Al, Jack, and Adam tackle Menace – Hooded Horse’s most anticipated turn-based tactics game from the Battle Brothers team – recorded just 10 days before early access launch, revealing frustrations with overwhelming complexity, questionable demo design, and an unprecedented information blackout that raises uncomfortable questions about whether beloved indie publishers deserve the same scrutiny as AAA studios.
https://criticalmovespodcast.com/listen
This episode provides an honest assessment of Menace’s strengths and significant concerns, with hosts who genuinely enjoyed the tactical combat nevertheless questioning whether Overhype Studios and Hooded Horse are exploiting community goodwill to obscure an incomplete early access release. The conversation dissects the demo’s steep learning curve without tutorials, complex action point systems managing deployment, suppression, and cover mechanics, and extensive squad customization that paradoxically lacks meaningful specialization forcing strategic choices. The hosts explore comparisons to Battle Brothers, debate whether overwhelming information complexity equals genuine difficulty, and ultimately confront the uncomfortable reality that nine days from early access release, nobody knows what content will actually be included, not even basic information about enemy factions, strategic layer implementation, or whether the titular “menace” appears at all. The episode concludes with a challenge: if this were Paradox or Ubisoft pulling identical tactics, would the community be so forgiving?
Critical Moves Podcast – Episode 67 Show Notes
Episode Title: Menace – Are We Being Overhyped or Underhyped?
Hosts: Al, Jack, Adam
Episode Length: ~57 minutes
Important Context: Recorded 10 days before early access release, published after launch
Episode Summary
This episode of Critical Moves examines Menace, the highly anticipated turn-based tactics game from Overhype Studios (Battle Brothers developers) and published by Hooded Horse, recorded in the awkward position of being 10 days pre-release but published post-launch. Al, Jack, and Adam dissect their demo experiences, revealing a game with genuinely engaging tactical combat undermined by overwhelming complexity without tutorials, questionable design choices prioritizing information over direction, and most concerningly, an almost complete absence of marketing information about what early access actually includes. The conversation navigates the tension between enjoying the puzzle-like challenge of Menace’s unique turn-based system—where individual unit turns alternate with enemies rather than traditional phase-based activation—while questioning whether the demo’s supply abundance and lack of unit specialization reveal deeper design problems or simply represent poor onboarding. The episode’s core argument challenges whether Hooded Horse and Overhype Studios receive preferential treatment from the community that AAA publishers would never enjoy, asking if the indie darling status excuses transparency failures that would spark outrage from Paradox, Ubisoft, or EA.
Disclaimer and Recording Context
The Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey Problem
Al opens with crucial context: “We’re here today to talk about Menace. The game released into early access yesterday, but due to wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, we recorded this 10 days ago. At the time of recording, we did not know what was included in the early access release. So it’s possible after listening to this, you’re imagining me with egg on my face.”
This temporal displacement creates unusual episode dynamics—hosts speculate about early access content listeners may already be experiencing, potentially rendering criticisms obsolete or prophetically accurate. The disclaimer acknowledges this awkwardness while proceeding with analysis based on available information at recording time.
Why Record Before Knowing Early Access Content?
The decision to record pre-release stems from Menace’s February early access date and podcast production schedules. However, the timing inadvertently highlights the episode’s central complaint—even dedicated strategy gaming press with developer access and publisher relationships don’t know what’s actually in the game days before public release.
This information vacuum affects everyone equally, from casual players to content creators, creating unusual situation where nobody can make informed purchasing decisions despite the game being available for pre-order and heavily promoted across strategy gaming communities.
What Is Menace? The Basic Pitch
Turn-Based Tactics With Alternating Activation
Jack provides the fundamental explanation: “Menace is a turn-based RTS tactics strategy game. It plays a little bit unconventionally to some other turn-based tactics games. Instead of taking a turn where you move each of your units to the maximum of their general action points, Menace actually forces you to take a turn with a single unit and then watch the enemy take their turn.”
This alternating activation system resembles chess more than XCOM or Fire Emblem’s phase-based approach. Players cannot coordinate simultaneous squad movements, instead managing one unit at a time while enemies respond immediately. Jack notes confusion around exact turn order: “There were times where I would move my units and then the enemy would move or I would move two or three of my units in a row.”
The system creates different tactical considerations than traditional turn-based games. Without the safety of moving entire teams before enemy response, players must think several moves ahead, anticipating how individual unit positioning affects subsequent turns rather than planning coordinated phase-based strikes.
Science Fiction Alien Threat Response
Jack describes the setting and structure: “It is a science fiction strategy game based on an alien threat. Your job in Menace is to respond to SOS calls and emergency signals, land on those planets, discover the environment as you’re moving across the field because every level in Menace, every mission is procedurally generated.”
