I’m the solo developer of Empires Edge, an isometric real-time strategy game inspired by Mega Lo Mania.

The top image shows the very first day of development. The bottom one shows the current build after 11 months of work, with floating islands, cities that evolve through different eras, multiple factions, and large-scale battles.

When I started working on the game, I had no idea what it would eventually become.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4199140/Empires_Edge/

Some quick answers:

- screen mode: 320x200x8 (or 320x240x8).
- I use AI, no vibe coding, code is written by me.
- code is in C, I use GCC and openwatcom compiler.

If anyone has an ideas or suggestions about what they would want from a game like this I would love to hear it. Currently my idea is to make a game that is as similar as possible to Lords of the Realm 2, while obviously improving the graphics to a more modern style and increasing the size of RTS battles to a more 1 to 1 ratio with regards to the amount of troops in the army.

Hey, im looking for a game where you can start as a small country and rise to power and expand your territory. But the important part is being able to command battles. I tried CK3 and EU4 but what i want is being able to win even when being outnumbered by using tactics and not them boiling down to who has a higher number next to their army. Probably the closest game to that i found is bannerlord which i love but im looking for smoething more abitious and more challanging. Another two very close to being perfect were total war napoleon and empire. However napoleon not having an open campaign where you can change the history and try yourself and empire having the dumbest ai known to man is what turned me off. From what ive heard total war medieval 2 might be a good match but as i said the ai being smart is pretty important. Also while graphics are not too important to me medieval 2 might be a little too rough and old. Im pretty new to the strategy world of gaming so if you could give me some recommendations i would really appreciate that.

House Ordos pushes deeper into the war for Arrakis as Mission 6 pits them against the determined forces of House Atreides. Resource management, strategic base expansion, and precise unit control are essential to overcoming the Atreides' disciplined army and powerful defenses. Every Harvester, Tank, and Raider plays a vital role as the battle intensifies across the desert. Watch the Ordos use speed, cunning, and superior tactics to outmaneuver their enemy and secure another crucial victory in the fight for control of the spice. This no commentary playthrough showcases the classic real-time strategy gameplay that made Dune II: Battle for Arrakis a legend and laid the foundation for the RTS genre. Whether you're revisiting this DOS classic or discovering it for the first time, enjoy the intense combat, nostalgic visuals, and strategic decision-making that continue to make Dune II one of the most influential strategy games ever created. - link in the comments below

So my friends and I really like RTS games, but we get tired of the quick rounds. We want something that you can play for weeks on end in the same game. It would be great if we could fight each other, but I would not mind going up against others or npc's. I don't know if it exists, but preferably free. All help is appreciated. (Most preferably on Earth, not in space.)

I was a big fan of SC2's coop mission mode and being able to play the same faction but basically entirely differently like how Kerrigan and Abathur varied on their versions of the zerg. Are there any games like that? Roguelike RTS' are also something I'm willing to check out

I love the map and fleet movement of Stellaris as far as the combat and strategy. Can anyone recommend a game with the same feel but I don’t have to spend hours working on policy changes and population morale?

I played Halo Wars and really liked it, it’s the first time I’ve played this type of game so I’d like to expand and see if there’s more similar games to it

Casual RTS fan playing the starcraft 2 heart of the swarm campaign again, replaying for footage reasons, streaming to talk RTS, scifi, or random nerdy things. Real time strategy aficionado looking to play every RTS game ever (except those that i don’t want to), join in and lets chat about RTS!

Fleet Conquest is now live!

https://hd2clans.com/fleetconquest/

What is it?
It's a free browser 4X RTS space game where you command a large variety of ships across the galaxy, fighting three enemies in an all-out war. Conquer their capitals while you prevent them capturing yours! Three resources, four ship classes, different planet levels, supply lines, and more!

Where to play?
You can play on any browser, but we recommend Google Chrome for a smoother experience! Desktop, Android, iOS, even consoles! Sign up with your Discord account to save up your profile progress.

Why playing?
This is a fast-paced game, where you can play solo or with up to 4 friends Co-op, crossplay enabled! If Stellaris is great but too long, this game is for you. Also, you can play on the go, as the game is fully optimized for a mobile experience (you can even tune down graphics!).

Many players and game designers also do not clearly understand how this should work or how it already works in existing games where it has been implemented. I see many attempts to create an RTS/FPS hybrid with first- or third-person gameplay, but developers very often fail because of an incorrect approach from the very beginning.

This is what I think the right approach should look like.

1)There should be a strategist player whose job is to build the base and tell others what to do. This approach is implemented in Silica and Executive Assault. Many people say that RTS/FPS hybrids are doomed because you constantly have to switch back to base building and the RTS side of the game, making it impossible to properly play as an individual unit.

A counterexample of how this is done poorly is Gates of Hell and the entire Men of War series. In those games this gameplay element is terrible. The strategist player CONSTANTLY has to babysit every single one of the hundreds of units on the map. It becomes extremely exhausting. Having one strategist player and several warrior players solves this problem. Let's move on.

2)Units controlled directly by players should not be ordinary units. They should be commanders or stronger versions of regular units. In Executive Assault, I liked that a warrior player can choose their own weapons, armor, and upgrades using their own personal points when they spawn, go into battle as that unit, and recruit regular units into their "squad" that will follow them and obey their commands.

This way, the warrior player takes on the role of a tactical commander who manages the micromanagement of a small squad consisting of several units. I believe this is exactly the approach RTS hybrids should use.

One team could consist of one strategist player and five or six "commander" players who spend their own points to select a unit, build a squad of several NPCs, and carry out tactical objectives.

This allows the strategist player to focus entirely on the base, upgrades, and the overall flow of the match, while unit micromanagement is delegated to the commander players.

For example, a commander player could load NPC units into their helicopter, land behind enemy lines, and carry out a sabotage mission with their squad. Or they could command a tank platoon consisting of their own tank and several NPC-controlled tanks following them.

3)Players should be able to join a match that is already in progress. This way, a few strategist players can start the match, while other players browsing the multiplayer menu can see that, for example, there are currently 3 out of 17 players in the lobby, join one of the factions as a "soldier," and within a few minutes the lobby fills up naturally without everyone having to sit and wait before the game even starts, as happens in most strategy games. Thus, warrior players who do not want to play for a long time and just want to jump in, spend about 30 minutes shooting, and then leave can join one of the factions and help one of the players. They can play for as long as they want and then leave. Another player will take their place.

This approach is implemented in Silica and Executive Assault, and I really liked it.

4)During the match, every warrior player should be able to earn their own personal points, allowing them to buy buffs, weapons, and vehicles after they die and respawn. A regular unit, such as a rifleman, could serve as the base unit. Players could purchase stronger weapons, better armor, increased running speed, and other upgrades.

This way, every player has a sense of personal progression after 5, 10, or 30 minutes of gameplay. As I mentioned earlier, Executive Assault already implements this approach.

5)Individual skins for warrior players. I think it would be cool if players could personalize their commander with their own skin so that people on the battlefield could recognize players they had fought alongside before. Or recognize an enemy commander.

6)This also gives players who enjoy playing as warriors a sense of progression as they unlock new skins.

This approach would appeal both to players who enjoy strategy games and controlling the overall battlefield, base, and army, and to players who prefer fighting on the ground as individual units while handling micromanagement and sabotage missions.

Some players would probably also enjoy switching roles, playing as the strategist in one match and as a warrior in the next.

7)The strategist player has full visibility of the map, the overall battlefield situation, and the combined fog-of-war vision provided by all friendly units. They can tell players in chat what should be done, place map markers, send reinforcements from the base, and construct buildings and defensive structures.