Turn-Based Tactics Mars Tactics - Fight for Martian freedom or suppress terrorists who hamper future of Mankind

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

It is not that different from OG X-COM, as you keep AP for this specifically.
Way before that, Steel Panthers also had units fire their unspent shots on anything entering line of sight.

Steel Panthers was released year later than X-com.
Laser Squad is earliest computer game that I know of that had overwatch.

 

[Alienman]

Sweet explosion ragdoll effect. I was missing that from JA3.

Btw. Is the demo new on the steam page?

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Sweet explosion ragdoll effect. I was missing that from JA3.

Btw. Is the demo new on the steam page?

It should be.

 

[udm]

It's a new demo, yup.

It's also incredibly hard lol. Anyone got tactics to share? I just can't seem to win.

 

[Gumsmith]

It's a new demo, yup.

It's also incredibly hard lol. Anyone got tactics to share? I just can't seem to win.

Picking things up is a free action so throw inactive grenades to your friends to blow up the enemy, and flashbang them to avoid them running away. There's a recoil mechanic making the pepperbox smgs more inaccurate than the hit chance implies so be careful with them and maybe loot the enemy guns. I have noticed the enemy likes to suicide rush to throw grenades despite everyone running away from the explosion which means you can kind of bait them out if you aren't too close. Other than that just try to stick to cover rather than exposing yourself to attack when there's a lot of enemies, since getting suppressed and shot up is Bad.

When you're doing the free prisoners mission I would keep a smoke grenade in reserve as you need to wait 3 turns on the map border before you can evac.

Also if you hold down Ctrl while you're aiming you can wiggle your guy's firing position so he can get a better or more defensible angle when he shoots, it'll also let you decide which cover object your guy will use when moving although it's kind of jank to control.

It's decent fun although a bit basic, don't know if it'll be great when you're doing a campaign's worth of missions.

 

[udm]

Yeah just beat the free prisoners mission! The Ctrl tip is very helpful indeed as it means you can change your position and such. I really wish the devs had just gone with regular stances and a more granular AP/TU system though. Otherwise, the latest demo is better than the previous one.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[std::namespace]

Steel Panthers

Terrible game btw. I played exactly 2 scenarios where enemy tanks drove into my waiting tanks and died. DOS level AI. Its either suicidally aggressive or suicidally passive.

Retaliation is something that only makes sense

In Turn based games. Its not about making sense for whatever. Its about game mechanics when one side is frozen in time. Cant alphastrike and its not braindead non-decision.

 

[Alienman]

From the current state of the game, I feel this game might be worse than Terror from the Deep when it comes to losing dudes. It's very easy to get killed. I both like it and am a bit concerned because I don't think recruits will come as easily as in X-com. Which will mean the death rate will be a huge problem. But it's early days.

 

[std::namespace]

Damn, retard youtuber lost. Plus points for the game!

 

[Galdred]

Steel Panthers

Terrible game btw. I played exactly 2 scenarios where enemy tanks drove into my waiting tanks and died. DOS level AI. Its either suicidally aggressive or suicidally passive.

Now stop being so edgy. The game has indeed an old DOS scripted AI, which means that the AI in each scenario depends on the level designer, and the game is unable to play random maps. It is still one of the best turn based simulations of WW2 armored combat. It is true that left to itself, the AI will do stupid things, like send its tanks piecemail in an obvious trap, but the combat system is one of the best ever designed for the scale, and MP used to work quite well for its time.

Retaliation is something that only makes sense

In Turn based games. Its not about making sense for whatever. Its about game mechanics when one side is frozen in time. Cant alphastrike and its not braindead non-decision.

It is still about trying to somewhat simulate what the game is representing. Retaliation is tenfold more stupid than overwatch. Attacking someone shouldn't make him twice or 10 times faster. Alphastriking is an issue because of HP bloat, and the lack of wound penalties. Adding Panzer General retaliation is the wrong fix.
In Steel Panthers and Combat Mission actually, you don't alpha strike because you either penetrate the armor or not. There is no whittling down HPs.
Retaliations don't remove the need to alpha strike, they just make you switch to longer rand weapons for alpha strikes...

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Now stop being so edgy. The game has indeed an old DOS scripted AI, which means that the AI in each scenario depends on the level designer, and the game is unable to play random maps. It is still one of the best turn based simulations of WW2 armored combat.

Especially when played against human.

In Steel Panthers and Combat Mission actually, you don't alpha strike because you either penetrate the armor or not. There is no whittling down HPs.