Players command squads responding to distress calls across star systems, deploying from a home base ship to planets facing various threats. The procedural generation ensures no two missions play identically, with objectives ranging from elimination targets to defense missions to sabotage operations.
The Strategic Layer Mystery
Beyond tactical missions, Menace promises larger strategic systems. Jack mentions hints from promotional materials: “There’s supposedly a larger strategic layer on top of the game that we experienced that includes customizing a larger spaceship with artillery and weapons and equipment. There also seems like there’s going to be additional mechanics that have to deal with the signals you intercept and probably a larger form of story progression.”
However, none of these systems appeared in the demo. Players experienced only tactical combat without strategic context—no ship customization, no signal interception mechanics, no faction relationships or story progression. This absence becomes central to later concerns about early access readiness.
The Biomechanical Horror Menace
What Little We Know
Jack reveals the scant official information about the titular threat: “The information we have about the Menace in the story is that it’s a biomechanical horror. It is the Borg. You’re going to be fighting cyborgs. It seems like the foot soldiers at the very least that make up the bulk of the Menace’s army are going to be humans that have been forcibly augmented into cyborgs to fight other humans.”
This concept derives from a two-year-old cinematic trailer showing the game’s horror elements. Jack describes the reveal: “There was a cinematic trailer that came out 2 years ago that featured a twist at the end where it changed from the turn-based game we played today into more of a horrifying red atmosphere horror aesthetic style game where there was cyborg zombies and some larger massive alien creature in the fog overlooking.”
Pirates Only in Demo
Despite the menace being the game’s namesake and primary antagonist, the demo exclusively features generic pirates. Al confirms: “In the demo you only fight on one planet. I think there’s 10 missions, but you only maybe have three or four of them in a particular playthrough, and it’s on one planet, and it’s against the pirates, and there’s no other factions that you face in the demo.”
This raises immediate questions about early access content. If the demo showcases only tutorial-level enemies rather than the compelling biomechanical horror driving the marketing, what exactly constitutes the early access experience? Do players face the menace immediately, or does early access extend the pirate prologue indefinitely?
Learning Curve and Tutorial Absence
No Tutorial, Just Trial and Error
The most immediate problem facing new players is complete tutorial absence. Jack recounts his initial confusion: “Initially whenever I played the game, I didn’t quite understand exactly what I was supposed to be doing. My game actually softlocked. It froze whenever I clicked on the squad button instead of starting the first mission. It took me a moment to try to understand why it kept telling me I kept giving me a warning before starting the first mission.”
Despite these obstacles, Jack eventually succeeded: “I kind of just clicked around and figured out what they wanted me to do in the squad menu. I got in. I played my three missions. I beat the demo.” However, this trial-and-error approach shouldn’t be necessary for commercial releases, even early access.
External Guide Dependency
Adam references community-created resources compensating for missing in-game instruction: “I think Adam might have referred to before whenever they were suggesting that we needed a guide off of Steam that it linked me to.” The fact that players require external documentation to understand basic systems indicates fundamental onboarding failure.
These guides represent community labour filling developer responsibility gaps. While hardcore strategy fans may tolerate or even enjoy deciphering complex systems independently, accessibility to broader audiences requires proper tutorials explaining mechanics before expecting mastery.
Overwhelming First Impressions
Adam describes the initial experience: “You start by choosing the team and choosing the loadout for the team. From that point basically you have huge chunks of text and information that are given to you and you need to maybe not understand but just click randomly. I would prefer to get some default team or default setup or something like that to start experimenting.”
The squad customization screen confronts players immediately with dozens of weapons, armor types, modifications, skill trees, and equipment options without context for what matters or why. This information overload before experiencing actual gameplay prevents understanding how systems interconnect.
Comparison to Battle Brothers
Unexpected Revelation
Adam admits surprise learning about the connection: “Before you mentioned it, I didn’t know that this exact studio created Battle Brothers.” This reveals how poorly Overhype communicates their pedigree—Battle Brothers’ reputation should be front-and-centre in Menace marketing, yet even engaged strategy gamers miss the connection.
Mechanical Similarities and Differences
Adam identifies shared design philosophy: “The gameplay is quite similar although Battle Brothers were set on a hex grid map as far as I remember and the maps were really small and here the scale is much bigger. Battle Brothers, your squad consisted of 10, 12 guys and here 12 guys is like one team and you control a couple of teams in order to cope with the enemy.”
Both games emphasize permanent consequences, procedural generation, and deep customization. However, Menace operates at larger scale—what constitutes an entire Battle Brothers warband becomes a single squad in Menace, with players commanding multiple squads simultaneously across larger battlefields.
