Is there ANY similar type of wargame?

Hello, niche community!

Since this awesome subreddit has all kinds of players, each with their own tastes and opinions, I wanted to open up a discussion and hear what you all think.

Since the AI explosion, AI-generated content has become hugely popular in the game industry. And with these tools getting better every year, Steam has been flooded with games that had an AI disclosure for assets generation. I mean almost half of the games released on Steam in October disclosed AI-generated content, especially among indie devs. As a result a huge debate has appeared, and an anti-AI extremist group - if I may say so - has appeared.

To keep it brief, as a computer wargame nerd like me, would you mind if a good game had AI-generated assets like tanks, vehicles, buildings, etc. / any kind of generative AI, or would you instantly turn it off?

With the rise of AI, more and more wargames are being developed. I love it! Even if many of these games remain prototypes, it's still fascinating to see all the ideas that can spring from wargame enthusiasts.

If you're working on a game project, whatever its scope, feel free to share it here! I want to see how this genre can evolve in the future

Check it out: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4882890/Command_Doctrine/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/3902740/Kamikaze_Strike_FPV_Drone/

i am searching for a war/military game that has the idf in it. NOT SAGGER or WARGAME: Red Dragon

Hello, guys! I’m Oleksandr from Starni Games — a game development studio in Ukraine.
It is exactly one month after the Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom release. It is a turn-based strategy wargame set in WW2 + alternate history 1946. We want to share our first results with the Reddit community and discuss what could affect the release.

Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom is the fourth installment in the Strategic Mind line of games so I will compare it with our previous titles.

The Strategic Mind games quality grows

We monitor all of the players feedback and we can see that although there is still huge room for improvement the overall feedback becomes more favourable with every title. Still, we better look at some tangible criteria for more precise and unbiased results.

1) Median time played. Median does not mean average, it means that 50% of the players played longer than this number. Note that the average play times for later releases are likely to still grow:

Panzer Strategy (Released in 2018)
Median time played: 2 hours 16 minutes
Average time played: 23 hours 50 minutes
Strategic Mind: The Pacific (Released in 2019)

Median time played: 2 hours 23 minutes
Average time played: 23 hours 58 minutes

Strategic Mind: Blitzkrieg (Released in Q2 2020)
Median time played: 4 hours 49 minutes

Average time played: 49 hours 55 minutes

Strategic Mind: Spectre of Communism (Released in Q4 2020)

Median time played: 6 hours 6 minutes
Average time played: 37 hours 53 minutes
Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom (Released in Q2 2021)

Median time played: 8 hours 10 minutes (and keeps growing)

Average time played: 24 hours 44 minutes

As you can see, there is a steady growth in the median time played which is a good indication that more players now enjoy the game for a longer period of time.

2) Steam reviews
We should, of course, account for the smaller sample size for the more recent projects. However, if we just look at the overall numbers we will see the following picture:

Panzer Strategy

417 reviews 65% positive*
Strategic Mind: The Pacific

429 reviews 76% positive*

Strategic Mind: Blitzkrieg
271 reviews 87% positive*

Strategic Mind: Spectre of Communism

92 reviews 92% positive*
Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom

37 reviews 94% positive*

*Only Steam purchasers’ reviews are counted. Newer projects have lower overall count since they are selling for a shorter period.

So, we can see that the Steam customers rate the games progressively better.

The Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom - not so good release

The most successful release so far was Strategic Mind: Blitzkrieg.
Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom got even better results in the first 12 hours - so we are grateful to our loyal community who supported us and got the game on release.

However, this time we did not get nearly as much traffic from Steam. It is decided by very complex Steam algorithms that we do not know (to exclude any bias). Here is the number of visits from the two main sources of new visitors on Steam:
Strategic Mind: Blitzkrieg 1 months after release (Released 22 May 2020)
Discovery queue visits: 136,274
Steam homepage visits: 124,919
Total: 261,193 visits

Strategic Mind Fight for Freedom 1 months after release (Released 21 May 2021)

Discovery queue visits: 51,033

Steam homepage visits: 12,605

Total: 63,638 visits

This means that Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom got 4 times less exposure on Steam despite a more successful day 1 sales.

Basically, we did what we could to promote the game and the community supported us on day 1. Afterwards, we got less exposure on Steam and consequently much lower overall sales.

To make sure there is no wrong interpretation of my words: we are not trying to accuse Steam or something, we are only wondering how the system works and how we as developers could predict it better for a more accurate estimation of future releases.

What the future holds

Despite this unfortunate setback, we are already working hard on the Strategic Mind: Spirit of Liberty that might become the last Strategic Mind title. We will keep you updated on our production progress, but the first maps are already playable and go through the testing process. The Spirit of Liberty will most likely be released in Q1 2022. We will keep polishing all the Strategic Mind titles and making sure they are up to date.

