vvoodenboy said:
you've never answer the most important question (or I've missed this answer) which is “what makes my game ‘fun’”. And what do you consider as ‘fun’

That is a good point, actually. I consider it fun, when a player does a bunch of smart moves to completely destroy the enemy units, although having started with the same resources, just because of smart strategical decisions. In the end, playtesting is, probably, one of the best ways to detect which aspect of a game is fun and which is not.

vvoodenboy said:
Your game now feels like playing tic-tac-toe with your 5yo brother - maybe its fun for him because its a new concept but its definitely NOT fun for you because you know the outcome of every single game before you even begin to play

The part of knowing the outcome of every single game is not correct. The bot is not completely predictable but tries to defeat you too. Planned (but not implemented yet) are even a few tactical tricks some bots will know, such as building a certain unit type as bait, trying to fool the player to build the counter unit, and then building a lot of units of the counter of the counter.

Additionally, depending on the tribe/faction you play against, the bot will have different preferences and tactical attributes.

vvoodenboy said:
why you want to prevent the most satisfying way of doing it - by flooding your opp with units?

Still possible but this should not be the only way for the player to win. It should be possible for the player to also win with just a few very strong/effective units.

vvoodenboy said:
What is the goal of this game? (yes we all know the answer ‘destroy your opp' but this is not the answer - real answer is more complicated like ‘to solve a puzzle with the least amount of resources because you might need some of those resources for following riddles’)

The main goal should be to get the strategy right. To anticipate possible strategies of the enemy and being able to counter those or taking a risky strategy that could have a big pay off but also result in a failure. The strategy should not just be about deciding which unit type to build, but also about whether to build units or save resources for the different in-fight actions (such as arrow rain or upgrading all alive units of one type). It should pay off to think long-term.

vvoodenboy said:
What is the ratio between luck and skill in your game?

I can not give a concrete number here, but the following is the case right now:

• all attacks have a fix damage value, no luck involved
• it is mainly about skill
• however: the player and enemy both plan units (scheduled units are not shown to the enemy) and those are built at the same tick. This means one never knows which units the enemy will build in the same tick. This introduces a “luck” element

Additionally, I consider adding “critical hits” because I think this would result in increased feelings of the player.

vvoodenboy said:
What thing player needs to understand/master/do in order to win the game?

Strategy

vvoodenboy said:
Which parts of the game provides ‘fun’ for the player? Where is the WOW effect? How much space you have for ‘Eureka’ moments? Which bit of your game is the most satisfying? Is there a ‘cavalry backup’ effect in the game? Where is the engagement in this game?

• the player can build his own army based on existing units of the different factions (fun, dopamine)
• the player can chain together different strategical elements, such as fooling the enemy to build many units of a type, then building many counter units, then upgrading all alive counter units
  • to make this more interesting and fun, there should be interesting spells purchasable, such as “freeze all gold mines for some time”, which could affect both the player and the enemy, but still be beneficial in a scenario where a player already has many units on the battlefield and freezes all mines to avoid the enemy from building new units for some time
• most satisfying is when the strategy you have planned works out as expected

vvoodenboy said:
If you want to make a fun game - you have to start your design with this in your head.

Good point.

manuel10wr said:
I think that he can borrow a lot of basic game features from “Age of war", and maybe improve something, so it will be unique and have some specific items, characters, towers, etc.

Yeah, that should, probably, work. Although, I, personally, think Age of War is rather boring xD I would really like to create something more interesting and more fun.

Other similar games are “Legendary Wars” and “Stick War: Legacy”. Both of those games, however, have the difference of having not just 1 dimension for the unit positions, but 2 dimensions.