That's only partially true, vehicles can take morale and system damage (immobilized, weapon breaks etc).
Besides it's rare to wipe out inf. squad with one shot.

 

[motherfucker]

As great as the trailer looks, all those brown women in frontline fighting roles are fucking annoying. The Gaza happening can't put this shit to rest soon enough

Also, just checked out the demo and it's barely in working order, you'd think they'd at least make sure you can move and shoot but even those options don't always work. Or it could be another unexplained mechanic for all I know

 

[motherfucker]

Wanted to edit my previous post but this turned out long enough to warrant a new one. I made it through that bug(turns out, controls just get stuck and you have to press esc and try again) and tried to play some more.

• The game tries to make a big deal out of suppression mechanic, however suppression doesn't stop any ongoing action. Meaning the enemy gets to waltz through my overwatch zones and rack up a full purple meter completely unimpeded and it isn't until I shoot them on my turn that the suppression penalties kick in.
• The UI is retardedly small even on a 1080p monitor and the UI scale option doesn't work. Many things are legit too small to read.
• The controls are clunky af, shooting/overwatch cursor keeps sticking to some tiles and refuses to go over others for no apparent reason. Sometimes you move a unit for 1AP and lose focus of it, meaning you have to click it again to spend the remaining AP. Why would you release a demo in such a state?
• Map scrolling is retardedly slow and the options that are there barely help. Can't zoom out the camera far enough, can't pan it either(these are easy to fix at least). Camera insists on following the active unit without an option to turn it off, because clearly when I shoot an enemy I wanna be looking at my guy that's shooting and not the enemy I'm shooting at. Bafflingly retarded.
• No sightlines display on movement is profoundly retarded. You legit can't tell whether you'll be able to shoot an enemy from a tile you're about to move onto, and considering all the verticality the answer is usually "no". Meaning even if you got an enemy pinned down and out in the open, actually killing them will require you to assume a risky position because there's no telling whether you'll be able to shoot at them from the nearest cover. Or you can just play safe and allow them to get away, your choice.
• Don't even get me started at actual game mechanics. How come grenade throw range is like half of that IRL, and that's before we take into account Mars' gravity? Why does destroying an industrial oxygen tank take several turns of concentrated fire? Why did my guy run towards a grenade when he was fully out of the range in the first place? What kind of a soldier gets "suppressed" and start panicking because of some shots he's fully safe from(this is actually in the trailer)? Retarded, retarded, retarded.
• The aforementioned DEI stuff, somehow each randomly generated squad has 1 white person at most. Might be unintentional, RNG quirks or perhaps just a bad randomizer, but considering the quality of everything, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this is where their priorities lie.

However, the things I liked I liked immensely:

• Graphics. The old xcom feel but actually in 3d
• Verticality. The devs are clearly onto something here
• Environment destruction+terrain cover. Same as above, really cool, great potential as long as the map design is appropriate
• Animations. Explosions are great, dead people drop like sacks of shit instead of falling dramatically as they usually do in games, this might be to infantry combat what Highfleet is to artillery battles

Honestly, this entire thing is very much a demo, with one caveat: it's a demo you give to a publisher to present the game's concept, not a public demo you release to try and rack up public interest. It's nigh unplayable. I understand there was a rush to get it ready for Early Access Slop Fest or whatever the fuck it's called, but what good is a demo where most mechanics aren't explained, the controls are clunky, get stuck and sometimes plain refuse to work, and UI can't be scaled? Who gets excited about a game you can't read text in? There's tons of potential, I can sure see it, but the entire approach the devs took here is - you guessed it - retarded. Given enough investment and dev time(and I hope to God this game gets it) this could become something special, or maybe not. I'm gonna follow this closely and maybe consider EA, but for the time being, the actual demo is Hard Yikes/10.

 

[udm]

Echoing the above, putting aside the Californian inclinations, my other concern is more related to gameplay. It seems the dev wants to do something closer to the older greats like X-Com, but cannot shrug off trying to make the game like XCOM to "appeal to modern audiences", and also keeps taking feedback from retards on Discord. As a result the game is neither here nor there, trying to please everyone but actually doing none of that. You can see some really good ideas like destructible terrain and suppression, but then they are matched by retarded ones like suppression and overwatch being useless (unless I'm wrong, overwatch seems to apply a heavy penalty to accuracy). And I'm not sure the dev can ever produce a fun and mechanically solid game.