Squad Structure Clarification
Al clarifies Menace’s organizational hierarchy: “The setting of Menace, the format, is you have a squad leader and you can maybe deploy five or six squads per mission and each of the squad leaders has squaddies which form your squad.” This structure creates complexity beyond Battle Brothers’ relatively flat organization.
Each squad leader commands multiple soldiers, and players manage multiple squads per mission. This nested hierarchy requires tracking individual soldier statistics, squad-level capabilities, and inter-squad coordination—a substantial cognitive load.
Action Point System Deep Dive
Basic Movement and Shooting
Jack explains the foundation: “Like a lot of games, Menace uses an action point system as a currency that you as the player will be spending each turn to determine how many actions you can move. You’re able to move, and that spends action points based on how many tiles you move across the game.”
Standard action economy applies—movement costs points, shooting costs points, using equipment costs points. However, Menace complicates this baseline with deployment mechanics, special weapons requirements, and suppression systems creating numerous exceptions to simple “move and shoot” patterns.
The 20-Point Deployment Tax
Deployment represents Menace’s most significant mechanical innovation and complexity source. Jack describes the system: “There is a cover system. Whenever you’re exploring the world, if you encounter an obstacle or a building or natural obstruction like rocks and you set your units next to that, the tile that obstruction is on provides a form of cover that automatically gives a stat bonus to your unit to improve something like their agility.”
However, passive cover bonuses represent only partial benefit. Jack continues: “In order to utilize your units in cover to the best of their ability, you would need to spend 20 action points out of the 100 they give you for your turn to deploy your units, which means they actually crouch down and embed themselves behind cover.”
This 20-point tax dramatically affects tactical planning. Units cannot deploy and use special weapons in the same turn. Players must sacrifice entire turns positioning units for subsequent actions, creating multi-turn setup phases before executing attacks.
Special Weapons and Deployment Requirements
Certain weapons function only from deployed positions. Jack explains: “Some special weapons can just be used without needing to deploy. And then a lot of the fun ones like the sniper rifle, the rocket launcher require you to actually have embedded yourself in the ground through deploying and spending 20 action points before you can use them.”
This creates frustrating gameplay loops where players travel several turns to engagement range, spend a turn deploying, then wait additional turns for activation to return to that unit before finally using their powerful weapon. Al captures the multi-turn investment: “You’ll actually have to wait until it rotates back around to that unit after several turns to be able to use that unit and their special weapon again.”
Suppression Meter Mechanics
The suppression system adds another complexity layer. Jack describes how it functions: “At any given time when you are taking enemy fire as a unit, you watch a little yellow bar build up, and that’s your suppression meter. Whenever you apply suppressing fire to an enemy, their suppression meter increases. When a unit’s suppression meter fills up all the way, it forces them to deploy.”
Forced deployment from suppression becomes tactical tool—players can pin enemies in place by filling suppression meters, forcing the 20-point deployment tax on opponents. Jack continues: “Once you’ve deployed, you cannot move again unless you spend another 20 action points to get up and move. What happens if you fill up somebody’s suppression meter twice? It actually forces them into a crawl position.”
The crawl position represents complete incapacitation. Jack explains: “The crawl position sets them to zero action points until they crawl out of enemy fire into safety and can then move back into deployment and then back into a stance position. So this basically sets them back 40 action points and an additional turn.”
Complexity Versus Confusion
Adam argues the system crosses from complex into convoluted: “It’s not an easy system because action points are not evenly distributed. Sometimes you can get it decreased by four points if you do this and increase two points if you do this. So it’s not like type of game that you can get either three, four, five moves. You can get one move and three quarters of the next move then you leave it for next turn.”
This fractional action point consumption prevents intuitive planning. Players cannot simply count “I have three actions per turn”—instead, each action has unique costs modified by numerous factors, requiring mental spreadsheets tracking precisely how many points remain after each decision.
Squad Customization Overwhelming Complexity
The Wall of Options
Al describes the customization depth: “When I played it the second time and actually took my time to look at it, there’s so much detail just in the tactical layer. There’s so many customization options.” Adam confirms the extent: “You can even name the squad members if I’m correct. You have specialists, you can have different weapons, you have different modifications. Each squad has their own tree that you can choose the skills for the squad. You have different armours.”
This granularity extends to every equipment category. Each weapon has accuracy curves, penetration values, range limitations, and action point costs. Armor affects mobility, protection, and special abilities. Modifications alter weapon characteristics. Skill trees unlock abilities over time.
Information Overload
Adam emphasizes the overwhelming first impression: “If you open the game and look at it from the get-go without looking at the tutorial, I’m sure you will be overwhelmed with the things you can do with each squad. There’s like 2% there, five damage there, two action points lost during something and so on and so forth that for me it was really overwhelming.”
