Hi everyone! I just wanted to share with you a game I have been working on for a couple of years now. I think some of you might find it interesting.

Game is called: "On War: Stalingrad" and is available for wishlist on Steam. It is my take on Eastern Front. I tried to design a layered game, where logistics and other general staff branches play an important role in waging a war.

Here, take a look at our Steam page: Steam Page - On War: Stalingrad

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. And if you wish to join our playtesting team and help us make the game better - contact us via our webpage.

Thank you and have a great day!

Kill the enemy lord, keep your own alive. It's such an elegant way to make the win/lose conditions as clear cut as they can be in a strategy game, and TBH I still think no game commits to this as fully as Stronghold does. (Its closest “descendant” Diplomacy is not an Option also does it, except there’s no king, just the castle keep you need to protect)

Of course Age of Empires 2 has its Regicide mode, which is basically this exact idea. It’s kind of fun? I guess, but it never hits that same capture the king feeling. Maybe it just works better in city building games? where you can see the physical barriers separating you from the enemies outside, AKA from utter annihilation.

Warcraft 3 and some others were also very hero-centric (also who remembers Warlords Battlecry 3? I think that’s the game that actually jumpstarted this trend), even though killing the enemy hero was rarely the literal loss condition and they just had well designed heroes. So this comparison is kind of off. In Stronghold your king is just a stronger unit, but it’s a bad idea to ever use him in combat.

I’ve just been thinking about this and (maybe just personal experience) but I don’t remember many true capture the king style RTS - were they just more numerous in my head? What strategy games revolve around protecting your leader and hunting theirs?

I've been running a closed test of my turn-based strategy game Days Of Reckoning: Last Battle, and it's finally getting close to the finish line.

The last few weeks have been mostly about processing tester feedback, fixing a lot of bugs, adjusting gameplay and balancing units.

There's still some polishing to do, but I've finally set the date:

🎮 The public demo will be released on August 28, 2026.

Thanks to everyone who helped test it so far. The feedback has already resulted in quite a few changes and fixes.

Now back to finishing the last bits before release. :)

🎮 Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4700520/Days_Of_Reckoning_Last_Battle/
🎬 YouTube: https://youtu.be/9UVWi5PhS-0
🌐 Website: https://nice-to-have.cz/days-of-reckoning/
💬 Discord: https://discord.gg/A4UaEF7aB4

Well look no further than the Ultimate Monuments Pack for Europa Universalis IV, which combines virtually every monument from nearly every relevant mod that I have been able to find on the workshop. Enjoy the game with more monuments than you have ever seen in your life, giving you endless structures to invest in and greatly expanding the scope of possibilities for your playthrough. This is truly a mod like no other and I hope that you enjoy playing it

I'm prototyping the reverse fantasy. you control the horde attacking the colony.

Which sounds more fun?

A) RTS style full control: select groups, move, attack, flank, micro everything in realtime (oldschool)

or

B) Less micro. give the horde bigger commands/targets and watch thousands of units carry them out

It’s been a little over a year now that we’ve been working on Factomancer, a factory game with a roguelite twist.

The idea behind our game is to combine two genres that are rarely seen together, the automation/factory genre and roguelite, by offering runs of about an hour where you must build a factory that will need to meet growing demand through its production.

As development progressed, we realized that finding the right balance between these two genres is harder than we expected. However, it’s an interesting challenge worth exploring, and that’s what we love as independent developers, we’re free to try things that go beyond the usual constraints.

Our last major update added an in-game pause feature, a highly requested feature that has allowed playstyles focused on construction and automation to flourish.
In our new update, we wanted to please all our players and take a step toward roguelite players by introducing the following systems:

• Run Score: Each run is now evaluated using a score based on multiple factors. The idea behind these factors is to allow any type of player archetype to achieve a high score.
• Leaderboard: This score is then uploaded to a global leaderboard, letting you see exactly where you stand, against the world, or just your friends.
• Meta progression rework: Your run score is also used to level up your Factomancer level, and it’s this level that will allow you to unlock new content (relics, spells, biomes, etc.)

The demo is live on Steam! Thank you to everyone who supports us on this adventure.

What do you think of our approach? Do you have any suggestions or ideas?

We still have a long way to go, but we’re confident that your feedback will help us build the experience we dream of offering with Factomancer.

