Incline MENACE - sci-fi turn-based tactical RPG from Battle Brothers devs - coming to Early Access in Q3 2025

[Berengar]

Man this year is seeing a bumper crop for RPGs and tactical titles. Hopefully this is at least on par with JA3, but with more RPG bits.

This game is scheduled for release in late 2024.

The rpg fiscal year he meant

 

[thesheeep]

It's been a very long while since I played BB, but who makes all the decisions then? From what I remember, we are the commander. We role-play as the commander of a mercenary company. It doesn't matter if the game doesn't represent you with a sprite in-game, or if you don't have stats. That's not what makes a RPG.

That's obviously not how genres work.

YOU always play the game, YOU always make the decisions (to a degree). Congrats, that's how games work.
But that's entirely different from that "you" being a real and tangible part of the gameplay.
The only thing that matters from a game theory perspective for genres is gameplay and game mechanics - what texts developers slap onto the screen (like if they refer to "you" as a commander or not at all) is completely irrelevant.
Just as it is irrelevant what you do or do not make up in your head for immersion - because, again, looking at this 1-year-old post of mine, following that logic you could define anything as anything else based on what make believe you conjure up.
I role played as Mario as a kid in Super Mario 64, I distinctly remember that - so now what, is that an RPG?

You can argue based on actual game mechanics if BB is an RPG or not or to what degree, go ahead, but what the player is feeling or imagining has no place in any serious discussion about this.

 

[Zombra]

thesheeep This is still dumb by the way. Requiring a "you" as a killable character in the game is not fundamental to RPGs. Am I misunderstanding your position? Because if not you're saying that Icewind Dale, the entire Wizardry series, Dungeon Master series, Wasteland series, and on and on and on are not RPGs.

 

[Kruyurk]

This thread is getting dangerously close to the Codex Point where people try to define what an RPG is.

 

[Infinitron]

thesheeep This is still dumb by the way. Requiring a "you" as a killable character in the game is not fundamental to RPGs. Am I misunderstanding your position? Because if not you're saying that Icewind Dale, the entire Wizardry series, Dungeon Master series, Wasteland series, and on and on and on are not RPGs.

That's not what he's saying at all. His point is that if you're making the argument that a game like this is an RPG, don't base that on the existence of an unseen "you" character with no real game mechanics as the protagonist. The game might be an RPG, but it doesn't rest on that.

 

[Takamori]

Hope they borrow elements from Battle Brothers like origins and the gear system. I don't care if I'm present in game as a main character or not, BB had enough decision making to get me immersed if I'm boots on the ground or the faceless commander I don't care.

 

[Reinhardt]

what about trade?

 

[Jrpgfan]

"Takes everything beloved about Battle Brothers and improves it tenfold"

Yeah, thats an rather tall order bros. If its 3/4 as good as Battle Bros, thats already a big win in my book. I am ashamed to say I lowkey hope this one proves to be less successful so that they do a Battle Brothers 2 sooner.

That's not how things work in the real world.

If it's less succesful than BB it's more likely they'll just go out of business.

 

[jaekl]

Battle Brothers is very cool, but you can't trust a game developer to be cool twice in a row these days so I will watch this with great suspicion, fully prepared to add these developers to my list of mortal enemies.

 

[Takamori]

Battle Brothers is very cool, but you can't trust a game developer to be cool twice in a row these days so I will watch this with great suspicion, fully prepared to add these developers to my list of mortal enemies.

The healthy approach, no blank checks. But I take the more optimistic(or retarded) approach, will keep going until I fall with my face flat.

The theme and the whole structure makes really attractive to me.

 

[ind33d]

I hope it doesn't become another 'play defensive and spam over-watch to trivialize encounters' game. Could really use another good tactical combat game.

mechanicus fixed this but made it too easy to table the entire enemy team instead, which is arguably worse

 

[Tyranicon]

"Takes everything beloved about Battle Brothers and improves it tenfold"

Yeah, thats an rather tall order bros. If its 3/4 as good as Battle Bros, thats already a big win in my book. I am ashamed to say I lowkey hope this one proves to be less successful so that they do a Battle Brothers 2 sooner.

That's not how things work in the real world.

If it's less succesful than BB it's more likely they'll just go out of business.

Yeah unfortunately, indiedev is an industry where a single failure can doom you. But it depends how big the team is and how much money/time they sunk into it.

Battle Brothers sold very well (for something in its niche), but probably not to the extent where you can keep a large team afloat for years.

 

[Harthwain]

"Takes everything beloved about Battle Brothers and improves it tenfold"

Yeah, thats an rather tall order bros. If its 3/4 as good as Battle Bros, thats already a big win in my book. I am ashamed to say I lowkey hope this one proves to be less successful so that they do a Battle Brothers 2 sooner.

That's not how things work in the real world.

If it's less succesful than BB it's more likely they'll just go out of business.