These percentage modifiers, small stat adjustments, and conditional bonuses create analysis paralysis. Without understanding how systems interact during actual combat, players cannot evaluate whether 2% damage increase outweighs 5 action point movement penalty or how accuracy curves interact with engagement ranges.
Jack’s Clickthrough Approach
Jack describes his pragmatic solution: “Because the game forces you to use a certain amount of your supplies or yells at you until you’ve used a certain amount of them, the only choice I had while playing the demo was to spend the first maybe 10 minutes or so at most just clicking on every box with a little highlight around it in the squad menu until I understood what each of those boxes even had inside of it.”
This brute-force exploration circumvents understanding—Jack didn’t learn why choices matter, just what options existed. He continues: “I understood, okay, this has one list of weapons, this has another list of weapons, this has a list of armour, this has a list of equipment, and then I saw the vehicle.”
The Demo’s Generous Supply Problem
Maxing Out Everything
Jack identifies a critical demo design flaw: “They give you so many supplies in this demo that I essentially was able to max out my squad to their maximum stats. I paid no attention to their stats whatsoever. I paid no attention to numbers except for how much it cost for supplies. And I still was able to before completing any missions and getting any rewards, spend all of the supplies underneath the 70% threshold on the best possible weapons and gear for my squad.”
This abundance completely undermines strategic decision-making. If players can afford everything, choices become cosmetic rather than strategic. Resource scarcity typically forces players to prioritize—do I need better weapons or better armour? Can I afford both, or must I make sacrifices?
Six Squads Including Vehicle
The demo’s generosity extends beyond individual loadouts. Jack reveals: “I had six squads including a vehicle on the first mission.” For a demo showcasing game systems, deploying maximum squad strength in the tutorial trivializes difficulty while obscuring resource management that should be central to strategic gameplay.
This design parallels giving players level 50 characters in RPG demos—yes, you see high-level abilities, but you miss the progression, trade-offs, and growth that makes the full game engaging.
No Specialization Required
Jack’s critical observation cuts to fundamental design problems: “No one in the squad actually had a specialization. I just didn’t really think it was very complex. I thought that the amount of supplies they gave you was way too much. I thought it was silly that nobody actually has a specialization.”
Without enforced roles or specialization bonuses encouraging particular builds, the elaborate customization reduces to cosmetic choice. Jack details his self-imposed structure: “I found a sniper rifle. I gave the sniper rifle to one of my units. I gave them the lightest armour and then I gave them an SMG for close quarters combat so they had the weapon with the furthest reach and the weapon with only one of the cheapest weapons I could give them.”
This thoughtful squad composition emerged from Jack’s tactical thinking, not game systems rewarding specialization. He created roles—designated sniper, heavy weapons specialist, suppression gunner—purely through personal organization rather than mechanical encouragement.
Lack of Meaningful Unit Differentiation
Cosmetic Names, Identical Stats
Jack exposes the shallow differentiation: “Even though they name these characters randomly, they give them a random rank and they give them a code name, they give them some background details, none of that actually affects their stats. Every character has the same base stats and the only time you see them change are when you give them equipment.”
This undermines RPG elements promised in Menace’s genre description. Traditional tactical RPGs like XCOM, Fire Emblem, or Battle Brothers generate soldiers with varied aptitudes, creating natural specialists—some excel at shooting, others at close combat, some move quickly while others tank damage.
Al’s Defense: Squad Leader Skills
Al attempts defending specialization through squad leaders: “Each of the squad leaders has an initial skill, doesn’t it? I think one of them is like a close quarters. He has the gorilla promotion already, so his defence is better when he’s closer to the enemy. There’s another one which I think you can give them like a camouflage concealment skill.”
Al argues aesthetic and initial abilities push players toward particular roles: “Each of the squad leaders is almost through aesthetics and through the initial promotion that they have is being pushed into a certain type of combat. I think one of them was called the Unseen. So you’re kind of thinking, well, they’re called this. I should use them in a certain way.”
Jack’s Rebuttal: Non-Combat Skills
Jack systematically dismantles this defence: “Of the six squad leaders that they provide you in the demo, at least two of them have an initial skill that has nothing to do with combat. One of them just provides bonus supplies or a discount for supply costs for every other squad leader and another one just provides a discount for promotions in the future or increased gain of experience for promotions which by itself does not discipline either of those squad leaders into any particular type of combat.”
Even squad leaders with combat abilities don’t meaningfully specialize. Jack continues: “Yes there is some background information that suggests that one might be better with the sniper rifle because they don’t get detected very well. The thing is though is that one of the first things we touched on in this episode was the amount of information this game gives you.”
