Sci Fi — After Strategy

MENACE in Early Access: Overhype swaps the sword for the rifle, not the tension

Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT

MENACE does not need to sell itself as “XCOM in space.” The label helps place it, but it also shrinks it. What makes Overhype Studios interesting is not that shields became rifles: it is that they kept a very specific obsession, making every tactical decision leave a scar on the campaign.

The game arrived on Steam in Early Access on February 5, 2026, published by Hooded Horse, and it has already had a first major course correction. The SL Update 1 was not a cosmetic patch: it removed the unpopular promotion tax, adjusted supply costs, and reworked the Construct faction.

What matters now is not whether MENACE is “already finished.” It is not. Our reading is clear: it rewards patient players because it dares to be rough, but it will only become great if Overhype separates smart harshness from pointless friction.

You don’t command heroes, you manage losses

The real difference with XCOM is emotional scale. XCOM turns each soldier into an individual, almost cinematic piece. MENACE thinks more in terms of squads, resources, accumulated casualties and trade-offs. Losing people does not just fail a mission: it spends future.

That nuance matters because Overhype has always handled discomfort well. Battle Brothers was not brilliant for its pretty duels, but because every victory could leave you worse off than before: a one-eyed veteran, a broken economy, a company too battered to take the next contract. MENACE tries to move that cruel arithmetic onto an interplanetary front.

The sci-fi dressing is not just scenery. It lets the game bring in vehicles, heavy weapons, orbital support, rival human factions and threats less legible than a band of raiders. MENACE aims for that rare zone where turn-based tactics meets the light wargame: enough simulation to generate emergent stories, without turning every mission into a spreadsheet.

SL Update 1 fixes the wrong kind of friction

The most important data point of these months is not an average score or a Steam tag. It is the kind of change Overhype chose to make first.

The promotion tax penalised unit promotions with extra costs. In theory it protected squad balance. In practice it turned good news into a chore: progressing could feel like a fine. Overhype removed it and rebalanced supply costs to compensate. A small decision on the surface, but revealing in editorial terms.

A healthy Early Access is not the one that adds content endlessly. It is the one that identifies which part of its harshness produces tension and which part only produces chafing. MENACE needs to be severe. It does not need to punish the player for feeling their squad advance.

The same update touched the Construct. According to the summary published by PC Gamer, drones became more numerous but individually more fragile, soldiers lost their rockets, and Guncrawlers inherited the anti-vehicle threat role. A high-tier support unit also arrived.

That redesign heads the right way: an enemy faction should not be hard because it soaks more damage. It should force you to re-read the map.

What MENACE inherits from Battle Brothers

There is a direct line between Battle Brothers and MENACE, but not in genre. It is in the way mistakes turn into narrative.

In Battle Brothers, a bad pursuit could end with two brothers dead, a failed contract and the company selling gear to pay wages. In MENACE, the same logic shifts to soldiers, vehicles, supplies and factions. The fantasy is no longer “my small band survives the medieval mud,” but “my military operation tries not to break in a hostile system.”

That is where the strong promise appears: campaigns you do not just win, but endure. Missions where a timely retreat is worth more than clearing the map. Decisions where sending more soldiers raises immediate safety but drains a reserve you may need later.

It is a less clean fantasy than the perfect strike team. And that suits it. Memorable tactics games do not make you feel smart all the time: they force you to tell apart a good plan, an expensive plan, and a plan that only looks good because you have not yet paid its consequences.

What it still has to prove

Caution is still in order. MENACE is in Early Access, and Overhype plans a long development runway before version 1.0. In a game like this, balance can change completely: costs, factions, maps, campaign pacing, event variety and economic pressure.

The main risk is not technical. It is identity. If MENACE becomes too gentle, it loses the tension that makes it special. If it becomes too opaque, it will only speak to players who already forgave every rough edge in Battle Brothers. The fine line sits between the two: explain more clearly without domesticating, punish less through the interface and more through decisions.

That balance will be measured through consequences, not the size of the patch notes. A casualty can create a memorable campaign when the player understands which choice exposed the squad and what could change next time. It becomes mere irritation when the relevant information appears only after the punishment. Future updates need to preserve tactical uncertainty while making campaign costs legible enough for failure to teach something.

The real breadth of the campaign also remains to be seen. Impressions published by GamesRadar stress the strength of its missions and how each loss turns into strategic pressure. That is promising, but a tactics game of this kind lives or dies on repetition: how many times it can ask for “one more mission” before maps, enemies and objectives start to sound alike.

Variety alone will not solve that problem. MENACE also needs operations to ask different strategic questions: when to risk a vehicle, when to preserve an experienced squad, when a retreat protects more value than an objective provides. If every mission rewards the same cautious formation, the campaign layer will become bookkeeping. If enemy factions and supply constraints keep changing the acceptable cost of victory, Overhype will have translated the best part of Battle Brothers rather than merely borrowing its reputation.

