We don't need to do anything.
Battle Aces is fun. It's a cool game. It can co exist alongside stormgate.
Personally I don't think battle aces will hold my attention long term unless they have an aggressive post release content strategy. It'll be fun to play, and I will continue playing it as a side game. But I don't think it scratches the same itch with the complexity of rts's like sc2. I just like macro and the way attention is taxed by things other than micro.
Battle Aces instantly clicked for me. It gave me that adrenaline rush I got playing diamond 2 sc2 zerg that I never got from Stormgate. But I think that's because SG isn't mature enough in development. It will get to a good place eventually, but as of now Battle Aces is in the lead.
You sure about that? With SC2, WC3, SG and Battle Aces among other strategy games it seems fairly crowded and RTS gaming is still niche. And gaming devs in the US have high salaries nowadays.
?
Different games that scratch different itches. Traditional RTS with base building and potential for long complex games vs fast paced moba with RTS armies.
Battles aces looks fun to jump in and play in short bursts where I think Stormgate will have much more longevity for me.
Everyone is hopping to Battle Aces? What kind of bubble are you in? Battle Aces has worse metrics in terms of traction than ZeroSpace did, let alone Stormgate.
It had fewer followers on pretty much all social media accounts when it was announced compared to what ZS managed after being announced. It is now closing the distance with what is basically an open beta to anyone who is remotely interested but numbers are still not great. It is not getting any interest outside a very small group of SC2 players.
I am not comparing their current numbers. I am comparing what ZS managed like a week after its announcement vs. what BA managed in the same time frame. I am also not comparing it to SG in that same time frame. There would be no comparison whatsoever there.
Checking steamdb you can see the followers which translates to wishlists at probably like [12x](https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/why-your-steam-follower-to-wishlist). Battle aces has [3.5k](https://steamdb.info/app/2682180/charts/) in the 3 weeks its steam page has been up. ZS had [3.2k](https://steamdb.info/app/1605850/charts/) in 3 weeks so BA is maybe a little ahead. But BA is actually playable/streamable right now which really drives up numbers so I'd give the win to ZS as having more real interest.
For reference Stormgate got [13.7k](https://steamdb.info/app/2012510/charts/) in that same timeframe (with also nothing playable).
Mh I've played Battle Aces for like an hour then put it aside as it became too boring to me. And I was initially excited to test it..
It isn't a bad game overall but the lack of base building options really made it super repetitive for me. And that's coming from an RTS player that loves to micro and fight with units.
Battle Aces and Stormgate are two different beasts. Both games have their strengths and weaknesses. Stormgate, it's in its final preparation stage for early access, which will determine its place in the industry. We will witness how Stormgate will fare in about a month, so let us wait and see.
Personally, I prefer Stormgate for its story-based campaign and co-op mode that's being designed by the same person who delivered the masterpiece of SC2 co-op mode, which Battle Aces won't cover.
Yeah stormgate is the closest we'll get to a spiritual successor to sc3 and coop and has previous industry experience. I'm new to battle aces. but I'd probably just end up trying or buying both with how starved the rts genre and rts coop is. Still playing sc2 coop on the same 10 missions gets stale.
Even Pal world which was a success game got people bored of waiting for updates vs staff training time and Helldivers. As soon as they hired people, A new three games of the month came over the last game of the month.
Battle aces is more fun than I expected but it's too fast imo. There will be an audience for that kind of a game for sure and that's good for RTS though. The games can absolutely coexist.
However, battle aces is about as extreme as possible on the macro/micro scale. That means other games need to adjust where they lie to not fall too close to the micro side because if you want a micro game you'd just play that one.
Well the way I see it Battle Aces is basically dumbing down base building, and turning into "deck" building.
There's still a huge place in RTS for positioning structures, and positioning is a huge part of most strategy games not just RTS. So, what I was going to say they've actually already done, especially with the Celestials, which is to make buildings play a bigger factor in battles.
Other than that, I think what they could do is make base building more "chess"-like. The wc/sc formula is pretty much: you have a central base and expand as necessary. But its rarely more strategic in the sense that when you move a rook out of the back row you move it to pin your opponent or control squares. Base building/relocating bases could be a fun part of the game and that's one thing they can do: make bases play a bigger part of the overall strategy.
The core gameplay between the games are different enough to the point where I don't see them replacing each other. Battle Aces has the advantage of being revealed more recently and in a more polished state. Stormgate has looked rougher and more unfinished in exchange for earlier visibility and feedback.
