nonrookie already. Since the game difficulty seems to assume that you don't lose anyone, I should've already went into a spiral of decline (as it was in Wesnoth campaign).

The campaign is mission-based, so there's no opportunity to grind. Missions lack in difficulty but try to compensate for it with gotcha moments. The campaign is full of plot twists that take away units from you, and give new ones, every mission. And there's no way to plan your army composition in advance (without savescumming).

Also, predetermined campaign features random marketplace drops. I'm already biting my elbows, because I missed buying one of the leadership-boosting coats in one of the previous missions.

So far, I feel like I'm not overcoming or planning or playing strategy game at all. I'm riding a theme park masquerading as tacticool.
X-COM geoscape (or HoMM- or AoW-styled long missions) are much more "strategical".
Even Troubleshooter-styled "Groundhog day" repeatable missions felt more satisfying.

So the complaint it basically, "I don't want to lose any units, ever"? And, "I don't like that this game prevented me from going into a death spiral for losing a unit"?

The complaint is that the game is balanced around not losing any units ever on the strategic level, whilst being balanced on you carefully trying to stop them from dying on the tactical level. The game hits the balance of neither the Microprose nor Firaxis XCOMs in this regard: the former consider your men to be largely replaceable, even if losing a guy with massive stats can hurt. The latter consider the loss of a single man to be devastating. The tactical layers are similarly balanced, in Microprose, death can come out of nowhere in one shot, whereas in Firaxis, you only lose men if you screw up. Even really unlucky odds are likely only to injure them if you don't.

[Valter]

Now this is a name I haven't heard in quite a while

[sheet]

It's not Ubishits. Who owns the rights to Might & Magic anyway?

[methoxetamine]

Might try TROUBLESHOOTER soon, anyone played it? I think I saw someone mention playing the DLC here but I forget who it was

[Trickster]

Older Era is out. The graphics are quite questionable, it feels like it lacks definition and detail, but the abyss elves look interesting. The Hive faction is crap. No demons were added (I suppose they'll add them in DLC) But, despite the meta-resources that no one asked for, the gameplay is still addictive.





Let's see how interesting the official campaign will be. But so far, judging by the characters bio which seem like they were generated by ChatGPT we shouldn't expect deep lore or an engaging plot like in the Heroes 5. My personal expectations are low.

[rusty_shackleford]

Might try TROUBLESHOOTER soon, anyone played it? I think I saw someone mention playing the DLC here but I forget who it was

From what I know of your tastes, you'd enjoy it.
The story is a complete afterthought but there's a lot of focus on tacticool combat and character building + animango

[asf]

heroes of might and weebery

[Trickster]

Wtf is this ****? And why is the dungeon controlled by red elves now? I’m not sure this is actually Enroth, regardless of what the devs say. It feels like a total mishmash of everything. Especially with that bug race that nobody likes

[DemoGraph]

"Tactical breach wizards" is a slop.
Devs took "Into the breach" (itself a puzzle, not a tacticool), simplified it with nuXCOM move-shoot and added cutscenes with forced jokes.
The game is very easy, I've breezed up to traffic wizard miniboss and dropped.