Yeah unfortunately, indiedev is an industry where a single failure can doom you. But it depends how big the team is and how much money/time they sunk into it.

Battle Brothers sold very well (for something in its niche), but probably not to the extent where you can keep a large team afloat for years.

They kept releasing the DLCs to fund their next project.

 

[M. AQVILA]

It's been a very long while since I played BB, but who makes all the decisions then? From what I remember, we are the commander. We role-play as the commander of a mercenary company. It doesn't matter if the game doesn't represent you with a sprite in-game, or if you don't have stats. That's not what makes a RPG.

The only thing that matters from a game theory perspective for genres is gameplay and game mechanics - what texts developers slap onto the screen (like if they refer to "you" as a commander or not at all) is completely irrelevant.

While gameplay and mechanics are important aspects of defining a game's genre, game genres are often more nuanced and encompass a variety of elements.

The inclusion of narrative elements, character development, and decision-making that affect the outcome of our mercenary company's journey introduces significant role-playing aspects. The way the game allows us to immerse ourselves in the role of a mercenary company leader, make choices that impact the story and outcomes, and manage a group of characters with individual traits and progression makes it a RPG.

 

[thesheeep]

Requiring a "you" as a killable character in the game is not fundamental to RPGs. Am I misunderstanding your position? Because if not you're saying that Icewind Dale, the entire Wizardry series, Dungeon Master series, Wasteland series, and on and on and on are not RPGs.

Yes, it is fundamental and yes, you do exactly that in all the games you mention.
You even create your character yourself - nobody says you can only be one character.
And when "you" die, it's all over (well or you reload, but you know what I mean).

In BB, there isn't any "you" that could die to result in an end state, no "you" that is elevated above other characters in the game, no "you" that has any impact on what is happening on the battlefield beyond "player is playing the game".
You are not that recruit you just hired a second ago and who will most likely get killed horribly in the next mission. Those are just pawns.
Again, except that game mode where suddenly there IS a "you" whose death results in an end state, one that IS elevated above the pawns, one that HAS an impact on what is happening beyond "player is playing the game".

BB has a lot of RPG to it, same as other tactical games do. But it is not a pure RPG, it's a hybrid like so many others.

 

[Alienman]

There is a "you" in one of the origins. It's my favorite one, the only problem is that you are limited to 12 men I believe.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Requiring a "you" as a killable character in the game is not fundamental to RPGs. Am I misunderstanding your position? Because if not you're saying that Icewind Dale, the entire Wizardry series, Dungeon Master series, Wasteland series, and on and on and on are not RPGs.

They are because they're all you in those games, so to speak.

I want to personally execute xenoscum in close quarters dammit.

 

[Shaki]

Requiring a "you" as a killable character in the game is not fundamental to RPGs. Am I misunderstanding your position? Because if not you're saying that Icewind Dale, the entire Wizardry series, Dungeon Master series, Wasteland series, and on and on and on are not RPGs.

Yes, it is fundamental and yes, you do exactly that in all the games you mention.
You even create your character yourself - nobody says you can only be one character.
And when "you" die, it's all over (well or you reload, but you know what I mean).

In BB, there isn't any "you" that could die to result in an end state, no "you" that is elevated above other characters in the game, no "you" that has any impact on what is happening on the battlefield beyond "player is playing the game".
You are not that recruit you just hired a second ago and who will most likely get killed horribly in the next mission. Those are just pawns.
Again, except that game mode where suddenly there IS a "you" whose death results in an end state, one that IS elevated above the pawns, one that HAS an impact on what is happening beyond "player is playing the game".

BB has a lot of RPG to it, same as other tactical games do. But it is not a pure RPG, it's a hybrid like so many others.

RPGs evolved from wargaming, and were always mostly about turn based combat and character management, everything else is just supposed to be an excuse to start fighting. Storyfags and RTwP retards later managed to hijack the term, but it doesn't change the facts. Tacticools carry the spirit of the genre, no matter how many dumbfucks are trying to cope and sell visual novels and action games as the "real RPGs".


I blame Diablo for this, as its success made publishers want everything to have action combat, and BG1 and the whole generation of games following it, used retarded RTwP purely because of that. Devs seeing this type of combat is retarded, tried to make up for it by expanding other aspects of the game, like Torment focusing on the writing, BG2 on the exploration, Arcanum with C&C/reactivity and player freedom, but ultimately everything here was just going further away from the roots of the genre, in an attempt to make up for missing its most integral part.

Storyfaggotry, exploration, muh reactivity, all this shit was supposed to exist purely to make combat have a reason and feel even better. The core of RPG is basically being a smaller wargame, with more focus on individual characters and their management and putting combat in more personal context. BB is more of an RPG than majority of "RPGs" ever created (as are most tacticools), it brings the genre back to its roots, and it does that flawlessly.

 

[Orud]

Which game did that? I've played pretty much every tacticool released in the last 2 decades, and I don't remember being tempted to spam overwatch in any of them.