FG killed hype by announce of Celestials.
They hold secret for year or even more and then showed most predictable option. The difference between secrecy and result looks like lack of creativity
And they alos has big focus on Coop and PvP. But PvP-reddit warrios is not backbone of RTS-casual audience. Are there any updates on Campaign? Where is Mission showcase? Where anything about story of atmospehere? And for me this is marker that game is DOA.
Who is saying Stormgate is dead? Nobody I know. The fucking game isn’t out yet and you are calling it dead. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
Let these games come out and have 5 freaking minutes to develop before deciding what they are or can be.
We've just really evolved as an RTS community. People have been saying SC2 was a dead gaem since 2013 or so (maybe even earlier), so now we gotta get ahead of things and proclaim the game being dead before it's even born! Can't get disappointed that way
I've watched a few games of Battle Aces, and it looks like a very fun arcade game, but it lacks the strategic depth I'm accustomed to in StarCraft and Stormgate. It's fun for a number of matches, but my concern as a player is that there'll be only one real avenue for improvement, improving micro skill, and to a far lesser extent, deepening my understanding of the very rudimentary macro mechanics.
In Stormgate and other RTSes, I can improve by getting better at micro, or I can tighten up my build, make sure I'm hitting a good timing. I can also try to out-macro my opponent, spending my money faster than them, including with more production buildings.
Trying to figure out what my strengths and weaknesses are, and utilizing those strengths well is what excites me in an RTS game. When I got solid macro in SC2, I practiced doing a couple runbys and warp-ins. When I got reasonable at that, I got hit with harassment, so I made sure to build cannons and batteries so those attacks would simply bounce. Each improvement was incremental, and I could improve by focusing on my weakest skills, making improvement much smoother and more engaging than if macro mechanics were not as deep.
Battle Aces doesn't have much of that, and I think a lot of players will enjoy it for a while, maybe a month or two, but they'll eventually stagnate and find it hard to continue to improve. Players who want something more might move on from BA to Stormgate. I think it's good to have an arcade style RTS, and it's an important part of building an ecosystem that can give players a way to grow into the genre, while more traditional RTSes can hold players' interest for longer.
There can be more than one RTS. Battle Aces is just the newest announcement so yeah there will be some coverage.
I like base building so I don't think it'll be for me so I'm not worried about it or give it much thought.
Battle aces will take the spot of rocket league for me. It’s fast quick fun games. But when I have an hour or more to ladder it’ll always be storm gate I go too you just can’t beat the base building and macro micro combo of a traditional RTS
To be honest, playing BA has proven to me that everything I was worried about with that game is indeed an issue. The monetization will suck, being locked out of units in competitive play feels bad, not actually building bases is dull and boring. At best, I see BA as a side game when I don't have a lot of time.
Then you have the fact that a custom editor for interesting custom games, campaigns, and co-op are all missing for when you aren't in the mood to ladder or want something slower paced.
When 3v3 launches, it will also likely be similar to co-op where you only get a single expansion and it is more composition and objective focused.
I honestly don't see how BA has any longevity unless they have a lot more planned that isn't announced. I got bored after playing for a single night, I have yet to feel bored playing SG.
Personally, the monetization model of p2w killed most of my hype for this game. It could be a fun game but unless they have an entire unit bundle purchase pack up front, I don't think I'll be sticking with Battle aces as my main RTS.
Battle Aces doesn’t do much for the 75% of RTS players who never touch the 1v1 mode and prefer campaign and co-op. Not saying BA is a bad game, but it’s not gonna be the game for a large portion of the RTS community unless they eventually add those modes in.
I played a lot of both Stormgate and Battle Aces and I find both games quite fun.
Reached diamond 2 in stormgate & top ace in battle aces.
The thing I dislike about stormgate is the visuals and not really happy with FG's response on the matter.
Battle Aces visuals are much more superior to the point I'm surprised that they're so good on first ever closed beta.
On the other hand, Stormgate looks like it has a much wider potential scope going forward, bringing in 3v3, coop, campaigns, etc. I don't know what Battle Aces can do beyond the 1v1 & 2v2 modes we have atm. I do hope that dev team comes up with a cool way to introduce a story mode in that game tho or some kind of a fun PvE element.
Battle Aces is fun but it's really shallow compared to Stormgate. It's something to bridge the gap until SG early access, or to play with friends who aren't into the high demands of a full RTS. I hope both games are successful, but the lack of complexity means BA will not hold the attention traditional RTS fans for long.
