Fort Triumph - HoMM meets Xcom!

I don’t think tactical maps are too busy for this kind game and I don’t think tactical fights are very HoMM-like. Yes, strategic map is HoMM inspired to a degree, which is great, but there are not enough complexity there in terms of resources, creatures, etc., so strategic level feels very different and simplified. Tactical level is much richer though, in terms of options, destructible environment, so tactical maps need to be more complex than HoMM - the whole point here is to use destructible environment to help you win.

I adore this game and wanted to thank the OP for pointing it out. Don’t expect a HoMM clone, it’s very much its own game. And I find writing to be lighthearted and funny. :)

Given how much you need the physics tricks, the tactical maps really need a lot of objects on them.

Thankfully, I didn’t end up starting over as I was almost done with Act 1 at that point and you only take 4 characters into the next act. I finished the campaign up on Legendary and found the beginning the most challenging. Your team gets really powerful by the end, and there are some crazy items that can trivialize the battles.

I also found the writing to be funny.

Now also available DRM-free on GOG:

Spent some time with this today.

Whomping my way through the first campaign map, and I’m really digging it. The combat is honestly more reminiscent of Into the Breach than XCOM, if you ask me. Yes, overwatch is a thing, but it’s only been relevant in maybe half the battles.

Every unit (so far at least) has three AP per turn. Inflicting “stun” removes two. Most “physics” interactions (knocking things/units into one another) cause stun. Tougher enemies will resist the first stun every turn.

Combined with squishy characters (well, everyone but the Paladin so far) who die in 2-3 hits from just about anything, and the strategy immediately becomes “how can I keep as many enemies from acting this turn?” Damage in/out is much less relevant when you can lock enemies down with clever planning.

Oh, also, melee units (well, both my melee heroes anyway) get an attack of opportunity on the first thing that moves out of an adjacent square. Most ranged units can’t do ranged things while next to a melee. The applications of these two facts should be relatively clear.

I’m rarely so amused as when I kick a goblin into a rock, stunning it, and launching it into its archer buddy who then takes an attack of opportunity from the barbarian who sprinted up to make friends earlier in the turn.

Any idea why recent reviews are mixed? Did the devs do something unpopular?

Read a couple of recent negatives out of curiosity. The common threads seem to be “physics is dumb!” (eh, ok, not the game for you) and “too shallow!” (strongly disagree so far) and “too short!” (couldn’t tell ya).

I’ve only put in like three hours, so it could be that it gets super boring shortly. But so far they’ve done a good job of varying up enemies and terrain that have kept me interested.

I think that is it in a nutshell.

I did a little research ahead of time, saw just how central this knocking enemies into stuff is to the game, and said “So extremely not my cup of tea.” Thus, no negative reviews from me, and I am just glad some people are having fun. But a lot of the inital info about the game – HoMM meets Xcim – glossed over this take on physics and probably attracted a lot of buyers, who turned out to share my tastes. And once people have put their money down “not my cup of tea” turns into a negative review.

I have no experience in marketing whatsoever, but it strikes me as an interesting issue for marketers. To what extent do you emphasize general appeal of a game, so as to expand initial sales, when that game has elements likely to turn off a lot of the expanded audience and generate negative reviews, which people take very seriously? fwiw, I think Shadow Empire has handled that far better. They appeal to 4X and CK2 audiences, even though the hardcore gorgnard elements of the game are going to infuriate a great deal of the expanded audience… But they are controlling the message about the game much better by keeping it off Steam for now. As a result, much of the negative reaction is stifled, and the people who continue to post on Matrix and places like here are the players who are continuing to play, giving the public impression that most people like it.

As a customer, though, the moral of the story is clear. Ignore the marketing and ignore the summary of the reviews. Watch 15 minutes of gameplay and see what the game is really about before buying.

Yep, that’s what I would have written in response, well other than I didn’t write a negative review either. If that’s the vision the dev wants to go with, good for him. I thought we were talking HoMM meets Xcom and not Into the Breach meets Xcom which I have exactly zero interest in. That’s my bad for not doing a better check in to what was actually getting made.

Yep, exactly this.

The game is currently on sale for 70 cents on the dollar.

For those playing, how’s it holding up to the “too short, too shallow” critique? That seems to still be a theme on the Steam reviews.

I dunno. I was all about the first (longish) mission and haven’t been terribly moved to play it since. This may have something to do with the Fell Seal DLC, heh.

I’m really not sensitive to “too short,” FWIW. I am more time-constrained than budget-constrained these days.

My time with the game so far doesn’t bear out “too shallow” but again, I haven’t played all that terribly far. But yeah, XCOM this is not. It’s more Into the Breach.

This is one of the few games like this that I regret buying in EA. I think the combat portion of the game is fun and fine, it’s the rest of it I have issues with.

It has random maps to play as scenarios and patterns the strategic part of the game after the classic HOMM type games but it falls short in almost every aspect. It doesn’t have enough artifacts for your heroes to find and what is there is is kind of underwhelming. The scenario options have little customization and the biggest maps are still pretty small. It doesn’t provide an epic experience like HOMM games do.

Town defense is not well thought out and isn’t much fun at all, imo. The hero ability trees are underwhelming. All it all, I find it to be one of those games that started out with a lot of promise in EA but the developer was too small and just could not deliver on what was needed to make the game compelling. It’s not terrible but it isn’t much better than average. “Too short, too shallow” is very fair. I would not spend more than $10 if I were to buy it today.

I put 25 hours in to get 100% achievements. If you love it, you could put as much time as you want playing skirmish mode (or replaying the campaign I suppose). I enjoyed the tactical combat, which is what I got it for. I’m not a big fan of HOMM type games, so I didn’t have any expectations on that part of it. I found the items to be pretty powerful, so I did not seem to have the experience Coldsteel did with items.

It was “fine”. Not great, not bad, just fine…

Sorry for the sluggish reply here, but thanks for the input. I think I’ll hold off for a bit on this. It reminds me enough of For the King, and I still want to dig into that game.

For the King is an excellent game. It is, however, nothing at all like Fort Triumph.

I really should dig that one out of the backlog, it’s been recommended enough times.

Humm. Interesting. Not even the overland/strategic map gameplay? I could see how the tactical combat is not alike.

No, it’s really not. Fort Triumph is pretty much a classic 4X game. You own towns, build them up, recruit units, collect resources, capture enemy towns, etc. For the King is nothing like that. You get a starting party and that’s what you have for the entire game. You can get quests, heal and buy stuff in towns but that’s it. Each character in FTK has their own end-of-turn button and they have to be within a certain number of hexes of each other to be included in any combat that one of them may initiate. The overland map game mechanics are really nothing alike at all. You’ll see what it’s about when you play it.

FTK is great though. In fact I started a new game tonight after all this discussion. Fun game.

Interesting, thanks. I’m inclined to pick up Fort Triumph now that it’s different in my head than FTK, but I really want to dig into FTK first. I think it’s the art style and comparisons to HoMM that led me to think the two games are similar.

Not to derail the conversation too much, but I played FTK a quick half hour a month ago, but have been watching some YouTube videos of a play through. Really impressed with the depth and variety of that one.

I enjoy Fort Triumph, but For the King is on a higher play level than FT. FTK is a unique gem that begs for DLC. If the devs don’t create a sequel, I’ll be a sad puppy. As I’ve said previously, I hope they pull a Battle Brothers (that is, reconsider not developing DLC). Those new to FTK need to understand that the party doesn’t move as a whole, because not being allowed to do so is a key strategic mechanic.