This game feels lacking.

[OptimusPrimate]

This game reminds me of a mix between classic tabletop games and worms. But when I think of worms I think of all the tools you had at your disposal yet this game is very bare bones in comparison.

When your enemy is on an island with a one space gap between me and them why do I need to airlift or bombard that island? These are moves which cost a fortune so all I see are wars for resources being made redundant by the inevitable earnings crawl as multiple players airlift once every two turns or fire a single cannonball per turn. Why isn't there the option to build a much more expensive walker which can jump or fragile bridges to cross gaps?

The walkers which are your main force are only featured in one unit, why not have walkers which can't fight but are cheaper and get you gold for harvesting forests and walkers who can't claim territory but can shred other walkers?

I know that additional elements would make balance more difficult but it would vary the gameplay more than the usual mine, mine, armoury,walkerspam the central area, mine a divide between the lands then bomb or airlift.

The atmosphere of the game also feels lacking, the text crawl on campaign maps is great but when I'm fighting in a swamp why are my refineries falling into clouds? The levels would go along way by replacing some of the clouds with sinkholes, quicksand, water, magma or bogs.

The final thing I noticed was how for a game all about trashing the environment to wage war, why doesn't the map screen ever change? After 20 or so missions I'd like to see all those areas of the game where I was left with a few pillars among an abyss to show up and let me see just how much my battles have destroyed the globe.

Otherwise it's a great and original game I'd just like to see a bit more content, maybe from a sequel or dlc?

[soulripper]

yup it does feel lacking they should have put in more features its way to simple after the first campaign it felt repetetive

[Kitsunami]

I dont understand what you mean.

It doesnt NEED anything else, its a simple tactical game.

Play with other people to get the challenge.

[Martaction]

The final thing I noticed was how for a game all about trashing the environment to wage war, why doesn't the map screen ever change? After 20 or so missions I'd like to see all those areas of the game where I was left with a few pillars among an abyss to show up and let me see just how much my battles have destroyed the globe.
Great idea! :)

[freibooter]

This game manages to create incredibly deep and complex tactics with very few but surprisingly versatile elements.
Complaining that this game is "lacking" is like saying chess is lacking and in need of more "tools" and "units" - you know, pawns with AK-47s, knights with holy hand grenades.

[Friendliest]

This game manages to create incredibly deep and complex tactics with very few but surprisingly versatile elements.
Complaining that this game is "lacking" is like saying chess is lacking and in need of more "tools" and "units" - you know, pawns with AK-47s, knights with holy hand grenades.

this is a reasonable reaction to requests for "more" (but I think "checkers" might be a better analogue; does GC really have the depth of chess?)

But I understand how OP feels, I think. I bought the game on xmas sale, after eyeing it since release, with a distinct sense that it "looks cool" - and it does! - but finding out what the actuality of it is, I, too, was hoping for "more".

But I respect that the devs have a solid vision for the game, and wanted a minimal set of units/mechanics ...
so maybe what it really needs is a demo!

Also in specific reference to OP's remarks about economy crawl, well, I tend to second this. All ultimate outcomes being the same, a unit/mechanic/whatever that can get the job done in fewer turns is preferable, just from the standpoint of real-life expediency. (i.e. time wasted sitting there clicking "next turn".)

And as for "the real challenge is found online" ... I dread to play the game MP, online, TBH. (and nor do I aspire to play chess or checkers, MP, online!) seems like a steep learning curve is all that awaits - as I don't seem to have that natural affinity for this game's strategy and tactics; it's a bit "math-ey" for my current tastes in "fun"* - and frankly, I think I have more "exciting" games to put the time in on. Just not my thing.

(*by which I mean: I used to play the crap out of chess, checkers, chinese checkers, monopoly, whatever, when I was a kid. then I got a 3d accelerator! ;))

undoubtedly YMMV. just my $.02.

[sonicboom282]

I couldn't agree more with the above post. I must say, perhaps not more units or anything like that, but tile effects or something similar would have kept me hooked past the first hour of play.

[NeSuckS]

Yes, this game lacks big time. This game is a board game, unlike other turn based games like Deadlock Planetary Conquest which has much more complexity. This game is not chess, this is checkers. The game ends up the same way again and again, with everyone being split up on islands. All you do to win is get 16 units, transport unit, and jump to your enemy island and build a harvester structure so the island gets destroyed. It's OK for 5 dollars.

