Kickstarter - Steam Squad

Steam Squad is a turn-based wargame for PC, Mac and Linux. It takes place in an alternate universe during World War I.

i saw this last week, but didnt give it much attention… after a bit more reading, this looks pretty interesting (at least from the alternate history perspective)… i’m sure there are some squad based fans out there… :wink:

I love the idea of this, and reading that map I was squealing with glee but I have to say, that gameplay looked a tad…dry.

I wish they’d shown what happens besides the actual fighting in-game, but as is I was a wee bit disappointed that the gameplay just couldn’t thrill me.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown :stuck_out_tongue: to be honest I also preferred XCOM’s tiled play instead of this which is free roam

I’m a fan of turn-based strategy games and alternate reality/Steampunk worlds myself. The idea of the game sounds pretty neat, but I agree with @Smokestacks on the gameplay. It seems a bit too basic and linear of an idea to really come off as an outstanding experience for me. Plus, considering all the other games I’ve recently invested in (Stonehearth, Starbound, A Hat in Time, and Soul Saga–and these are just the PC games!), I’m going to be busy enough as it is…

1 Like

you know, i couldnt quite pinpoint what didnt work for me while watching the campaign video… this was it though…

great concept and storyline, but the (crucial) combat elements needs some fine tuning…

1 Like

Steve, you have disappointed the Kickstarter gods in your attempted exposure of this game. They will strike vengeance upon you unless this game improves. THOU HAST BEEN WARN’D.

1 Like

Woah woah woah.

Woah. :wink:

It does need some work, the gameplay just didn’t look all that fun and seemed rather…well not objectiveless, the objective was to kill the enemies…but there was no grand scheme of things, there was no reason to do so and the gameplay didn’t quite look as tactical as I would really hope for in a squad game if I’m honest…you just run, throw a grenade or shoot, and apparently shoot again and again if that doesn’t work?

But that map is honestly a killer. I really don’t want to walk away…it’s one of my huge loves about Civ, the alternate history, as a young(er) child, I always used to ask “What if” questions (and I’m sure most do, it was just that was 80% of why I spoke) and these kinda games are awesome for that; “What if Spain hadn’t conquered and pillaged South America?”, “What if Rome hadn’t fallen?”

So this map is a killer. Some really, really cool ideas for what happened differently but still recognisable: perfect. If this game brushes up gameplay a bit, I think it may persuade me. However I’m highly unlikely to Kickstart it.

1 Like

all very valid points… truly the sign of a higher intellect… glares at @ManOfRet

i think im of a similar mind, and will likely not back during the campaign (unless some significant headway is made in the combat arena), but will follow the game afterwards… maybe… :wink:

1 Like

If higher intellect is what you’re looking for, I will simply demonstrate my bilingualism, which is, as I’m sure you are familiar with, is rather unfortunately uncommon in these great United States of America. In addition, I might like to point out my proper use of capitalization and punctuation, Mr. Steve.

If we are being honest here, though, I understand that the footage was only early alpha, but still, the graphical style doesn’t quite suit me, and if I’m not mistaken, their necks were slightly breaking due to divergence of the vertebrae whenever they got shot at/exploded/dead-ed. In other words, it looked like their necks were getting longer/heads were about to pop off when they died. Also, though, I do like the fact that they are trying to break off of the tiled mold of TBS games, but it just doesn’t look like it works well in actual combat. I know that Rome II has the same movement mechanic, but that’s only for the campaign map, and it is well-made and polished. Also, there was truly a complete absence of overarching objective. I mean, it makes sense if they are trying to make an overhead “Worms” types game (maybe?), but it just doesn’t float my boat without it being based on that same type of deathmatch-y gameplay, where the only objective is to win. If it’s going to have any sort of success, it is probably going to need additional objectives, like a flag/base/zone to protect, perhaps, or maybe a VIP to keep from dying?

Anyway, pardon my (sort-of) wall of text, but there is my “higher intellect-based” analysis of this game. :stuck_out_tongue:

One more thing – it might have helped to have put about 2-4 more weeks of work into it before they tried to open it up to the public? I mean, as has been mentioned several times, even if it is shown to be an incredibly early demo, any sort of buggy showcase can lead to a bad rep, and it might have helped to have made a slightly more-finished product to show off.

P.S. – Why are “deathmatch” and “gameplay” not real words in the HTML dictionary yet?


hiGhly oveRratEd skiLls… cleArly

overall, excellent analysis… and one i would agree with… lots of bits and pieces to the game, but the whole picture, isnt quite “whole” yet… :wink:

absolutely… first impressions and all that… critical (in most cases) to a successful campaign (unless of course you have and existing ravenous fan base just waiting to throw money at whatever they’re presented with)…

1 Like

Indeed. I would pay an extra $45 for THAT ALPHA BUILD right now, Radiant guys! (not really, I wouldn’t be willing to pay more than $44.99)

You know, looking back, what stuck out to me was that they mention the use of vehicles, albeit limited in description. It sounds interesting, but it still seems a bit shallow, even with this.

You know what would really make this game pop to me? Open the Y-axis up: significant terrain elevation, accessible multi-floored buildings, and aircraft!

Think of the new gameplay and considerations with elevation alone, even with just the current, basic set of soldiers they’ve presented. Height can obscure range of fire (or give bonuses when holding higher ground), create physical changes to moving around the map, and–especially to this sort of game–give HUGE diversity in the sort of maps that can be created. The demo map in the video looks very nice, but apart from a raised sandbag platform I noticed, the entire area is pretty much a flat surface with a few objects strewn about to hide behind. A good example of what I’m thinking of would be how in X-COM you can climb over or on top of objects within each map, even getting on rooftops and certain vehicles.

Now of course, adding airships and the like that can ascend/descend around the map and ferry troops (raids and aerial sieges), as well as height and buildings you can occupy, you’ve got a ton more gameplay to mess around with.


Tada! You have now proven to be sufficiently normal. Seriously pretty much all of the “super awesome” game ideas or lists of games people would like to be made focus either around realism or open world attributes whether they realise it or not.

As for the actual game it looks interesting, I don’t foresee much problems with the non grid based movement with turns and it should work fine. I’m just unlikely to back it because of a tendency to dislike parting with my money and that I generally prefer grander games then a squad based strategy can give me. It looks like it could be quite good though.

Normal? I thought we all decided that was a myth. Either that, or I’m an incredibly good faker.

(mwa ha ha! no one suspects a thing!)

1 Like

Normal in what you think makes a game awesome, that is “MORE STUFF!” Normal at anything else is unknown, I know that I’m not normal at just about anything but you might be. I’m probably not the best judge though.

[size=7]I like more stuff too[/size]


Right, it’s true that the common trend recently has been towards more features and versatility, it makes the game more appreciate and have a greater lifespan–look at Stonehearth and the popularity from the idea of modding capabilities, and it hasn’t even released to Beta yet.

But personally, the Y-axis specifically has always interested me in games, whether it falls under adventure, puzzle, strategy, RPG, etc., genres. Particularly because it’s a concept that can easily be present in all of these categories in some form, but each finds its own creative means to incorporate it into their gameplay and experience. I never thought (and overthought) about it so in depth until now…

Sheesh, it’s starting to sound like a research project.

“Going Up: The Concepts of Height and Elevation and Their Influence in Gameplay,” by Atralane.