Check out the Strategic Mind: Fight for Freedom on Steam Summer Sale now and save 20% until July 8: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1381850?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=summer_sale

Hey guys, I'm currently creating a game where you can use AI to generate any battle from any era. What do you think? Try it at www.command-doctrine.com, I would love to hear your feedback!

Picked up Armored Brigade 2 and played around with a few scenarios, Specifically twin valleys scenario.

You play as a US mechanized company defending against a Soviet motorized rifle battalion.

At the start of the mission the Soviets use smoke to cover their advance, great start. Except the smoke hits far beyond the objective and does nothing.

Next, the Soviets send their armored personnel carriers to get massacred by my Bradley’s. Only at the end do the tanks come in.

Compare this to Combat Mission Cold War where a Russian attack happens according to doctrine. Artillery hits possible ATGM positions and smoke conceals the attack. Then, tanks move up first to cover the APC’s. It’s not perfect but much better than the first scenario.

After a couple hours of Armored Brigade 2 I just went back to Combat Mission. I appreciate that it gave me a new appreciation for a game I took a break from.

A few years back I had a dilemma with the USA in my WWI naval strategy game. Honestly, I thought playing them would be kind of boring — tons of resources, strongest navy, great infrastructure… basically too easy.

But ever since, I keep getting the same question: “Why no USA?”

Now I’m considering two options:

• Make the US unlockable only if the player captures all American ports.

• Or just let them be playable from the start (maybe replacing Italy).

What would you prefer?

Real time strategy game I am working on that takes place in the modern russo-ukrainian war. Inspired by classics such as Sudden Strike I & II, Blitzkrieg and the Men of War series.

You can download the full game (Windows / Linux) for free on https://vanadislab.itch.io/steel-and-rubble if you are interested.

The following languages are supported: English, Russian, Ukrainian, German

Disclaimer: While this game takes place in a current real life war, it is by no means meant to glorify that war: it explores the setting and the technology it is fought with. All maps, places, units and people are invented.

I’m a solo dev that been working on a turn-based strategy game for the last few months where you play the president of Ukraine during the war. The geography is real and the people are fictional. It mixes Suzerain’s story, a lighter take on Hearts of Iron’s war, and Frostpunk’s hard choices with lasting consequences.

You run the country and the war together the economy, production, research, diplomacy and partners, but also the front. You build defences, place air defence against missile waves, plan strikes inside Russia, manage the logistics, protect the grain lane at sea and send brigades on assaults. Every turn plays out day by day, and every number in the turn report shows what caused it.

Here’s what I’ve always felt was missing. I love these games, but I’ve never had real control of the military in a turn-based strategy game, what each unit can actually do, how an assault is built, how drones change the fight. Most games give you a number for strength and a button for “attack”. I want it to feel like you’re planning a real operation.

So I’d like to hear from you:

• What’s missing from the strategy games you love? The thing you keep wishing HOI4, Frostpunk, Suzerain or anything else let you do.

• How deep should the assaults go? Orders per front, or picking units, routes, artillery and timing yourself?

• Drones: recon, strikes, swarms, electronic warfare. Which would you want to control directly?

• The rest of the job: do you want deep logistics, production and story alongside the war, or should those stay light so the military side can be deep?

• Defense Defense Defense: would be able to build your trench lines, place dragonteeth, build tank traps, create minefields feel to micro managy for you or is something that would draw you to the game?

• The Action - How would you want to see it play out? Plan an operation and see the battle in real time, and make calls should the battlefield change? Or stack up all your orders and see the major combat operations across all fronts one by one (that would be skippable)

All screens are work in progress. I’ll be in the comments.

Hello, me and my brother have been working on this new game and I'm really excited about it. It draws inspiration from ancient warfare and is set in a world influenced by early Turkish tribe systems. The game lets you step into the shoes of a tactician, where you manage armies and utilize realistic battle tactics to secure victory.

Here's the thing: I'm not sure if our game falls under the category of a tactical wargame. You see, while it's about warfare and commanding troops, it also incorporates a manager simulation aspect, similar to those popular football manager games.

For example one of our game mechanics is that you give orders to leaders who control the soldiers on the battlefield, and based on your decisions it will impact the outcome of battles. But there will be also mechanics like; training, scouting new leaders, and a league system.

We've put a lot of effort into ensuring historical accuracy and have taken inspiration from ancient warfare and tactical maneuvers to make the battles as realistic and engaging as possible.

So, my question to you all is: Do you think our game can be considered a tactical wargame? I'm really curious to hear your thoughts and insights on this.