 

[motherfucker]

suppression and overwatch being useless

Sniper on overwatch can legitimately kill an enemy out of nowhere, it's definitely worth doing. Regarding suppression: it takes away 1AP, and pinned(full purple meter) is supposed to take away the turn entirely, however it only works on your troops, not on enemies, which makes me think it's a bug. Not sure how I feel about the AP stealing though: it feels broken in such a manner that a newbie will have big trouble adjusting to this whereas a savvy player will abuse this to no end. Also, no matter how much suppression you cause on 1 guy(e.g. suppressing 2 enemies in 1 burst, or 2 enemies in 2 separate actions) you only get to steal 1 AP max, which feels really counterintuitive is retarded.

Some corrections to my earlier review:

• While shooting, the camera actually follows the shot, it just doesn't always work for some reason. I'd rather have it focus on the enemy entirely
• There is actually a sightline view(Left Alt), however it doesn't always account for obstruction. So you can see a sightline on a tile, move your guy to that tile, then the game goes "lol jk" and you have no shot. Moving a guy around a tile(Left Ctrl) helps sometimes, but not always
• UI does get scaled with the setting, just not the entirety of it
• I did actually get a random squad with 3!!! yt ppl in it, so at least it's not actually rigged
• Forgot to mention that armor flies off enemies, which makes burst-firing an enemy from point blank really satisfying. All that's left is implementing gore and dismemberment
• The sounds are fucking goofy af, feels like playing roblox

Regarding the difficulty: the first mission is actually the most difficult out of the three, and the most RNG-reliant in regards to terrain and troops' traits(both are random each time) - some variants are legit unwinnable. Once you get over that initial hurdle, figure out the controls and do's and don't's of the game(short version: don't run too far ahead, don't get caught in a bad position, keep units together but not too close, and utilize flanks and overwatch), the rest is gonna be a cakewalk. I played through the missions twice and the second time was much easier than the first one.

Whatever, I've rambled on long enough, my renewed impression is that if the devs fix all the bugs I've seen and flesh out the suppression mechanic, we already have a fun little game that's worth playing at least a bit. Nu-xcom and modern influences are a bit worrying, but the potential is surely there. My only hope is that the devs actually go the distance to create the depth required and not settle for just a casual tactics game as it is now.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

From discord:

Hey guys, end of November is here. Thank you for your patience as I continue working on the strategy layer. I'm taking my time until I'm really happy with the design, so the playtest will start a bit later than I wanted. I'm sorry about that. I know you are all eager to get going...

Meanwhile, here's an updated look at the strategy layer grid. The big change you'll notice is the world map is now divided into bigger areas called Sectors, and each Sector consists of smaller areas called Zones. In the screenshot you can see that one Sector is divided into nine Zones. To give you a sense of scale, one Zone = one battlefield you played in the prior demo. Overall, the world map has the same level of granularity as before, but creating these bigger Sectors was necessary to deepen the connection between strat and tactical layers. Let me explain.

Most things you do on the world map -- uncover terrain, construct stuff, and position your squads -- all function at the Zone level. However, certain effects and game systems function at the Sector level. The most important of these is territory control. When a squad occupies any Zone in a Sector, it effectively controls the whole Sector. And when an opposing squad enters that Sector (let's call it the Battle Sector), it triggers the pre-battle Deployment phase.

At the start of Deployment, squads already inside the Battle Sector and squads in all neighboring Sectors get "recruited" into that battle from their respective directions. The player and enemy then take turns moving their recruited squads across Zones in the Battle Sector. The more Zones you occupy, the more Strategy Points you earn (more on that soon). And when finally a squad moves into a Zone already occupied by their enemy, the actual tactical battle begins there. At this point, the position of all other squads in neighboring Zones is what determines which direction reinforcements will enter battle from and in how many turns, which direction each side can and cannot escape to, etc. I will explain this in more detail after finishing the Deployment UI.

The key thing is, because it's all connected, you need to be thinking about positioning long before triggering Deployment. You'll want to place squads close to a Battle Sector to ensure they're recruited for battle. The direction you do this from is important. Then when Deployment begins, you can try to keep your forces together (multiple friendly squads can occupy the same Zone) to bullrush the enemy from one direction. Or try to capture a lot of Zones and earn many Strategy Points. Or focus on chokepoints created by mountains or canyons to box in the enemy and cut off escape routes, which will improve flanking effectiveness during combat. Hopefully this system creates a lot of interesting strategic decisions for you to make before the first shot is fired.