Speeding up the game and rebalancing economy to support larger armies might be a good start. Otherwise it will be rough coming back to SG after experiencing BA.
Stormgate is StarCraft at home.
You want to make Starcraft 3 basically but with 1/100 of the budget. Of course players will catch on.
BattleAces is all innovation. Also perfect features for the zoomer generation with the 5-10min battles.
>BattleAces is all innovation.
There is no single feature in game that is new and fresh. Inneoations was SC1 - truly assymetric faction for the first time in history. Innovation was Warcraft 3 - heroes wit items, experience ans creep camps. This was new machanics, new ideas. Watering down and innovation isn't the same.
BA is irrelevant. Not only versus is completely different (it's more like custom map from editor with simplify many, many mechanics, it's not even close to classic RTS), not only it has no PvE game modes, but also level of interest from wider audience is close to zero (505 on steam wishlist vs 395 for ZeroSpace and 35 in terms of Stormgate)
It’s called SC2 and it’s the most popular RTS in history. All FGS had to do was emulate it but they couldn’t resist dumbing it down and throwing WC3 mechanics in it.
Yes my comment was being sarcastic if it wasn't clear. I totally agree with you btw, if they literally made a clone of SC2 but with actual support, I'm pretty sure 95% of people would switch over in a heartbeat. (Maybe remove a few problematic mechanics that most people hate)
But instead, they went and tried to please everyone, and instead greatly disappointed the StarCraft community, which coincidentally happens to be the biggest RTS community out there, despite what this subreddit likes to think.
You 100% get it. Its outrageous.
They tried to make a game for everyone and ended up making a game for no one. It is mind blowing how bad they messed it up when the assignment was so obvious. Pander and appeal to the largest RTS market in existence, or do whatever the hell they have done here and disappoint literally everyone 🤣
Literally do what Valve did when they made Dota2 from the original Dota.
I don't give a fuck if the game isn't "innovative". StarCraft 2 is a very close to perfect game, just take that model and refine it slightly (maybe get rid of some gimmicky things like widow mines, disruptor shots, etc.).
It's especially frustrating because I've spent 14 years practicing my specific mechanics in StarCraft (medivac pickup micro, macro cycles, bio splitting), and it's just like throwing all of that out the window is I swap now. As of now, I really just don't see myself switching over.
I've been voicing this ever since 2022, and it doesn't seem like FG cares. In 2023 I spoke to the developers at DH Atlanta and told them this, and their response was "We love StarCraft 2, it's a great game. We won't blame you if you decide to stay."
But like... I want you to want me to switch. You should be fighting for my loyalty.
Ya when they first announced it, they targeted us heavily. It’s the main reason they got off the ground at all lol. Then it slowly started to become painfully obvious that they didn’t see us as the target audience. To be honest, I don’t have a clue who they are targeting anymore and I don’t think they do either. I think they were given an insane amount of money, gave it to themselves and their friends, and seen it as an opportunity to make a game they want, not a game their donors wanted.
Still not even positive this project makes it to full release at their spend rate.
I played the beta of both for a few hours
Not only is battle aces way more fun, it's also somehow more polished despite the massive amount of funding stormgate has. The unit voice lines and overall art design is peak
Not to mention battle aces hasn't asked for a single dollar from their audience yet, no Kickstarter, you can't even buy in game currency and people are literally begging them to enable it so they can unlock things faster.
I played Battle aces today and it looks even closer to those mobile games where you drop units and watch them fight than actual RTS. Cartoon graphics, no basebuilding, little to no micro (to the point where units will automatically choose the target they want even if you click on something else).
I won 12/12 matches just following the same principles of Winter's guide to get out of metal leagues with 50 APM.
Stormgate isn't going to be a huge success, but Battle Aces certainly isn't a competitor for its market.
We don't need to do anything. Battle Aces is fun. It's a cool game. It can co exist alongside stormgate. Personally I don't think battle aces will hold my attention long term unless they have an aggressive post release content strategy. It'll be fun to play, and I will continue playing it as a side game. But I don't think it scratches the same itch with the complexity of rts's like sc2. I just like macro and the way attention is taxed by things other than micro.
Agreed.
Battle Aces instantly clicked for me. It gave me that adrenaline rush I got playing diamond 2 sc2 zerg that I never got from Stormgate. But I think that's because SG isn't mature enough in development. It will get to a good place eventually, but as of now Battle Aces is in the lead.