Buy in now or wait

Buying in now makes sense for three profiles: Battle Brothers fans who want to watch Overhype learn in real time, turn-based tactics players who enjoy hard systems, and anyone who accepts that a campaign can change between patches. It is not a universal recommendation.

If you want a finished campaign, stable balance and an experience without visible patchwork, wait. The good news is that MENACE seems to be asking the right questions: SL Update 1 fixed structural friction, not just numbers, and the Construct rework aims at enemies with more identity, not more hit points. The recommendation stays conditional: yes for patient tactical players, no for anyone expecting a 1.0 disguised as Early Access. For more of Hooded Horse’s tactical lineup, our complete XCOM 2 guide covers the benchmark this genre keeps measuring itself against.

Sources: Steam — MENACE, Steam — SL Update 1, PC Gamer — launch date, PC Gamer — SL Update 1, GamesRadar — impressions after launch.

Stellar Tactics review: after a decade in Early Access, does the space RPG finally deliver?

Sun, 17 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Ten years. That’s how long Stellar Tactics spent in Early Access before its 1.0 release on March 30, 2026. This sci-fi sandbox RPG — developed almost solo by Maverick Games Studios — promises a 160,000-system galaxy, deep turn-based combat, and detailed ship customization. After a decade of waiting, does it deliver? We played 30 hours.

TL;DR:

1.0 release: March 30, 2026, after almost 10 years in EA (started September 2016)
Massive content: 160,000+ star systems, 40 ships, 240 perks
Deep combat: turn-based ground, real-time space simulation
Solo dev: Maverick Games Studios, primarily one developer
Steam reviews: overall “Very Positive”, but 57% over the last 30 days — post-launch bugs are hurting new players

10 years in Early Access: how do we get here?
The content: 160,000 systems, really?
Ground combat: XCOM with RPG roles
Space: simulation or dashboard?
Flaws: bugs, dated interface, dizzying scope
Verdict: who it’s for, who it isn’t

10 years in Early Access: how do we get here?

Stellar Tactics launched into Early Access in September 2016 on Steam and GOG. At the time, it pitched itself as the spiritual heir to Starflight (1986) and Sundog: Frozen Legacy (1984) — the sandbox space RPGs that today’s thirty- and forty-somethings wore out.

What lengthened development:

One main dev (Don Wilkins of Maverick Games Studios), not a team
An incredibly ambitious scope — 160,000 procedural systems is literally unthinkable for a solo dev
Community funding via Steam EA rather than a publisher who could have imposed deadlines

The result after 10 years: a game vast but artisanal, with the qualities and flaws you’d imagine. Some EA veterans have poured 1000+ hours in. Others bailed seeing each update took 3 months.

The content: 160,000 systems, really?

Yes. The number is real. Stellar Tactics procedurally generates over 160,000 star systems, each with:

Stations, planets, asteroids, wreckage debris
Dynamic factions in conflict
Random events (piracy, encounters)

The galaxy is persistent — what you do in one place impacts the rest. Caveat: narrative density varies. Some systems are full of stories (named factions, scripted quests); others are empty, just asteroid-mining filler.

Verdict: the content is real but not uniformly dense. As with Starsector or Elite Dangerous, you have to accept that most systems are “filler” to create the illusion of a truly living galaxy.

Ground combat: XCOM with RPG roles

This is the game’s best aspect. Stellar Tactics’ turn-based combat borrows from XCOM (cover, firing angles, height) but adds a deep RPG layer:

240 unlockable perks — specialization as sniper, medic, hacker, heavy, etc.
Classless progression — your character evolves freely based on your choices
Teams of 4 — each member is distinct, not an XCOM clone
Environmental effects: gravity, radiation, toxic atmosphere

Battles on the ground in abandoned stations and ancient ruins recall Fallout Tactics with a Star Wars KOTOR touch. Satisfying, demanding, with a real learning curve.

Space: simulation or dashboard?

The space side is more dashboard than pure simulation. You pick a destination, you travel (with warp jump), and you encounter what comes up along the way. No arcade piloting like Elite Dangerous.

On the other hand, the 40-ship customization runs deep:

Combat — offense/defense optimization, ammunition, armor
Mining — ships dedicated to asteroid extraction
Cargo — trade between stations
Exploration — long-range sensors, upgraded jumpdrives

You can disable and board enemy ships — opening a ground combat aboard their vessel. It’s one of the game’s unique mechanics, a direct heir to the Starflight tradition.

Flaws: bugs, dated interface, dizzying scope

Three recurring critiques of the 1.0 release:

Post-launch bugs — recent reviews (57% positive over 30 days) flag loading crashes, quests getting stuck, save issues. The solo dev pushes near-daily hotfixes, but it remains frustrating.

Dated interface — the UI feels 2016. Little visual polish, austere fonts, sometimes missing tooltips. For a $40 game, it’s rough.

Dizzying scope that can paralyze — 160,000 systems is literally infinite. Many new players bail at 10-15h, overwhelmed, not knowing what to do. The game doesn’t hold your hand enough.