Information Versus Substance
Encyclopedia of Irrelevance
Jack articulates the core problem: “It’s giving you a litany of information, but almost none of it actually has any impact on the actual gameplay mechanics for the most part except for the actual items that you’re choosing. And then so essentially I was able to just play a game where I matched pictures to pictures. I matched heavy weapons to additional ammo. I matched vehicles to the biggest guns.”
The elaborate statistics, background lore, and character details create illusion of depth while actual mechanical systems remain shallow. Jack continues: “I matched characters I just thought should wear heavy armour and carry rocket launchers just because I wanted them to. And so design-wise, none of that actually impacted the interplay of the game mechanics.”
No Consequences for Choices
Jack’s pirate armour example illustrates arbitrary equipment assignment: “After I beat one of the first missions, I was able to claim a reward. The reward was a pirate outfit and armour that was heavier armour than I already had and allowed me to boost jump up to seven tiles. I immediately equipped it onto the RPG guy. And then now I had a unit that just by my own choosing because there’s nothing that pushes this could launch seven tiles and then blow up somebody with an RPG point blank.”
Any character could wear that armour. No class restrictions, no stat requirements, no specialization bonuses. The game provides sandbox freedom without mechanical reasons for particular configurations beyond player preference.
Sandbox Without Direction
Jack identifies the design philosophy gap: “I love sandboxes that you can combine mechanics and make them work. But there’s also not a direction being pushed by any of these mechanics to force you to play one way or the other.” Successful sandbox games provide tools without mandatory solutions, but they create problems rewarding particular approaches.
Menace offers tools without problems requiring specific solutions. Any reasonably-equipped squad can complete any mission without adapting loadouts or tactics to mission parameters. This reduces strategic layer to cosmetic choices rather than meaningful decisions with consequences.
Mission Variety and Difficulty Inconsistency
Adam’s Crushing Defeat
Adam recounts extreme difficulty variance: “My first mission was defend the point and I don’t know maybe it was generated in such a way they basically I lost and I lost it really hard because I moved squad to one side of the base, they moved from the other side of the base and that’s it I lost. I tried the same mission twice.”
This defensive scenario apparently generated overwhelming opposition that exploited Adam’s positioning, creating unwinnable situation through no obvious player error—simply unlucky generation or misunderstanding of proper defensive setup without tutorial guidance.
Adam’s Trivial Victory
Adam’s subsequent playthrough provided opposite experience: “I tried this game again today and the first mission I got was clear map and it was so damn easy. I basically I didn’t even had to try anything because I simply moved and clicked stuff and they killed each other.”
The procedural generation apparently produces wildly unbalanced scenarios—from brutally punishing to trivially easy without middle ground. Adam concludes: “If I would stop on my first playthrough of the game, I would say it’s really hard game. But if I would start with the second playthrough, I would say it’s easy enough. You can just click through it.”
Jack’s Completion Frustration
Jack experienced different problem—missions ending before actual completion: “There was even times I was in the middle of conflict in a mission and I would reach that threshold and then the game would just end. I didn’t even have to kill the other ones that were currently threatening my units.”
Percentage-based elimination objectives (kill 70-80% of enemies) create anticlimactic conclusions. Players mid-firefight suddenly see victory screen despite active threats remaining. This undermines tactical satisfaction of actually winning engagements.
The One Good Mission
Jack identifies the demo’s highlight: “The best mission I played was the sabotage two objectives because I had to get all my units back to an evacuation point. I thought that part was pretty cool.” This mission type provided clear objectives requiring execution under pressure—complete sabotage then extract before reinforcements arrive.
The evacuation requirement created tension absent from elimination missions. Players couldn’t simply grind enemies until threshold met—they had to accomplish objectives then survive extraction, creating narrative arc and tactical challenge beyond statistical benchmarks.
Cover System and Infantry Design
Automatic Cover-Seeking
Al praises the cover implementation: “One thing that I really liked about this and I didn’t think I would was the complete lack of any overwatch. You really have to think and plan how are you going to ambush people? How are you going to approach?”
Without overwatch mechanics allowing reactive fire, players cannot simply advance to firing positions and suppress approaches. Combat requires careful positioning anticipating enemy movements rather than setting up killzones.
The automatic cover-seeking behaviour helps compensate. When units take fire, they automatically utilize nearby cover without player micromanagement. This intelligent behaviour reduces tactical burden while maintaining realism—soldiers naturally seek protection when shot at.
No Overwatch Creates Different Challenge
Al explains the psychological shift: “The first time I played I just ran all of my guys forward and it’s like, okay, now I’m just waiting for the pirates to come and blow me up, which is what they did because I didn’t do it particularly well. So it encourages you to think very hard about what you’re going to do. It encourages you to plan your moves.”