Until Tempest Rising comes
Not my thing at all
You sure about that? With SC2, WC3, SG and Battle Aces among other strategy games it seems fairly crowded and RTS gaming is still niche. And gaming devs in the US have high salaries nowadays.
? Different games that scratch different itches. Traditional RTS with base building and potential for long complex games vs fast paced moba with RTS armies. Battles aces looks fun to jump in and play in short bursts where I think Stormgate will have much more longevity for me.
More people are streaming battle aces now because you literally can't play stormgate right now.
I like Battle Aces, but the strategic choice of build order and scouting is mostly lost in it, and I miss that.
Yea I had Way more fun in Stormgate betas due to macro and basebuilding,
Everyone is hopping to Battle Aces? What kind of bubble are you in? Battle Aces has worse metrics in terms of traction than ZeroSpace did, let alone Stormgate.
OP sees battle aces getting some small amount of viewership and immediately correlates that to its over for Stormgate. They are a jackass.
Curious where you seen it had less traction than ZS. I don't doubt it, but just would be fun to look into.
It had fewer followers on pretty much all social media accounts when it was announced compared to what ZS managed after being announced. It is now closing the distance with what is basically an open beta to anyone who is remotely interested but numbers are still not great. It is not getting any interest outside a very small group of SC2 players.
It literalally got announced one fucking month ago lol. SG has been announced for like what, 3 years?
I am not comparing their current numbers. I am comparing what ZS managed like a week after its announcement vs. what BA managed in the same time frame. I am also not comparing it to SG in that same time frame. There would be no comparison whatsoever there.
Checking steamdb you can see the followers which translates to wishlists at probably like [12x](https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/why-your-steam-follower-to-wishlist). Battle aces has [3.5k](https://steamdb.info/app/2682180/charts/) in the 3 weeks its steam page has been up. ZS had [3.2k](https://steamdb.info/app/1605850/charts/) in 3 weeks so BA is maybe a little ahead. But BA is actually playable/streamable right now which really drives up numbers so I'd give the win to ZS as having more real interest. For reference Stormgate got [13.7k](https://steamdb.info/app/2012510/charts/) in that same timeframe (with also nothing playable).
Damn I am suprised to see how Stormgate and Tempest Rising both were Way ahead. Even Tempest Rising had simlar Numbers to Stormgate had after 3 weeks
I didn't play ZeroSpace, but i played both sg and battle aces and for me battle aces was more fun.
Mh I've played Battle Aces for like an hour then put it aside as it became too boring to me. And I was initially excited to test it.. It isn't a bad game overall but the lack of base building options really made it super repetitive for me. And that's coming from an RTS player that loves to micro and fight with units.
Battle Aces and Stormgate are two different beasts. Both games have their strengths and weaknesses. Stormgate, it's in its final preparation stage for early access, which will determine its place in the industry. We will witness how Stormgate will fare in about a month, so let us wait and see. Personally, I prefer Stormgate for its story-based campaign and co-op mode that's being designed by the same person who delivered the masterpiece of SC2 co-op mode, which Battle Aces won't cover.
Yeah stormgate is the closest we'll get to a spiritual successor to sc3 and coop and has previous industry experience. I'm new to battle aces. but I'd probably just end up trying or buying both with how starved the rts genre and rts coop is. Still playing sc2 coop on the same 10 missions gets stale. Even Pal world which was a success game got people bored of waiting for updates vs staff training time and Helldivers. As soon as they hired people, A new three games of the month came over the last game of the month.
Battle aces is more fun than I expected but it's too fast imo. There will be an audience for that kind of a game for sure and that's good for RTS though. The games can absolutely coexist. However, battle aces is about as extreme as possible on the macro/micro scale. That means other games need to adjust where they lie to not fall too close to the micro side because if you want a micro game you'd just play that one.
Battle Aces is fast food RTS, while Stormgate aims to be a 5 source menu. Both have their right to exist.
We don't do anything. You should calm down. Touch some grass.
Well the way I see it Battle Aces is basically dumbing down base building, and turning into "deck" building. There's still a huge place in RTS for positioning structures, and positioning is a huge part of most strategy games not just RTS. So, what I was going to say they've actually already done, especially with the Celestials, which is to make buildings play a bigger factor in battles. Other than that, I think what they could do is make base building more "chess"-like. The wc/sc formula is pretty much: you have a central base and expand as necessary. But its rarely more strategic in the sense that when you move a rook out of the back row you move it to pin your opponent or control squares. Base building/relocating bases could be a fun part of the game and that's one thing they can do: make bases play a bigger part of the overall strategy.