Verdict: who it’s for, who it isn’t

Buy Stellar Tactics if:

You loved Starflight, Sundog, or early ’80s/’90s space RPGs
You love open sandboxes where you make your own story
XCOM-style turn-based combat appeals to you
The “one-man project” angle inspires rather than scares you

Skip it if:

You want guided narrative à la Mass Effect
You don’t have 100h+ to invest to really “taste” the game
Dated UIs put you off
You’re looking for a solo RPG finishable in 40h

At $39.99, it’s an honest bet for anyone looking for a modernized old-school space RPG. To compare with the other 2026 RPG/tacticals, see our Xenonauts 2 review and our Vaunted preview.

Final score: 7/10 — a singular game, thrilling for those it grabs, frustrating for those without context.

Vaunted: the sci-fi tactical RPG from a StarCraft co-creator is coming via Hooded Horse

Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT

On March 26, 2026, Hooded Horse — the Manor Lords publisher — unveiled Vaunted, the debut title from studio Lost Lake Games. The announcement at Xbox Partner Preview immediately got the tactical community talking: at the helm sits James Phinney, StarCraft’s historic co-creator, alongside ex-Guild Wars devs. Here’s what we know about this sci-fi tactical RPG blending turn-based and real-time.

TL;DR:

Announced March 26, 2026, release planned for 2026
Developed by Lost Lake Games (debut title) with James Phinney (StarCraft co-creator)
Published by Hooded Horse (Manor Lords, Terra Invicta)
Hybrid combat: turn-based planning + real-time execution, no traditional initiative
Day one on PC Game Pass — Steam, Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store

Who is Lost Lake Games?
The narrative pitch: three post-empire mercenaries
Combat: reactive turn-based without initiative
What to expect from the ex-StarCraft team
Availability and post-launch outlook

Who is Lost Lake Games?

Lost Lake Games is a recently-founded studio led by veterans with a heavy résumé:

James Phinney — StarCraft co-creator (1998), historic figure in Blizzard RTS
Several ex-Blizzard with StarCraft, Warcraft, Diablo on their CV
Ex-ArenaNet with Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2 experience
A compact team — not a juggernaut, an ambitious indie studio

Hooded Horse made the same bet it did with Slavic Magic (Manor Lords): back a small studio with strong dev DNA. The strategy paid off with Manor Lords hitting 2 million sales in 6 months. We’ll see if Vaunted confirms the pattern.

The narrative pitch: three post-empire mercenaries

Vaunted’s universe is set: a millennium after the last galactic empire fell, imperial relics lie scattered across ruins. Mercenaries, smugglers, and treasure hunters battle over these priceless remnants.

You play Dyse, Gendril, and Kyvaath — three “dysfunctional frenemies” in the team’s words. The official pitch promises “bullets, bravado, and brazen lies” — classic space-western cyberpunk tone. Think Cowboy Bebop, The Outer Worlds, even Firefly.

The plot revolves around a score of a lifetime — a galactic heist pitting your trio against ruthless rivals, monstrous aliens, and giant robots. More Borderlands narrative than Grand Tactical grand strategy.

Combat: reactive turn-based without initiative

This is the distinctive hook that sets Vaunted apart from the tactical crowd.

No classic initiative. In XCOM, you move your soldier, then the aliens move, then you, etc. Vaunted breaks that: you decide who acts after an enemy activation. It echoes Valkyria Chronicles (PS3, 2008), which let you choose unit order via a shared AP system.

Hybrid turn-based + real-time. While you plan your actions, some things happen in real time (enemies moving, environments shifting). The team compares it to Frozen Synapse with more narrative, or Door Kickers with more depth.

“Vibrant, action-packed battlefields” — arenas aren’t abstract grids but living spaces. Trailers show Martian canyons, exploding orbital stations, submerged imperial wrecks.

It’s a risky formula: it can be brilliant (like Valkyria Chronicles) or confusing (like some failed hybrids of the 2010s). The team’s CV pushes us toward optimism.

What to expect from the ex-StarCraft team

The massive marketing pull is James Phinney. StarCraft is still considered the best RTS of all time by a large chunk of the community. That creates expectations:

Millimeter-level balancing — StarCraft is iconic for its asymmetric balance across 3 factions
Tactical readability — each unit has a clear role, no smoke and mirrors
Narrative depth — StarCraft Brood War had real narrative that most post-2000 RTSs lost
Solid AI — Blizzard has always been strong in single-player AI

But caution: Vaunted isn’t an RTS, it’s a tactical RPG. Design skills transpose, but they’re two very different genres. We’ll see in 6 months.

Availability and post-launch outlook

Platforms:

Steam (date TBC)
Epic Games Store
Microsoft Store
PC Game Pass day one — huge asset, guaranteed visibility

Our prediction: if Vaunted ships with classic Hooded Horse polish, it should join the strong tacticals of the year alongside Xenonauts 2 v1.0 and XCOM: Chimera Squad. The hybrid system is a bet, but if it works, it could become the most original tactical game of 2026.

We’re watching the release date. To compare with the other 2026 tacticals, see also our full Xenonauts 2 review.