I will share more details soon about exactly how Deployment works -- the escape and surrender mechanics, what are Strategy Points and what do you spend them on, and other stuff like air support. But for now I hope this gives you an idea of how I'm trying to connect the strategy and tactical layers. If I can design this part well, the risks you take on the world map will ripple through each decision you make on the battlefield.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

From discord:

Hey gang, here's an update on the strategy layer design. Squad movement, triggering battles, and transitions between strat and tactical layers are finally feeling good to me.

The big design change is that your squads now move simultaneously at the end of your turn. In the screenshot you can see the player has ordered two squads to move on an enemy position. After pressing End Turn, they will perform their moves at the same time. So instead of inching forward with each squad, you make fewer beefier decisions.

My goal is to streamline decision making so you get to the battles faster. But I also want your strategy decisions to carry weight and ripple through to the tactical combat. And more than anything, I just want it to be fun. I want you to *feel *like a commander. Glancing at the terrain, hopefully your brain already starts making plans. "Ok, I think II've got the enemy isolated. They have no reinforcements. This should allow me to advance from multiple vectors. So I'll attack from the west and south. Hopefully controlling both flanks will give my troops a leg up during tactical combat..."

Now that it's finally in a good place, I feel comfortable sharing more details. Next up I'll explain how exactly battles are triggered and how deployment works. Thanks again for your patience!

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

From discord:

 

[Alienman]

Just need a giant drill in front for that Total Recall effect.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

From discord:

Hey guys here's a first look at Outposts, Buildings, Projects and how non-combat stuff works in the strategy layer.

On Mars, Outposts are like your little cities. When you capture an Outpost, you can construct Buildings there. Each Building enables you to perform specific Projects. For example, a Detention Facility enables prisoner interrogations. A Union Office enables recruiting, propaganda, etc.

You can only construct Buildings next to an Outpost center -- so max 8 Buildings per Outpost. Where you place Buildings is important because adjacency bonuses greatly boost Project rewards. For example, if you build a bunch of Workshops next to each other at an Outpost, it'll be a great place to produce stuff. But if the enemy captures that Outpost, your manufacturing base will be crippled. (Enemy AI will also try to specialize, wink wink.)

Lastly, each Building must be staffed -- the more Workers the faster a Building completes its Projects. But you can also assign your faction Members to a Building, where they'll speed up work and earn relevant experience (working at a Union Office earns political experience, etc). And if the location comes under attack, Members working there will rush to join the battle with whatever equipment is on-hand.

It's still WIP, but hopefully this gives you a better idea of the non-combat side. I'm aiming for 10-20 Buildings and 30-40 Projects for each faction covering engineering, research, politics, Earth diplomacy, covert ops, etc. Let me know if you have questions in the thread below.

We are getting close! Thank you for your patience and support!!

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

From discord:

Hey guys, here's a quick look at Deployment mechanics. In the strategy layer when two opposing squads enter the same zone, a battle is triggered and this screen appears. There are 2 key things here:

1. The game looks at all squads in the sector and calculates how long it will take them to reach the battle zone and from which direction. So your positioning in the strategy layer directly impacts how soon and where reinforcements will arrive from in battle!

2. Every combat engagement is seeded with 3 random Battle Variables. During Deployment, the player and AI "invest" Intel for control of each Variable. (If both sides invest an equal number in a Variable, it is discarded.) So the idea is that Intel is useful for many things in the strategy layer, but if you want you can spend it to gain (or deny) a tactical advantage.

The overall design goal with Deployment is to further deepen connections between the strategy and tactical layers. At the end of the day, good tactics will win battles. But I want these mechanics to inject some flavor into each engagement and add more meaning into everything you do across both layers.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

From discord:

Hey guys here's a first look at Events. They are semi-random but connect in dynamic ways to form stories. Let me explain:

Every Event has a bunch of trigger percentages -- if worker dissent has risen above a threshold, if you hold any POWs, if any unit has a certain Trait, if you have constructed a certain building, etc. And many events also check the outcome of *prior* Events. So your choices stack up over time and hopefully create stories in organic ways.

In this screenshot you basically have 3 options: prioritize the workers, the war effort, or the research. And your decision will affect the chance of seeing other future Events. For example, if you prioritize research here, there's a greater chance you'll trigger another hacking-related Event down the line. But it's not a guarantee like in an RPG. It's just a higher chance for a trigger. So the system only makes loose connections.

Overall, my goal is to have many Events because they are quite common so I want good variety. Events are the main manifestation of worker support or dissent. So if you are keeping your people happy, you are more likely to get a positive event. If you are pissing them off, they might hit you with a strike or worse.