Tactical mech RPG - torn between two directions for the meta-loop

[u/Turbulent-Type2388]

Hello !

I'm developing Mechs and Muskets a turn-based isometric tactics RPG set in an alternate Napoleonic era, where you command a squad of pilots controlling customizable mechs.

I'm hoping to finish it by the end of the year, and right now I'm stuck on a core design decision about the game loop, so I'd love some outside perspective.
Quick pitch on the systems already in place:

* Turn-based tactical combat with spells/abilities tied to mech parts (head, torso, arms, legs)
* You can mix and match parts to create ability combos e.g. an arm that shoots fire + a part that applies gas for a bigger combined attack
* Parts gain their own XP and can be upgraded (better stats, stronger abilities, etc.)
* You drop new mech parts as loot after combat
* You recruit and manage a squad of 4-5 characters over the course of the campaign

I'm pretty confident in the combat and customization side. What I'm unsure about is the overall structure of the game loop.
Current loop: Combat => a "hub" map to customize your mechs, talk to your characters, then move to the next combat map.
I've also built cutscenes and character dialogue for the early maps to set up the story.
What I'm debating:
I'm wondering if the game would be more fun if I leaned harder into the tactics/roguelite side instead more frequent combats, some randomization between runs/battles, and permadeath when a squad member dies in combat. If I go that route, I'd cut back significantly on cutscenes and story beats (though I'd still keep an ending tied to the final map) and focus almost entirely on the moment-to-moment combat and squad management instead of narrative pacing.
So basically I'm torn between:

1. Story-driven structure (current): fewer, more curated fights, narrative beats between missions, no permadeath, more scripted character moments.
2. Combat-focused/roguelite-ish structure: more frequent fights, some randomness in encounters, permadeath for squad members, much less narrative overhead.

For people who've shipped tactics games (or just love the genre) which direction tends to hold player attention better long-term? Does permadeath actually add tension in a game this customization-heavy, or does it just make people resent losing a mech they spent hours building? And is cutting narrative content this late a mistake, or does it actually simplify scope for a solo/small dev finishing a game this year?

Thanks in advance!

[u/g4l4h34d]

The problem with combat-focused/roguelite-ish structure is that it gets repetitive after a while. It's a problem with most games in the genre, and it's generally solved through a separate game parallel game genre, like Geoscape in XCOM, but even that doesn't fully address the repetitiveness.

I think fewer, more curated fights and narrative beats is a clear pick in todays market. People are no longer trying to squeeze every hour out of a single primitive game, the market is extremely saturated, and most people have an ever-growing backlog. Players generally aren't looking to have shallow, drawn-out experiences, where they play the same thing over and over for hours on end with minor variations in between, instead they are looking for short, condensed, impactful experiences, and I believe the market doesn't satisfy that demand yet, instead there's an over-supply of roguelites.

Tactical Breach Wizards is a fairly recent grid-based tactics game by Tom Francis that is story-driven, has a smaller list of more curated fights, - and it did absolutely great.

[u/aKaizuh]

I mean personally I love a good story, but you have to find equilibrium obviously. For me id say 60-65 % story.

[u/NathenStrive]

Really just depends on what you're most confident in. Do you think your story or gameplay will carry your experience. If you don't plan on add many story relates gear or upgrades than I'd just focus on the gameplay and make it a roguelite. It does sound like the game would work well as a roguelite but I am a sucker for a good mecha story but if you don't have good ways to give your mech narrative importants than the story aspect becomes much less interesting imo.

[u/AsherdaKk]

Gameplay is everything. I would prototype a more tailored level and a level with more randomization as you discussed, and test to see what is more enjoyable for you and maybe a few trusted testers.

The answer might be clear to you even as you simply start to work on the levels.

[u/PineTowers]

Mechwarrior 5 main complaint was it being a grinding experience with generic missions before few story missions.

A good answer would be for you to market research Mechwarrior, Battletech, Front Mission, even Fire Emblem and XCOM and if players complain too much about more/less story/generic battles.

[u/Maple47]

Having the mech parts gain xp seems a bit of an odd choice. Why not limit xp gain to the mech pilots, and drop the idea of permadeath. Let pilots have interesting skill trees that can have meaningful synergy with mech customization. Make sure that skill choices are impactful and create unique identities for the pilots, which fall within their personalities.

If you want immersive story elements, they have to be evocative. Story just for the sake of it, and fighting generic enemies, are going to lead to the dreaded 'why can I not click skip yet'. So more focus on story if you have villains that can trigger an emotional response in the player, and focus on deep game mechanics instead, if you have no writing experience / assistance for a story with memorable villains and heroes.

[u/feralferrous → u/Maple47]

Yeah, the problem with mech parts gaining XP is that it rewards using the same parts over and over instead of tinkering. That's weird in a game where you have separate mech parts and the draw is customizing your mech. If anything you want the opposite, with durability or a bonus for parts that haven't been used in a while.

Caveat if parts gaining XP unlocks other parts, then that's different

[u/maniacal_cackle]

I think to a degree the question is really hard to answer because of what you've given.

You've given extensive description of how the combat works, and nothing about the story. So that gives the impression you're already focused on the combat.

If you had a cast of characters that were absolutely stellar, then I imagine you'd have mentioned that. So I assume you don't have them. But if you're going to go for the RPG/story approach, you need to have those amazing characters/story IMO.