For the next game I think I will go for the HTML5 and Windows build. Performance increases with the local windows client (browser caps things at 60 fps, when the game could be running at 100 fps, etc.)
Also Can you add a tutorial ? Even if it's just text on the game page it would be useful the explain the UI so people don't have to spend time figuring it out first
Tutorials are tough because they take up a lot of time that would be used for content/mechanics. But I do agree I need to do a better job of communicating core mechanics. At the very least I will do a youtube video going through explaining mechanics.
Can you give me examples of the ways in which the UI confused/frustrated you?
I would say that all the upgrades and "general" effects seem very underwhelming and leave much to be desired, especially with the high randomness of the attack and defense. The game is by far more decided by truce timing and board strategy than by development and tactics, which is a bit of a bummer.
The UI is good. The skill trees and upgrades are perfectly simple. The diplomacy is very good, probably my favorite part. The map seems fairly balanced and well thought out. The players play well.
Took me a while to figure out all the mechanics and messed up on first movement phase thinking that it was only for placing your generals.
Thanks again and take care :)
Edit: I love the coalition. Really shouldn't be losing all 40 troops vs 4 defending when attacking.
Upgrades I agree were a total waste of time and the fact that you contrast them with Reforms being good, is something I would agree with.
Diplomacy was a total rework from Saxon Kings, but I think its heading the right direction considering coalitions are new. It is going to take a few more games to iron out the meta-gaming but it was a good attempt.
In terms of combat I think the aggregate/flat percentage for battles has outstayed its welcome. The next game will probably have combat based on the unit level rather than at the army level.
Nation Wars was intentionally general, it didn't have a theme and was just vague provinces. The goal of the game was for me to think about mechanics. It was always a learning exercise that I would apply to my next theme, either feudal Japan or a rework of my first world war game Battle for Europe.
← Return to game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Honestly, I think the main thing that bothers me is the fact that Alaska doesn't connect to Northeast Russia.
Tried it but personally like Saxon Kings more just from an aesthetic perspective, my brain is all over that type of map.
That is fair. Next game will have natural borders not straight lines.
You really should make an executable version for people that have it running slow in their browsers
I didn't want to debug x2 builds of the game, that is why there is only a browser build.
For your next game you should consider it
For the next game I think I will go for the HTML5 and Windows build. Performance increases with the local windows client (browser caps things at 60 fps, when the game could be running at 100 fps, etc.)
Also
Can you add a tutorial ?
Even if it's just text on the game page it would be useful the explain the UI so people don't have to spend time figuring it out first
Tutorials are tough because they take up a lot of time that would be used for content/mechanics. But I do agree I need to do a better job of communicating core mechanics. At the very least I will do a youtube video going through explaining mechanics.
Can you give me examples of the ways in which the UI confused/frustrated you?
The game runs well on microsoft edge for what it's worth.
Thanks for the info, I have seen issues if the game is left running for a long time but fresh browser usually runs fine.
Thanks for another great game!
I would say that all the upgrades and "general" effects seem very underwhelming and leave much to be desired, especially with the high randomness of the attack and defense. The game is by far more decided by truce timing and board strategy than by development and tactics, which is a bit of a bummer.
The UI is good. The skill trees and upgrades are perfectly simple. The diplomacy is very good, probably my favorite part. The map seems fairly balanced and well thought out. The players play well.
Took me a while to figure out all the mechanics and messed up on first movement phase thinking that it was only for placing your generals.
Thanks again and take care :)
Edit: I love the coalition. Really shouldn't be losing all 40 troops vs 4 defending when attacking.
Appreciate you sticking around!
Upgrades I agree were a total waste of time and the fact that you contrast them with Reforms being good, is something I would agree with.
Diplomacy was a total rework from Saxon Kings, but I think its heading the right direction considering coalitions are new. It is going to take a few more games to iron out the meta-gaming but it was a good attempt.
In terms of combat I think the aggregate/flat percentage for battles has outstayed its welcome. The next game will probably have combat based on the unit level rather than at the army level.
Nation Wars was intentionally general, it didn't have a theme and was just vague provinces. The goal of the game was for me to think about mechanics. It was always a learning exercise that I would apply to my next theme, either feudal Japan or a rework of my first world war game Battle for Europe.
Thanks for playing the game!