X-com 2012 and almost each and every one of its derivatives.

 

[thesheeep]

RPGs evolved from wargaming, and were always mostly about turn based combat and character management, everything else is just supposed to be an excuse to start fighting.

As you very correctly wrote, they evolved from that, took inspiration and went into a different direction.
They are no longer the same thing. Just like you are no longer an amorphous mass crawling landwards from the ocean.

You can be bitter about that until you rot in a grave, but that won't do you any good, nor will it change any facts.
Wargames / tactical games are one thing, RPGs another.
They can have strong similarities and often, they make very fine hybrids.

 

[Shaki]

RPGs evolved from wargaming, and were always mostly about turn based combat and character management, everything else is just supposed to be an excuse to start fighting.

As you very correctly wrote, they evolved from that, took inspiration and went into a different direction.
They are no longer the same thing. Just like you are no longer an amorphous mass crawling landwards from the ocean.

You can be bitter about that until you rot in a grave, but that won't do you any good, nor will it change any facts.
Wargames / tactical games are one thing, RPGs another.
They can have strong similarities and often, they make very fine hybrids.

Sure, it still doesn't change the fact that BB is 10x more of an RPG, than games like Disco Elysium or Elden Ring which somehow won Codex GOTY. Every single gamer seems to have his own retarded definition of what is an "RPG" these days, and it usually comes down to "games I liked are RPG, games I didn't aren't RPG". I'll stick to mine, because it at least makes some sense and filters trash from the label very well.

 

[thesecret1]

In BB, there isn't any "you" that could die to result in an end state, no "you" that is elevated above other characters in the game, no "you" that has any impact on what is happening on the battlefield beyond "player is playing the game".
You are not that recruit you just hired a second ago and who will most likely get killed horribly in the next mission. Those are just pawns.
Again, except that game mode where suddenly there IS a "you" whose death results in an end state, one that IS elevated above the pawns, one that HAS an impact on what is happening beyond "player is playing the game".

So a game rule saying "If this one merc dies, you lose the game" was enough to shift BB from a tacticool management sim into an RPG?

 

[Zombra]

things

So games where you can make new characters at the tavern whenever you want aren't RPGs? Quick yes or no will do.

 

[thesheeep]

In BB, there isn't any "you" that could die to result in an end state, no "you" that is elevated above other characters in the game, no "you" that has any impact on what is happening on the battlefield beyond "player is playing the game".
You are not that recruit you just hired a second ago and who will most likely get killed horribly in the next mission. Those are just pawns.
Again, except that game mode where suddenly there IS a "you" whose death results in an end state, one that IS elevated above the pawns, one that HAS an impact on what is happening beyond "player is playing the game".

So a game rule saying "If this one merc dies, you lose the game" was enough to shift BB from a tacticool management sim into an RPG?

Not completely, it's still a hybrid obviously, you still have all the management aspect around the game, you still have the number of characters you control, dancing around that fine line between RPG and tactics game.
But that mode definitely shifts the scales a bit, just like it shifts how you play the game.
Which is great!

things

So games where you can make new characters at the tavern whenever you want aren't RPGs? Quick yes or no will do.

Obviously no (as in yes, they are RPGs).
I have no idea how you would even get the idea from what I wrote that the answer could be that they wouldn't be.

 

[Harthwain]

Sure, it still doesn't change the fact that BB is 10x more of an RPG [...]

I love Battle Brothers, but I always considered it to be a tactical game with RPG elements (strong RPG elements to be sure, but still elements, rather than something that lies at its core) and not a fully-fledged RPG. Saying otherwise opens up a can of worms where ANY tactical game with RPG elements can be called an RPG.

than games like Disco Elysium or Elden Ring which somehow won Codex GOTY. Every single gamer seems to have his own retarded definition of what is an "RPG" these days, and it usually comes down to "games I liked are RPG, games I didn't aren't RPG".

Elden Ring is considered by the mainstream to be an RPG exactly because it has "RPG elements". That's the problem.

Disco Elysium, on the other hand, doesn't just have RPG elements. It is an RPG. It is based off a tabletop and the core elements of PnP are the foundations of its mechanics. You may dislike how heavily it leans into narrative driven aspect of it, but you have Planescape: Torment to blame for this as it paved the way for this kind of gameplay (and, honestly, it is not all bad, provided you can get good writers). Frankly, when looking back it would be difficult to find a game that is more of an RPG than Disco Elysium.

The only thing Disco Elysium doesn't have is "tactical combat", but then you can always find people who say that in RPGs such as Arcanum, Fallout or Planescape: Torment combat is shit (with Fallout probably being a minority opinion. Less so with Arcanum and Planescape, where such voices are much more common), so it begs the question whether having shit combat is really a sensible requirement.

I'll stick to mine, because it at least makes some sense and filters trash from the label very well.

So it's pretty much "games I liked are RPG, games I didn't aren't RPG"?