Traditional overwatch-based tactics games reward defensive positioning—advance to strong position, set overwatch, enemies walk into killzone. Menace requires different thinking since static defensive positions don’t benefit from reactive fire.
Hardcore Complexity Versus Actual Difficulty
Chess-Like Determinism
Adam distinguishes Menace’s complexity from Paradox-style overwhelming information: “When it comes to this type of games there are two ways you can go. One way is going so complex that you cannot simply comprehend all the information and in my opinion this is the Paradox way—some of their games are so complex there’s so much stuff in there that you simply cannot take into consideration every little detail.”
Paradox games achieve complexity through sheer volume—thousands of simultaneous calculations creating emergent behaviour impossible to fully control or predict. Players make directional decisions affecting probability distributions rather than determining exact outcomes.
Adam argues Menace takes different approach: “This game goes the other way. It goes the way of being really complex but in a type of chess. If someone sits down, writes down all the details, all the action points, all the skills, all the terrain in their notes and they spend time understanding this whole concept, they can make each move completely aware of all the details.”
This deterministic complexity theoretically allows perfect play—if players track everything precisely, they can calculate optimal moves. The complexity comes from managing numerous variables simultaneously, not from unpredictable emergent systems.
Jack’s Disagreement on Difficulty
Jack challenges the hardcore designation: “I have to admit something. I don’t think this game is very hard at all. I don’t think the systems in this game are very complex. I also think that the majority of the problems with understanding the game doesn’t come from a level of granularity or sandbox systems interacting with each other in a way that takes a couple hours to grasp. I think it just comes from questionable design decisions.”
Jack distinguishes between artificial complexity from poor communication versus genuine mechanical depth. Menace’s difficulty, he argues, stems from inadequate explanation rather than sophisticated systems rewarding mastery.
Al’s Clarification
Al refines his position: “I’m not suggesting that it’s difficult. I’m suggesting that the amount of granularity there is in the systems—even the weapons have an accuracy bar and a penetration bar and you’ve got to find the sweet spot because you can be too close, you can be too far away. There’s so much, there’s such a richness of information that’s been poured into this in terms of the stats, in terms of the customization.”
Al emphasizes informational density rather than difficulty: “All of the missions are procedurally generated, so you’ll never play the same mission twice. There’s so much being rammed in to what is on the surface a fairly basic turn-based tactics game that I think that informationally it’s hardcore, not difficulty-wise.”
This distinction matters—systems can be information-rich without being challenging if that information doesn’t meaningfully affect outcomes or if optimal strategies emerge easily despite apparent complexity.
The Unprecedented Information Blackout
Nine Days and Counting
Al frames the central concern: “We are, and I said at the start, early access has now released. It released yesterday if you’re listening to this episode on the day of release. But we are 10 days away from release at the point of recording this episode. The complete lack of information about this game, about what’s expected in early access, about road maps, about inclusions. Should we be concerned about that?”
This represents genuinely unusual situation. Most early access releases provide extensive documentation detailing included content, planned features, development timelines, and realistic expectations for current state versus eventual completion.
The Hooded Horse Discord Non-Answer
Al describes his direct inquiry: “I did actually ask in the Hooded Horse Discord, said, ‘Do we have any information about what’s going to be included in the early access release?’ And I didn’t get an answer.” Even publisher’s official community spaces lack basic information about imminent release.
This silence extends beyond casual fans to engaged community members actively seeking information. If Hooded Horse’s Discord—the publisher’s primary community hub—cannot answer fundamental “what’s in the game” questions, the communication breakdown is systematic rather than coincidental.
Jack’s Wiki Investigation
Jack provides damning evidence of information vacuum: “This is only a week before the early access comes out and I just want to read you both a quote verbatim from the Menace wiki from Hooded Horse. This is an article for the main antagonistic faction of the game. Spoiler alert. Menace, the titular alien antagonist of the game. Period. Almost nothing is currently known about them save that they are biomechanical horror that poses a threat to all of the vying factions of the Wayback system and possibly all of humanity should the player fail to stop them. And that’s the end of the article.”
The official wiki—maintained by or with publisher cooperation—contains literally no information about the game’s primary antagonist one week before launch. Jack continues with second example: “There’s a second article which says alien, aggressive alien wildlife. I clicked on that one and the picture was a piece of concept art and it says unfinished artwork of the aggressive alien wildlife that you may see in the game.”
Both articles feature placeholder content, concept art rather than in-game assets, and speculative language suggesting features might appear rather than confirming their inclusion. This is documentation state appropriate for games years from release, not days from paid early access.
The Double Standard Question
Would This Be Acceptable From Paradox?
Al poses the uncomfortable challenge: “My concern is this. We have Overhype Studios who released Battle Brothers which I think 88% positive reviews. It’s done really well. You have Hooded Horse who are the indie darlings. We love Hooded Horse. My concern is this: we are allowing Overhype and Hooded Horse to get away with this complete lack of information because of who they are.”