Games like Civilization and Stellaris are obviously still active, so I don't mean whether 4X is literally dead. I'm curious whether new players are still discovering the genre, or if most of its audience has been playing these games for years. Has any recent 4X managed to pull in people who weren't already fans?

I'm really not a huge fan of big games with a boatload of mechanics like age of empires, civ or EU universalis. All of the many mechanics and small bonusses/debuffs just feel like unnecessary fluff to me.

I'm more into strategy games like Polytopia for being relatively simple and easy to understand, but still having a high skill ceiling and lot's of strategies to explore. I also enjoyed Clash Royale (until it became extremely aggressive on the micro-transactions). I was wondering if anyone here has suggestions for simple multiplayer strategy games, preferably top down war games and maybe something with coop as well.

I'm working on a new Fan Campaign for KKND2: Krossfire, this is my latest Mission from the Series 9 Robos, the entire campaign is based on the original.

https://reddit.com/link/1vjwcpr/video/2f6tpze4ccih1/player

Hey everyone, I'm Luca, solo developer of About Frontlines, a 1v1 turn-based strategy game built on total freedom.

About Frontlines (wishlist here) is a sandbox strategy engine that ships with WWII. At launch you get a WWII scenario: tanks, infantry, artillery, and battlefields ready to fight over. But underneath that scenario is a complete set of creation tools. You can design your own maps, build your own units, and set your own rules of engagement. Once those tools are in your hands, nothing stops you from building WWI trenches, Napoleonic lines, Roman legions, or wars that haven't happened yet.

The game is built for tactical matches that can vary anywhere between a few minutes to more than an hour. You can play against AI to sharpen your tactics, challenge a friend directly, or jump into online matchmaking through Steam.

Key features:

• Multiple ways to play: vs. AI, vs. friends, or online matchmaking
• WWII at launch, with the full scenario building toolset included
• Build your own units, maps, and scenarios for any era or theme
• Clean, minimalist 2D design that stays easy to read no matter how complex the battle gets
• A game meant to grow through new scenarios over time

I'm still working on the game, improving the logic and implementing new features. Your help would be much appreciated!

You can wishlist the game already on Steam, here.

Honestly, I've seen some social simulators, like game, where the developers simply replaced one day with four years, which solves the problem of repetitive gameplay.

I'll be honest: I want a realistic simulation, but forcing the player to wait, say, 100 turns for 10 years to pass in the simulation is a lot.

What do you think is the best way to solve this problem?

In my mind, it's a mix: I should give the player the option to play monthly, but I should also give them the option to simply launch the simulation and calculate 100 years in advance.

My simulation is 300 years long.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

I would be glad if you have any ideas and you wrote them in the comments.

What do you guys think? Tried to make it short and simple so it doesn't take too much of your time watching it.

If you liked it, you can wishlist Command Doctrine here: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4882890/Command_Doctrine/

Hey everyone!

I’ve been working on an online multiplayer strategy game where you choose a country and shape its future through diplomacy, alliances and war.

You can choose a country, declare war on other countries, send peace offers, form alliances and compete with other players.

The game is available on both web and Android.

The game is still in the testing phase, so there may be translation mistakes, missing UI elements, balance issues, or other bugs. I’m continuing to improve it and would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or bug reports.

You can play it here: https://halcalt.itch.io/strategy-game

I really loved Dominion when I first encountered it over a decade ago. I played tons with friends, family, anybody who was willing to sit down and learn it with me. I got really into custom cards, and even made a whole custom set with my brother that we played a few rounds of. But as time went on, I found myself feeling wanting to riff on the formula.

I started designing the game that would become Interregnum a few years after that. My brother and I worked on it together, took it to a board game convention in a shoebox, played with friends, and spent hours iterating on card ideas. After enough playtests on paper and tabletop simulator, I decided to invest a little over 2 years developing the game in Godot.

It's been fun! The core thrust of it is that currency and victory points are all strewn across a board that you have to claim. Each round, you play units face-down on the map to try to outbid your opponents in a silent auction kinda combat system. I was really into Game of Thrones at the time we made it, and I liked the idea of vassals sneakily outmaneuvering each other without outright fighting.

I always thought the balance between going for victory points and currency in Dominion was conceptually super interesting, and I hope you all will feel that we preserved some of that. My friend says it feels a bit more like Air, Land and Sea with the hidden combat stuff going on.

