That's quite a large discount for a new release...

Seems like one of those indie games made by small studio (maybe even one person - but can't find the info about it), which are fighting for being noticed (including low price and high discount on release).

Didn't heard about it earlier, wondering how good it is.

If anybody played - please share your impression!

It is made by a single developer.
Here is a Review and the developers'
Reddit page.

I've seen this review already, was curious about fellow GOGers opinions :)

I see. :-) I would also like to hear some voices from the community before picking it up.

The mention of 'heavy luck based mechanics', potentially ruining a run, in a game tagged as strategy/puzzle? I don't know, really.

Here's a link to the latest reviews, two so far, on another platform. ~

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1968330/The_Trasamire_Campaigns/

After playing it for several hours, I decided to request a refund. The reason is that RNG is a nightmare! Most battles will be lost within a couple of seconds when it kicks into high gear.

When one of the AI factions secures several adjacent points, a number of units will be added and randomly distributed between all troops on the map. In a worst case scenario, in a 1:1 battle, the AI receives 35 units or more after the first or second turn. If it is difficult enough to win a battle against one faction, imagine a battle against 7 each taking their first turns before you, each receiving large numbers of troops each turn, while you only get 1 to 4! There is no strategy or buff to even give you a chance to survive for more than 3 turns.

It doesn't help that maps are procedurally generated and troops randomly placed. Small units, scattered all over the map, surrounded by AI enemies, each taking first turns, crazy RNG and it's defeat. Even if you are lucky and start first, RNG not only can but also will kill you.

In case you start first and have more troops than the AI, it's a good and relaxing experience with at least some sort of strategy involved to win. One battle can last for half an hour and up. Sadly, that's the rare exception. Even if you win the occasional map, when you have to defeat several enemies, without being wiped and a scenario lost, you can try for several hours to score a win against an enemy on the main scenario map until you start losing your patience and quit.

While the story is well written, choices do matter, sometimes granting you some bonus, some can also make an instance more difficult. For instance, if you decide to save swamp dwellers, you will have to survive 12 turns instead of 10.

The game loop is addicting, and it could be a good game I can see myself playing for hours on end. If the AI was toned down, if there was some actual strategy to help me win or overcome almost impossible odds, beyond conquering adjacent spaces and not spreading out troops too thin and amassing troops to overcome enemy factions, this would be a very good game. In its current state, I can't recommend it to anyone.

Thanks a lot Mori Yuki for very detailed opinion! I think it's extremely helpful!

A shame, I admit that I really don't like when random factor plays too big role. Game looked very interesting, but this indeed sounds like a deal breaker.

When a game starts off with "your troops are your dice" as one of the taglines, you just know the RNG is going to be brutal...

I haven't paid any attention to that specific tagline, to be honest, but the review made that abundantly clear. The simple rules make it easy to pick up, but the heavy luck element might make it frustrating for some. (Source: Superjump Magazine )

If it wasn't for the RNG, which influences how a battle starts, to how individual battles will play out - where dice and number bar are just visual bling-bling, but instead limited to individual battles, I wouldn't have said a word.

Starting a new game numerous times until there is a chance of winning is one thing. Inside an instance and pitted against several enemies, each fighting other AI factions simulated in the background during a turn on the main map, as well as during your own engagement with an enemy adjacent yours, declaring defeat (there is a button for that) and restarting over and over because:

AI starts first
AI gets more troops
AI has better placement
AI-controlled troops are placed in close proximity

Or:

The instance is lost because one AI opponent has wiped out the PC and all other factions
A winning condition has been met (Survive for x || y turns, defeat all enemies...)

It ruins the whole experience. What's the point of playing, when you can as well just skip turns and see the bad ending?

During each individual attack, the RNG factor doesn't provide an unfair advantage. A 2 v 3 battle can be won and a 12 v 4 or 5 v 5 can be lost. Most of the time it's a win. That doesn't help of course, when the other factions already receive anywhere between 6 (right from the start) to 54 troops each turn, constantly filling up units to capacity and conquering the whole battlefield.

The sole problem with RNG is that it is ruining what could otherwise be a fun game because the outcome is predetermined. I mentioned it before, when AI starts first, receives large numbers of units from the beginning and subsequently during each turn, it just ends in a defeat, over and over and over.

RNG influences every aspect of the game, from the placement of troops, its numbers to the outcome of a battle before it even starts. That's what makes this game a good example of how - or what aspects for, RNG should NOT be used.

Maybe, if this developer had taken some more time to implement real strategies, limiting RNG to individual battles on a map, things would be very different. I couldn't care less about occasionally losing some troops or to the same enemy twice, or whether the odds were stacked against me, as long as I am able to fight back and maybe win. Instead, all there is is the almighty RNG and that's the only tag necessary to describe the experience of the game.

I played the game 6 hours or so, I think.

Waiting until I finish the campaign to write a review.

Here are a couple of observations so far...

1. Concerning individual battles between units, it will be rare for an attack with fewer troops to win. An attacker with the same number of troops will lose more often than not (ie, better not to attempt it unless you are desperate). An attacker with one more troop will win more often than not and an attacker with two or more troops will almost always win.
2. From what I can tell so far, whoever has the first move on a map is random and the fewer players there are remaining (each surviving player in the main map will participate in a battle), the more crushing the advantage of the first mover will be.
3. When you are the defender in a battle, if there are more than two players, you don't have to win. Just make sure that whoever attacked you doesn't win. That makes it considerably easier than you'd think to defend. If you've been attacked and you know you won't win the battle, focus on crippling the player who attacked you to make sure he doesn't win either.
4. The number of units you get is not based on the number of circles you control, but the longest uninterrupted line you have. Having a defensible position is cool, but more than anything, you want to try to get the longest possible line at the end of your turn to get more units (you don't have to hold it after your turn, you just need to get it by the time you are done moving and then repeat the exploit the next time it is your turn).
5. Having a standing army next to a larger enemy army is useless. If the enemy decides to attack it on their turn, your army will most likely get overwhelmed and you'll lose all those units anyways (with no loss for the opponent). It is better to move that army elsewhere and expand your line if you spot some easy wins for it. Conversely, if you have a significant force and a slightly smaller neighboring enemy force, it is desirable to attack it as your chances of winning are very high and you'll wipe out that sizeable enemy army 'for free' (no losses if you win, unlike Risk).

Anyways, I finished the first territory (the woods). Now into the second territory. I'll write a review once I'm done. Might take a while.

So far, I'm hesitating between 3 and 4 stars. Its an ok game (not mind blowing, but not bad... it has a certain simple charm to it). A little overpriced, imho, for what it is.

Yikes. At this point I wonder if this is just from a lack of playtesting, or deeper design issues in the game (not having played it, I can't say for sure). I've seen in other games how RNG seems to be used in place of balanced scenario design, and it just leaves me shaking my head.

Having recently gone back to Into the Breach by way of last year's Advanced Edition update, that game is still one of the best uses of RNG that I've encountered in recent memory.

Honestly, if you fuss over individual battles, the RNG is terrible, but if you average out over a couple battles, you'll prevail if you use sound tactics.

But yeah, some battles will feel like a gigantic waste of your time (ie, pretty much doomed from the start). I believe that's why there is an option to just surrender for a given battle when it is hopeless (rather than see it all the way to the end).

Otherwise, you have a limited number of cards which you can put on play when it matters the most (for example, I have one card that guarantee that I will start on the next battle).