The hypothetical makes the point viscerally: “If it had been Ubisoft, Paradox, EA, any major publisher who didn’t have the indie darling tag to them, we would be eviscerating them. We would not let them get away with the way they’ve handled this.”
This directly follows an episode (mentioned but not included in this transcript) where the hosts “absolutely kick the living shit out of Paradox for their DLC strategy, for their broken release strategy.” The contrast is stark—Paradox receives harsh criticism for transparent practices (releasing buggy games with clear DLC roadmaps) while Hooted Horse escapes scrutiny for opacity.
Marketing Genius or Marketing Failure?
Al speculates about strategic intentionality: “Maybe it is a legitimate marketing strategy that they because we’re doing an episode on it and we don’t know very much about the game. So maybe it is genius marketing on behalf of Hooded Horse to say we won’t tell people enough about this game so that people are desperate to know. That informational vacuum draws people in.”
The mystery box approach sometimes works—generate curiosity through selective revelation rather than comprehensive disclosure. However, this strategy typically involves deliberate teasing and strategic information release, not complete silence.
Adam suggests darker possibility: “There is one case that I do believe that this marketing tactic is deliberate and unfortunately is not good and it is this bad apple scenario. I imagine that it could be the case that Hooded Horse decided to publish the game and maybe the game is not good enough or not finished or there’s some issues with it and decided simply to be silent about it to make a silent release.”
Covering Losses
Adam explains the pessimistic interpretation: “What I see in the gaming industry sometimes this silent publishing tactic is being done when you want to cover your losses.” Publishers sometimes quietly release games they’ve lost confidence in, hoping to recoup investment from brand recognition without risking reputation through aggressive marketing of substandard products.
This cynical reading fits the evidence—minimal information, no roadmap, vague promises, demo showcasing only one enemy faction without strategic layer. If early access launches incomplete or disappointing, the soft launch minimizes backlash compared to aggressive marketing creating higher expectations.
What We Actually Enjoyed
Art Style and Visual Presentation
Adam praises aesthetics: “I really like the art style of it. I want to be clear because I think it’s important. I really enjoyed the demo and I really enjoyed the combat and I think the art style is brilliant and it looks amazing.”
The visual presentation successfully evokes science fiction military aesthetics—grounded enough for tactical realism while incorporating futuristic elements maintaining engagement. Al agrees: “It looks ‘realistic’ for a science fiction turn-based game set in a system thousands of light years away or whatever it is, the Wayback system.”
The Puzzle Element
Al identifies the core appeal: “I thoroughly enjoyed the demo and I didn’t expect to. I was like, I’m going to play it, I played it when the demo first came out and I knew we had this episode coming. I didn’t really want to, but I’m pleased I did because I really enjoyed the way that it worked and the mechanics and the challenge.”
The tactical problems Menace creates through its unique systems—no overwatch, alternating activation, deployment mechanics—force different thinking than standard tactics games. Al continues: “I don’t like to be challenged when I’m playing games. I like to play games to enjoy them, but I really enjoyed the challenge and the puzzle element.”
Planning and Forethought Requirements
Al celebrates the strategic depth: “You’ve got to kind of work out how am I going to do this. And it took me a long time to understand what I see as the complexity of how it works in terms of the turn-based mechanics of the fact that there’s no initiative system, there’s no overwatch system. These are all deliberate design choices in order to make the game harder than what it would be.”
The absence of familiar safety mechanics forces genuine tactical thinking. Al explains: “You don’t know which unit will activate next, you can use any unit in any order per turn and the complete lack of overwatch to some would be a real negative but to me it makes me think I have to think a lot harder about how I’m going to do this. I can’t just move a unit, stick it on Overwatch, and pray for the best. I have to be very careful and cautious.”
Cautious Optimism Despite Concerns
Al’s Balanced Perspective
Al attempts fairness: “I don’t want to come across as negative about Menace, the game, because I really enjoyed it. I’m cautiously optimistic. And of course, yesterday the early access release came out, so I could be playing it now whilst you’re listening to this episode because I did really enjoy the demo.”
He clarifies where criticism applies: “My complaint or my negativity or my concerns comes from the handling of the release by Hooded Horse and by Overhype. And I hope beyond hope that I’m wrong.”
Underhyped Not Overhyped
Adam playfully suggests alternative framing: “You are not overhyped, you are underhyped.” This captures the contradiction—Menace appears on most anticipated lists, generates substantial wishlist numbers, receives extensive community attention, yet somehow remains mysterious regarding actual content.