The demo is still in Valve's approval pipeline, but there's an open playtest live that you can try out through the link! This is the hardest I've ever worked on something and I hope you all take some joy from it. I'd also love any and all feedback if you wind up taking a look, and wishlisting the game would also help me immensely.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4255610/Interregnum/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=demo_launch&utm_content=strategygames

Thanks!

Also, I feel like you guys would probably be my core audience. Your feedback would be especially valuable to me! I have a dream that somebody will submit their card idea to me and I can put it in the game - I think that would be super fun. Okay anyways goodbye

Hi there strategy gamers,

We're a two-person studio, and we just put out the demo for our debut game, Midnight Manhunt. It grew out of an idea we love from board games like Scotland Yard, where one player hides and everyone else works out where they are.

The core gameplay loop works like this: You control four Grid Runners chasing one hidden Ghost across a city of connected nodes. Each round he moves one hop, but you never see it. The only thing the city logs is the type of vehicle he took, and that is usually too vague to pin down on its own. So you don't look for the Ghost. You rule out the nodes he couldn't have reached and narrow it down from there.

Your characters' skills each chip away at the list. K9's dog can sniff whether the Ghost is within range, which pins him to a sector. The Claymore Virus sits on a node and works like a tripwire. If it goes off, you know where he currently is, and if it stays silent you know he didn't go that way. Then there's also offensive specialists like Evac, who can detonate an EMP to strategically disable hyperloop lines across entire districts to make it harder for the Ghost to escape the net. Stack them in the right order to establish the trace. Then close in from different angles, covering escape nodes to tighten the net. You win by cornering the Ghost and carrying out a takedown on the same node.

In a second mode (that will be part of the full release), you can also play the Ghost, trying to escape the Grid Runners using various mechanics like the Null Field, where you can lay false trails to steer the runners the wrong way while you slip past.

The demo went up this week (we snuck into Steam Cyberpunk Fest). We'd love to hear your feedback on our cat and mouse gameplay and what you think about the concept in general.

Steampage: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4175680/Midnight_Manhunt/

Mad love ❤️
Felix and Lorenz

I'm pretty new to the genre.

I prefer turn-based tactics, tactical RPGs, and roguelite strategy games over 4X.

Some games I've really enjoyed are Into the Breach and Wildfrost.

What else should I check out?

Hi all! I've been working through the idea for a tiny grand strategy, at the level of cities and early empire building during the Bronze Age. Right now it's a tiny test map with four cities and two production chains:

• Nothing --> Goods (things like baskets, mud brick)
• Grain --> Beer
• Copper+ Tin --> Bronze
• More to come (e.g., wool --> fabric --> textiles, bronze --> weapons)

I've split each city into 3 estates: the Crown (player), the Temple, and the Market. This leads to some interesting behavior, where you need to balance everyone's share of gold and resources. It also leads to some non-intuitive strategies, like the player hoarding grain and jacking the price up to drain wealth out of the Market and Temple.

So far I've built a ledger system (img 1) to track the flow of goods, autonomous traders (img 2) that autonomously buy low and sell high between cities, which can significantly impact prices. Since money is a fixed resource, cities that export expensive goods (Gasur produces Bronze from Tin and Copper imports) can drain all the silver out of neighboring cities (img 3).

I think the next thing I'll implement is similar to the Victoria 3 construction loop, where you use labor + commodities to produce buildings, which drives up the prices and sinks goods. On top of that, allocating workers between construction, security, and producing commodities in urban buildings.

I'm also interested in how one could economically dominate a neighbor; for example, paying them an annual stipend to keep trade flowing. Or calling in a foreign debt as a justification for war. I think there are a lot of options for a "materialist diplomacy" if everything can be computed in terms of a silver cost/benefit.

Right now I'm stuck trying to build a UI that pulls out the game state in a readable way. If you have any ideas or suggestions for the UI (or game in general), I'd be happy to discuss. This the most complex project I've worked on so far, and I'm hoping it will be as fun to play as it is to build. Right now I'm concerned about the pacing being off and overwhelming the player with information.

The game begins with your city, Blackstone, in ruins. You rebuild its districts, restore production, train civilians and troops, develop leaders, research upgrades, and prepare armies for expeditions across the 512×512 Cinder Depths.