[Yeowj]

It feels like checkers to me.

[Friendliest]

follow-up: in retrospect, my previous post might be interpreted as a total pan of this game, and a declaration that I'm never not going to play it at all, and that's not really the case.

just that I don't find myself with that certain "fire" for it ... you know, like "man, I just can't wait to play Greed Corp!" ;) (When it comes to TBS games, I think Civ (IV, BTS) pretty much has the lock on that.)

But i'll play greed corp, at least to the end of the 1 player campaign. and probably give a decent shot at the achievements, other than anything that gets too sticky afa MP competitiveness.

And as for the MP comments: to put a finer point on it - the thing I dread about MP confrontation is mainly being in 1v1 with expert players who have a deep-blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29)-esque repertoire of offense and defense. cuz I just don't see having the time or inclination to dedicate that amt of time to become that good @ this game (nor do I have the time or inclination to dedicate to being stat-padding fodder for those who do!)

3-way FFA, if such a thing exists, is more palatable, as would be 1v1 between myself and another relative idiot, playing the game at a casual, "just-above-naive" level of understanding.

so, how much MP I ultimately wind up playing is probably going to be proportional to how much I find myself being placed in the 2nd category of matches rather than the first! ;)

[HeavenCookie]

Frankly, I prefer this game waaaay more than the likes of starcraft with special bonuses and constant "rock-paper-scissor" gameplay. Perhaps I'm being an old conservative, the idea of introducing units that can jump over enemies and the such would be welcome.

If you check out the official website, you are bound to notice a big difference between the artwork and the final product. There seems to have been plans for a more realistic design and other units but maybe because of finance they had to go for something simpler (they are independents, and if I remember well the only other game they made before was about ponies). They also have plans to create another game based on that universe, about a bunch of freemens fighting the empire or something.

Finally, I find the atmosphere in greed corp great. Its mostly to do with the music I guess, the cheerful tunes that accompany the shrieks of a falling shell is extremely satisfying!

[Robinhood90]

This is not a base building strategy game. This is a game with simple rules like chess. I would welcome a more complex version of this game, aswell, but keep this game intact.

I hear people say the tactics are all about the same. The games can be roughly divided in two parts:

Phase 1: Get the best position, here different tactics apply because maps are different. On the same map it would give little variety, but there's numerous maps, and you must analyze the best way to proceed.

Phase 2: vipe away the enemies. The map is very reduced, and here the arms race, captures, and levelling of enemy terrain kicks in. However what is important is when to apply these.
For example on a 1v1 match, my base was one multi column one. My opponent rushed to get a plane and place a farm to tear down my base. He had now wasted 50 + farm cost more gold than me. I was reserved and had saved a good bit of terrain (almost max height on 3 columns), and he would need many 16 army planes to capture me. What he had effectively done was to waste alot of gold, and give me a very good income. By the time my tiles were begginning to fall, I had earned alot of gold, and had the power to take all his territory in 1 swoop.

The interesting part comes on 3-4 player maps as it adds another layer. Attacking another player will weaken you, and often if you attack another player without being able to instakill him, the next player will do that, gaining all resources. Sometimes it might be beneficial to be weak, or atleast you can still completely turn the tables. In my only 4 player map I was reduced to near death, but by making sure my enemies did not benefit from capturing me (no carrier points and very little gold), I stayed untouched, and later I shot 1 tactical missile that lead to a chain reaction, where the other 3 players devastated each other, which got me back in the game:cool:

So strategy is very deep, although it might look similar, knowing when to apply them is vital, and I especially like how on 3-4 player maps can be very unpredictable, and a weak player can suddenly come out on top if you play it right.

[SapientWolf]

Why isn't there the option to build a much more expensive walker which can jump or fragile bridges to cross gaps?

The walkers which are your main force are only featured in one unit, why not have walkers which can't fight but are cheaper and get you gold for harvesting forests and walkers who can't claim territory but can shred other walkers?
I think these changes would bring it in line with a more traditional turn based strategy game. The fact that the choices are limited give the matches the feel of a puzzle or board game. It's easy to learn, the rounds are relatively short and there are clear consequences for every action.

Games like Frozen Synapse, Massive Assault Network and Mecho Wars might appeal to your tastes more. Others may prefer the simplicity of Greed Corps. I think there's room in the marketplace for both.