The core gameplay between the games are different enough to the point where I don't see them replacing each other. Battle Aces has the advantage of being revealed more recently and in a more polished state. Stormgate has looked rougher and more unfinished in exchange for earlier visibility and feedback.
FG killed hype by announce of Celestials. They hold secret for year or even more and then showed most predictable option. The difference between secrecy and result looks like lack of creativity And they alos has big focus on Coop and PvP. But PvP-reddit warrios is not backbone of RTS-casual audience. Are there any updates on Campaign? Where is Mission showcase? Where anything about story of atmospehere? And for me this is marker that game is DOA.
The third faction being weird polygons was pretty surprising.
Who is saying Stormgate is dead? Nobody I know. The fucking game isn’t out yet and you are calling it dead. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Let these games come out and have 5 freaking minutes to develop before deciding what they are or can be.
We've just really evolved as an RTS community. People have been saying SC2 was a dead gaem since 2013 or so (maybe even earlier), so now we gotta get ahead of things and proclaim the game being dead before it's even born! Can't get disappointed that way
it's DOA
With an absolute RTS authority like yourself saying it, it has got to be so!
I've watched a few games of Battle Aces, and it looks like a very fun arcade game, but it lacks the strategic depth I'm accustomed to in StarCraft and Stormgate. It's fun for a number of matches, but my concern as a player is that there'll be only one real avenue for improvement, improving micro skill, and to a far lesser extent, deepening my understanding of the very rudimentary macro mechanics. In Stormgate and other RTSes, I can improve by getting better at micro, or I can tighten up my build, make sure I'm hitting a good timing. I can also try to out-macro my opponent, spending my money faster than them, including with more production buildings. Trying to figure out what my strengths and weaknesses are, and utilizing those strengths well is what excites me in an RTS game. When I got solid macro in SC2, I practiced doing a couple runbys and warp-ins. When I got reasonable at that, I got hit with harassment, so I made sure to build cannons and batteries so those attacks would simply bounce. Each improvement was incremental, and I could improve by focusing on my weakest skills, making improvement much smoother and more engaging than if macro mechanics were not as deep. Battle Aces doesn't have much of that, and I think a lot of players will enjoy it for a while, maybe a month or two, but they'll eventually stagnate and find it hard to continue to improve. Players who want something more might move on from BA to Stormgate. I think it's good to have an arcade style RTS, and it's an important part of building an ecosystem that can give players a way to grow into the genre, while more traditional RTSes can hold players' interest for longer.
There can be more than one RTS. Battle Aces is just the newest announcement so yeah there will be some coverage. I like base building so I don't think it'll be for me so I'm not worried about it or give it much thought.
Battle aces will take the spot of rocket league for me. It’s fast quick fun games. But when I have an hour or more to ladder it’ll always be storm gate I go too you just can’t beat the base building and macro micro combo of a traditional RTS
Everywhere I see people are prasing this and it's honestly baffling me.
To be honest, playing BA has proven to me that everything I was worried about with that game is indeed an issue. The monetization will suck, being locked out of units in competitive play feels bad, not actually building bases is dull and boring. At best, I see BA as a side game when I don't have a lot of time. Then you have the fact that a custom editor for interesting custom games, campaigns, and co-op are all missing for when you aren't in the mood to ladder or want something slower paced. When 3v3 launches, it will also likely be similar to co-op where you only get a single expansion and it is more composition and objective focused. I honestly don't see how BA has any longevity unless they have a lot more planned that isn't announced. I got bored after playing for a single night, I have yet to feel bored playing SG.
Personally, the monetization model of p2w killed most of my hype for this game. It could be a fun game but unless they have an entire unit bundle purchase pack up front, I don't think I'll be sticking with Battle aces as my main RTS.
Battle Aces doesn’t do much for the 75% of RTS players who never touch the 1v1 mode and prefer campaign and co-op. Not saying BA is a bad game, but it’s not gonna be the game for a large portion of the RTS community unless they eventually add those modes in.
I played a lot of both Stormgate and Battle Aces and I find both games quite fun. Reached diamond 2 in stormgate & top ace in battle aces. The thing I dislike about stormgate is the visuals and not really happy with FG's response on the matter. Battle Aces visuals are much more superior to the point I'm surprised that they're so good on first ever closed beta. On the other hand, Stormgate looks like it has a much wider potential scope going forward, bringing in 3v3, coop, campaigns, etc. I don't know what Battle Aces can do beyond the 1v1 & 2v2 modes we have atm. I do hope that dev team comes up with a cool way to introduce a story mode in that game tho or some kind of a fun PvE element.
ex-Blizzard, ex-Developer of a huge title are the most lame things, i admit it that i got fooled but i am not doing it again.