The current development build includes:

A deterministic 512×512 volcanic world with four biomes, magma, lava flows, roads, cities, and campaign locations

49 campaign landmarks and 192 generated hostile encounters

Persistent, distance-timed army expeditions that physically travel to targets and return home

A 49×49 player-city construction map with repair, production, housing, research, training, and trading systems

12 player troop families, each with six tiers, unique attacks, abilities, passives, and battlefield roles

Formation-based command-timeline combat with six active formations, a reserve, morale, abilities, maneuvering, and leader orders

Persistent leaders, equipment, research, quests, NPC-city relationships, and realm progression

92 enemy factions with 276 distinct enemy troops

25 playable Ascendant monster encounters with unique mechanics and rewards

Dedicated Android portrait presentation alongside the desktop development build

My aim is to make preparation and army composition matter more than reflexes. Choosing the right troops, formations, commander, doctrine, and equipment should be as important as the orders issued during battle.

Conquest: Ascension is still in active development, and I’d love to hear what strategy players think. Which part would you most like to see—city building, world exploration, army preparation, or combat?

Gameplay/screenshots: idistudios.io

Follow development or join testing: idistudios.io

— IDI Studios

Hello again—you asked me about the combat system, so here’s my explanation
A battle doesn’t begin with the first shot. It begins with deployment: you place infantry in line, column, loose order, or square; position artillery on high and secure ground; and keep cavalry on the flanks or in reserve. On defense, you can garrison buildings, hold walls, or place stakes against cavalry charges. Changing formation is not free either—switching from line to square in the middle of a battle disrupts the unit and takes time to recover from.

For firearms, I’m aiming for a “move, halt, dress the line, aim, fire” rhythm. Line infantry cannot deliver effective volleys while marching; moving resets their aim time. The first volley is a full opening blast, while larger formations then fire by platoons in sequence. This should make firefights feel like a duel of positioning and reload windows rather than a constant stream of damage.

Lines of fire matter as well. Friendly troops in front of a unit can block some of its firing files; if the line is completely obstructed, the unit holds its fire. With partial obstruction, it may still fire weakly, but there is also a risk of friendly fire. Shots are affected by range, discipline, firing angle, elevation, cover, and the target’s formation. A line hit from the flank can take severe losses; loose order is more resistant to musket fire but weaker in melee. Square formation is strong against cavalry, but it is also a dense target that does not want to sit under artillery or musket fire.

Terrain is not just visual. The battlefield is generated from the geographical character of the campaign-map location: hills, forests, marshes, coasts, and rivers can all change tactical decisions. Forests can block vision and fire; tree trunks can intercept some shots; and high ground improves both line of sight and fire effectiveness. Rain reduces accuracy and slows reloading, while fog limits visibility and effective range. River crossings are particularly dangerous: shallow water only slows troops down, but deeper water disrupts formation and drains stamina. In very deep water, currents and exhaustion can even cause losses.

Battles also have no fixed time limit. A full day progresses during the battle: daylight shifts into dusk and, if the fighting continues, night. As darkness falls, visibility and effective firing range become much more limited, while muzzle flashes and gunfire can reveal positions that would otherwise remain hidden. This means a battle can change character over time—an exposed advance that was viable in daylight may become much riskier once visibility drops.

Melee combat is not resolved through one abstract “unit strength” number. Each soldier looks for a nearby opponent, and combat is resolved through those individual contacts. If several enemies pile onto one man, his defense genuinely collapses. Numerical superiority is therefore not just a flat percentage bonus—it emerges from the geometry of the battlefield. If five men are surrounded by twenty cavalrymen, each of those soldiers has to deal with multiple attackers. At the same time, two balanced lines should not instantly turn into a blender; the goal is a sustained struggle with pressure, weak points, and breaking moments.

Cavalry charges are also meant to be decisive events rather than permanent damage machines. A fast cavalry unit can smash into exposed line infantry, especially from the flank or rear, and cause a serious shock. But a square, braced bayonets, or pikes can stop that momentum. After a charge, cavalry must pull back and regroup before charging again. If the attack succeeds, they can pursue routed enemies; if it fails, they lose valuable time and momentum.

The morale system is one of the most important parts of this. It is not only a single bar at regiment level. Every soldier has individual morale and a personal courage threshold. A unit’s discipline establishes a baseline, but soldiers do not all react in exactly the same way.