Edit: my apologies to everyone if it sounds self-promoting post. I remove the game name as i mentioned in the comments that I intended to learn the genre. I am fairly new at this stuff. So maybe message moderators would be a best next time.

Apparently the Mius Front team is from Ukraine....I'm wondering if realistically this game will be getting anymore updates/DLCs anytime soon?

Such a shame and tragedy if Mius Front dies because of the war.

What are the only other options - cr*ppy Combat Mission?

Mius Front is basicaly the only modern, realistic, and tactical wargame.

Without Mius Front, the wargame genre will forever be stuck in 1995.

Yeah, well, alright, AI is baaaad. I still kind of look back fondly on my past innocence, back when our original demo for TFA was held up by Steam because I'd mentioned using AI for spellchecking and felt obligated to explain why and how. Nowadays that would hardly even qualify as "AI use." But beyond a few abuses, is it really such a bad thing?

Nearly all the recent game concepts you've seen on the board lately have been made, in one way or another, using AI as an all-in-one assistant - finally giving wings to guys out there who had ideas but didn't personally have the skills to code them. Some of these were, to be honest, very promising. Claude is doing a great deal on the prototyping front, helping tremendously with proofs of concept. You can tell where it's coming from right away, with those telltale golden default fonts and frames that make it recognizable from the get-go.

But should our designers be ashamed of using that approach? They're not taking a coder's job away - a coder they wouldn't have been able to afford in the first place. Refusing to let them post, or criticizing their approach, only makes them more reluctant to post at all. And when they do post, they dread the inevitable question: which engine? Which language?

I'm following this wargaming resurgence with a lot of interest. A LLM isn't going to imagine something the designer hasn't already thought of. Sure, a LLM can make a game that looks at least as good as Armoured Commander nowadays... But no AI can truly "make" Armoured Commander without being told what it's about and how it's supposed to work. Should we really frown on the next game of that kind being just around the corner, and decide to nail the guy to the wall because we're anti-Claude?

Nobody who's actually trying to make a buck is interested in our niche. The people using AI to help them make games are mostly people like us.

I'd say: give them a chance, let them have it. We should be focusing on the mechanics, and pushing forward the systems that show the most promise. Then maybe, down the line, a coder joins, a publisher takes an interest: you never know. But at least let's be nice to them. Whether you like it or not, they're the designers of tomorrow, and even though we need to set standards, we should judge the substance rather than the polish. My 2 cents.

I see a lot of posts where people are looking for games with 'competent' AI. Here's a question: Why do people want to play a war game against the computer at all? Even if the AI was great, isn't it much more fun to play against a human being? Is it just that finding opponents is really that hard? Or is it something else?

Hello fellow wargamers, I'm a solo developer of Close the Sky.

Close the Sky is a real-time strategy game about city building, economy management, air defense and long-range strikes. You build one city, the enemy builds another, and both of you build up an economy, put radars and SAMs around it and send drones and missiles at each other.

What I have in the game so far:

• You can play seven nations (Ukraine, US, EU, China, Iran, Israel and Russia) and each gets its own weapons and research tree.

• Every weapon is a real one, under its real name. Shahed-136, Iskander-M, Storm Shadow, Patriot PAC-3, Iron Dome, the FP-5 Flamingo, Magura sea drones and a lot more.

• Building a city that grows into skyscrapers once density increases.

• Ramp up economy production to build air defenses and offensive weapons. For that you build refineries, power plans, electronics factories and more

• The match ends when one side's national will runs out. Will is deducted every time you get hit.

• Intelligence services allow spying on the enemy's stockpiles, research direction and more.

I'd love to get your thoughts on whether something like this would be interesting to play and if so, what would you like to see in the game?

Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/5062880/

Thank you for reading, I'll be happy to chat in the comments!

Hi all,

I created a simple war game taking inspiration from Stonkers (an old Spectrum game), the Ukraine conflict and a focus on interdiction i.e. cutting supply lines rather than head-on conflict. It's free to play at https://interdiction.app/ and there will be Android and iOS apps available soon. It has 4 levels of AI opponent (2 for free and the top 2 will be an in app purchase). Ultimately I'd like to palyer vs player as well, but one step at a time. There's no advertising, no accounts, no tracking just honest fun. Anyway, I would love feedback if you have chance to play a few games. Thanks.

Is there a strategy war game where you can commit war crimes?

Are there any physical board games worth playing? I've been looking at physical war games like GMT games, and am wondering if there are any worth playing solo, purely from a gameplay perspective compared to computer war games. I suppose the gameplay would have to be unique enough to not be yet replicated in a digital game and upkeep is not too cumbersome. Which do you recommend?