Sounds to me like you’re projecting.
Battle Aces is fun but it's really shallow compared to Stormgate. It's something to bridge the gap until SG early access, or to play with friends who aren't into the high demands of a full RTS. I hope both games are successful, but the lack of complexity means BA will not hold the attention traditional RTS fans for long.
Speeding up the game and rebalancing economy to support larger armies might be a good start. Otherwise it will be rough coming back to SG after experiencing BA.
Stormgate is StarCraft at home. You want to make Starcraft 3 basically but with 1/100 of the budget. Of course players will catch on. BattleAces is all innovation. Also perfect features for the zoomer generation with the 5-10min battles.
>BattleAces is all innovation. There is no single feature in game that is new and fresh. Inneoations was SC1 - truly assymetric faction for the first time in history. Innovation was Warcraft 3 - heroes wit items, experience ans creep camps. This was new machanics, new ideas. Watering down and innovation isn't the same.
Sure and only controlling 1 unit is also no innovation.
BA is irrelevant. Not only versus is completely different (it's more like custom map from editor with simplify many, many mechanics, it's not even close to classic RTS), not only it has no PvE game modes, but also level of interest from wider audience is close to zero (505 on steam wishlist vs 395 for ZeroSpace and 35 in terms of Stormgate)
Man, if only there was a game that had the base building of StormGate but had a faster pace of combat like Battle Aces. :(
It’s called SC2 and it’s the most popular RTS in history. All FGS had to do was emulate it but they couldn’t resist dumbing it down and throwing WC3 mechanics in it.
Yes my comment was being sarcastic if it wasn't clear. I totally agree with you btw, if they literally made a clone of SC2 but with actual support, I'm pretty sure 95% of people would switch over in a heartbeat. (Maybe remove a few problematic mechanics that most people hate) But instead, they went and tried to please everyone, and instead greatly disappointed the StarCraft community, which coincidentally happens to be the biggest RTS community out there, despite what this subreddit likes to think.
You 100% get it. Its outrageous. They tried to make a game for everyone and ended up making a game for no one. It is mind blowing how bad they messed it up when the assignment was so obvious. Pander and appeal to the largest RTS market in existence, or do whatever the hell they have done here and disappoint literally everyone 🤣
Literally do what Valve did when they made Dota2 from the original Dota. I don't give a fuck if the game isn't "innovative". StarCraft 2 is a very close to perfect game, just take that model and refine it slightly (maybe get rid of some gimmicky things like widow mines, disruptor shots, etc.). It's especially frustrating because I've spent 14 years practicing my specific mechanics in StarCraft (medivac pickup micro, macro cycles, bio splitting), and it's just like throwing all of that out the window is I swap now. As of now, I really just don't see myself switching over. I've been voicing this ever since 2022, and it doesn't seem like FG cares. In 2023 I spoke to the developers at DH Atlanta and told them this, and their response was "We love StarCraft 2, it's a great game. We won't blame you if you decide to stay." But like... I want you to want me to switch. You should be fighting for my loyalty.
Ya when they first announced it, they targeted us heavily. It’s the main reason they got off the ground at all lol. Then it slowly started to become painfully obvious that they didn’t see us as the target audience. To be honest, I don’t have a clue who they are targeting anymore and I don’t think they do either. I think they were given an insane amount of money, gave it to themselves and their friends, and seen it as an opportunity to make a game they want, not a game their donors wanted. Still not even positive this project makes it to full release at their spend rate.
Idk battle aces fells bad. My units bodyblock my other units.
I played the beta of both for a few hours Not only is battle aces way more fun, it's also somehow more polished despite the massive amount of funding stormgate has. The unit voice lines and overall art design is peak Not to mention battle aces hasn't asked for a single dollar from their audience yet, no Kickstarter, you can't even buy in game currency and people are literally begging them to enable it so they can unlock things faster.
I played Battle aces today and it looks even closer to those mobile games where you drop units and watch them fight than actual RTS. Cartoon graphics, no basebuilding, little to no micro (to the point where units will automatically choose the target they want even if you click on something else). I won 12/12 matches just following the same principles of Winter's guide to get out of metal leagues with 50 APM. Stormgate isn't going to be a huge success, but Battle Aces certainly isn't a competitor for its market.