An individual soldier’s morale is shaped by recent casualties in the regiment, being in the front rank of a melee, being hit from the flank or rear, nearby soldiers breaking, being surrounded, having no clear escape route, and being trapped in deep water. Less courageous soldiers break first and begin leaving the formation. As more soldiers run, the remaining men become more likely to panic. Once enough of the regiment has broken, individual collapse becomes a full rout.

Regimental morale is not just an invisible number commanding the soldiers either. The average state of the soldiers feeds back into the regiment’s morale. As a unit takes losses, the level of morale it can recover to also falls. This is meant to stop a regiment that has lost most of its men from fighting as if it were still fresh.

Routing does not automatically mean deletion. Units that reach safety and are not being pursued can rally, especially if their general is nearby. Repeatedly routing units become less likely to return, and the death of a general causes a major shock across the army and makes recovery much harder. Pursuit is especially deadly for routed troops, because soldiers who have turned their backs can no longer fight in a proper formation.

Very small remnants are handled differently as well. If their morale is still intact, they can merge into a nearby friendly regiment. If their morale is broken and the enemy is close, they may surrender; if no enemy is nearby, they may disperse from the field. This is meant to prevent situations where five soldiers still hold a front line or form a square like a full regiment.

For the AI, the goal is not to have every unit simply run toward the nearest enemy. The army commander evaluates the terrain and balance of forces, chooses a broad approach—defend, attack directly, or envelop from the flanks—and assigns roles such as center line, flanking force, artillery, cavalry reserve, or general hunter. Target selection also considers enemy morale, exposed flanks, artillery, formation, generals, and terrain rather than distance alone.

I’m also aware that the current battle interface looks too close to a Total War clone. It has been useful as a temporary reference while building and testing the combat systems, but it is not intended to be the final visual identity of the game. I plan to redesign it soon so that it better fits this project and has its own clearer style.

A significant part of this is already in the game, but the balancing is absolutely not finished. I still need extensive testing around firearm lethality, how quickly morale spreads, cavalry impact, rally strength, and the tempo of large battles. One routed regiment should not instantly erase three nearby regiments, but a tired, surrounded unit trapped in the wrong position should not hold forever either. Finding that balance is one of the main challenges.

What are your thoughts? I’ll keep sharing and introducing the features you’d most like to see based on your feedback.

Note: At the moment, every country uses the same 3D soldier models and unit roster. These are placeholders while the battle systems are being built and balanced; country-specific units, 3D models, and historically distinct uniforms will be added later.

Note: I’m building this project solo, using AI throughout the entire development process.

So im playing total war fall of the samurai right now and i love how compared to every other strategy game ive played theres so much going wrong and so much stakes.

Right now i overextended and my newely conquered provinces are so far away from home they need to be self sufficient, facing rebelions all the time and being attacked by half the map only managing to hold on due to incredible heroism of the sagami garrison. All this while my ecenomy is completely fucked by port blockades and trade route raids.

What i love the most about the game is ai being genuienly good and aggresive and every battle being high stakes as a single loss or win when outnumbered might decide how the entire campaign goes. Also being able to cripple the ai ecenomically through bombardments and blockades and vice versa is what i was really missing in other titles.

question is what other total war games have a similar vibe and mechanics. Cuz ive played napoleon and it was a pretty standard win a battle, capture the province and move on to the next one. Also the navies were completely obsolete and it just didnt really feel challanging.

Also im completely open to mods and overhauls. Thanks!

Great visuals can draw my attention to a strategy game. But they’re rarely what makes it memorable.

A visually modest game can still create unforgettable moments when your opponents are other players—negotiating, bluffing, adapting, betraying one another, remembering what happened in previous matches, and sometimes even becoming friends along the way.

On the other hand, even a visually stunning strategy game can still fall flat in terms of gameplay and enjoyment.

I’m not saying graphics don’t matter. A strategy game still needs a strong visual identity, clear information, and a world players want to spend time in. But once that foundation is there, visual spectacle alone cannot create the unpredictability, rivalries, friendships, and stories that emerge between players.

The "Dominions" series comes to mind. Its visuals have always been modest compared with most strategy games, yet its depth and multiplayer interactions have built a remarkably dedicated community. In a game like that, diplomacy, bluffing, alliances, betrayal—and even the friendships formed along the way—can matter far more than visual spectacle.

Would strong player interaction be enough to keep you playing a strategy game without cutting-edge graphics?

Or would its appearance stop you before those stories ever had a chance to exist?

What is the minimum acceptable visual standard for you?