The “underhyped” designation acknowledges Menace potentially deserves its anticipation if early access delivers, but marketing failures prevent proper enthusiasm building through concrete information about what players will actually experience.
The Hope for Egg on Face
Al’s opening disclaimer expressed genuine desire for retrospective embarrassment: “I hope this ages badly. And I hope that when this episode launches, I’ve been playing Menace for 24 hours on early access release because it’s brilliant, because early access launched and it’s amazing, is everything that anybody could ever want in a tactical turn-based game.”
This sincere wish for negative forecasts being wrong demonstrates the hosts’ fundamental goodwill toward the project despite their criticisms. They want Menace to succeed and their concerns to be unfounded.
The Final Verdict Challenge
If This Were Ubisoft, EA, or Paradox
Al returns to the core hypocrisy question: “I think that it’s only because Hooded Horse are riding on this wave of goodwill from the audience that they’ve been allowed to get away with this. This is my question to Jack: if this had been Ubisoft, EA, Paradox as a publisher pulling the same kind of trick with not telling us stuff, would we be saying, ‘Oh, we can’t wait,’ or would we be saying, ‘What are they playing at? Is it double standards?'”
Jack provides measured response: “I think the problem is that this is just not a viable strategy because what we’re waiting for isn’t another demo. It’s not Steam Next Fest where we know they’re going to be releasing something. This is early access. Battle Brothers is priced at $30 as a standard for them. This game might release with the same or similar price tag.”
Price Point Matters
Jack emphasizes purchasing reality: “I really enjoyed the demo. I’m also particularly very stingy about the games that I buy. I think that if a larger publisher was making this game, publishing it, and they were in charge of the marketing strategy, we would absolutely have major reservations about it because their games are either going to be priced similarly or more.”
The $30 price point isn’t impulse-purchase territory for many players. Jack continues: “It’s just really unorthodox to expect people to want to buy a game in only 9 days time. And maybe they’re going to have a really crazy marketing run up to the early access release within the next 9 days. If so, that would be wonderful and this episode ages poorly.”
Information Required for Purchase Decisions
Jack articulates baseline expectations: “I don’t think no matter who it is, unless there’s a reason for us to expect the lack of transparency, we’re going to have issues with this strategy. There’s nothing immediately captivating about a story that they haven’t really told us very many details on. There isn’t any major twist to the gameplay mechanics that I can expect from this game.”
Without compelling reasons to pre-purchase, rational consumers wait for reviews and community feedback: “I will have to wait for the game to come out, see other people’s reviews, understand whether or not the game is worth the $30 because it actually even has the alien factions that they promised two years ago.”
Contact & Links
About | Contact | Meet the Team | Get Involved | Forum | Episodes
Discord | Reddit | Twitter / X | Facebook
Instagram | Twitch | Steam Group | Steam Curator
YouTube | Spotify | Apple | Amazon
Email: [email protected]
Episode Verdict
This episode captures a moment of profound uncertainty—recorded 10 days before early access yet released after, creating temporal paradox where hosts speculate about content listeners may already be experiencing. The core tension emerges from genuine tactical combat enjoyment colliding with legitimate concerns about information transparency, demo design choices, and whether beloved indie publishers receive preferential treatment that would spark outrage from AAA studios. Menace’s systems show promise—the alternating activation creating chess-like tactical puzzles, deployment mechanics forcing multi-turn planning, suppression systems enabling creative positioning, and no-overwatch design requiring genuine strategic forethought rather than reactive killzones. However, the demo’s excessive supply abundance enabling maxed-out squads, lack of meaningful unit specialization despite elaborate customization options, wild difficulty variance from procedural generation, and missions ending anticlimactically at percentage thresholds reveal potential design problems beyond poor onboarding. Most damningly, the unprecedented information blackout—official wikis containing literally nothing about the titular menace antagonist one week before launch, publisher Discord unable to answer basic content questions, no roadmaps or feature lists despite two-year development cycle and multiple delays—raises uncomfortable questions about whether early access will deliver strategic layer, enemy variety, and biomechanical horror the marketing promised. The episode’s greatest value lies in its unflinching examination of double standards: if Paradox, Ubisoft, or EA released a $30 early access game with zero disclosed content, minimal marketing, and vague promises, the strategy community would rightfully demand accountability. Yet Hooded Horse and Overhype Studios coast on goodwill earned through Battle Brothers’ success and indie publisher reputation, receiving passes that larger studios never would. Whether this faith proves justified or misplaced depends entirely on early access content this episode couldn’t evaluate—making it simultaneously critique of transparency failures and time capsule capturing pre-release uncertainty that future listeners will judge with hindsight the hosts lacked.
Next Episode: What’s Gone Wrong With Paradox Interactive?
Discover more from Critical Moves Podcast
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.