Game Audience — Omega War

Stage 1 research-scope review · skill: game-audience · page created 2026-06-10

alignment_status: review — Stage 1 of 3 (research-scope approval).
No synthesized research has been performed. This page proposes the research scope, source plan, assumptions, and output paths for the Omega War audience research. Everything below labeled scope evidence is discovery context, not a finding. Synthesized research (Stage 2) begins only after final compiled YAML approves this scope.

1. Known Context scope evidence

Section feedback notes

1.1 Project context (from the approved idea brief)

research/idea-brief.md (approved 2026-06-10 via alignment/idea-scope-brief-omega-war.html) establishes:

Omega War: browser-first 3D RTS (Three.js), alternate-history Operation Unthinkable (~July 1945), Europe only, single-player first, solo developer, greenfield repo.
Tactical layer: Company of Heroes × Broken Arrow — company-scale battles, cover/suppression/capture points, full base building fused with a deck-as-roster system (Steel Division-style phase escalation via build order).
Strategic layer: EndWar × Wargame: Red Dragon — persistent European war-map with maneuverable formation tokens; sequenced after the tactical vertical slice.
Beneficiary hypothesis: primary — the developer (passion project); secondary — RTS/wargame fans (Wargame/Warno/Broken Arrow/CoH communities) and alternate-history enthusiasts who want this blend zero-install.
Distribution wedge: zero-install browser delivery in a genre that has none; desktop wrapper accepted as fallback.

1.2 User scope decisions (this session, 2026-06-10)

Decision	User answer
Sequencing	Run `/game-audience` before `/game-fantasy` (fantasy skill was invoked first; user chose to fill the upstream gap). After this artifact, work returns to `/game-fantasy` with depth preference "broad web sweep" and use-cases design north star + hook/positioning + first-session promise already recorded.
Research purpose	All three: (a) design calibration — ground design/fantasy decisions in real player tastes; (b) future distribution bets — where these players actually are; (c) validate the browser wedge — would desktop wargamers play a browser-delivered game?
Segments	In: desktop wargame core (Wargame/Warno, Broken Arrow, Steel Division, CoH) and alt-history enthusiasts (HOI4 mod communities, alt-history fiction fans). Out as target segments: browser-native/low-friction strategy players and operational/grand-strategy players — but browser-platform data stays in as wedge evidence.
Evidence sources	All four categories: Steam data & reviews; community forums/Reddit; content/creator ecosystem; browser-game platform data.

1.3 Repository state

Existing research artifacts: research/idea-brief.md, research/idea-brief-interview.md. No research/game-audience.md, no tasks/ directory, no game-pack artifacts yet. Flat mode (no product-path slugs under research/).
Alignment infrastructure: alignment/index.html + one confirmed page. No scripts/ directory exists in this repo — the TTS script (alignment-tts-kokoro.js), chart snippet library, and open-html-page.mjs referenced by the skill's page contract are not present; the existing confirmed page also omits them. This page follows repo precedent (no TTS tag, no external script references). Flagged here so the deviation is explicit and approvable.

Section feedback notes

2. Proposed Research Scope

Section feedback notes

2.1 Research questions

Mapped to the three approved purposes:

Purpose	Research questions
A. Design calibration	RQ1 — Who are the distinct player segments inside the "desktop wargame core" (Wargame/Warno, Broken Arrow, Steel Division, CoH), and how do their tastes differ (sim depth vs. action pacing, deck-building affinity, single-player vs. multiplayer orientation)? RQ2 — What motivations drive these players (mastery, historical authenticity, spectacle, collection/deck meta, narrative), in their own words from reviews/forums? RQ3 — What do these communities consistently complain about in the comparables (onboarding cliffs, MP-only focus, performance, UI), i.e., the dissatisfactions Omega War could relieve? RQ4 — How large and how engaged is the alt-history enthusiast audience (HOI4 mods like TNO/Kaiserreich, alt-history fiction), and does the Operation Unthinkable premise have demonstrated pull there?
B. Distribution bets	RQ5 — Where do these segments actually discover and buy games (Steam dominance vs. itch.io vs. portals), and what player-count / wishlist / review-volume signals do the comparables show? RQ6 — Who reaches these players (YouTube/Twitch creators covering the comparables) and at what scale?
C. Browser-wedge validation	RQ7 — Is there evidence that desktop strategy players will accept browser delivery (precedents, sentiment about web games, perceived-quality stigma), or evidence they will not? RQ8 — What do browser-game platforms show about strategy-genre appetite (depth ceiling of successful web strategy titles), as wedge evidence — not as a target-segment profile?

2.2 Segment scope

IN Desktop wargame core (Wargame/Warno, Broken Arrow, Steel Division 2, CoH 2/3 communities)
IN Alt-history enthusiasts (HOI4 mod communities — TNO, Kaiserreich; alt-history fiction/media fans)
OUT Browser-native/low-friction strategy players as a target segment (their platforms appear only as RQ8 wedge evidence)
OUT Operational/grand-strategy players (HOI4 vanilla, Unity of Command, Regiments) as a dedicated segment — touched only where they overlap the two in-scope segments

2.3 Non-goals

No commercial sizing/TAM analysis, pricing research, or monetization work — passion project framing stands.
No survey/interview fieldwork — desk research only (web sweep).
No multiplayer-audience analysis beyond noting where comparables' communities are MP-centric (relevant to RQ3 since Omega War is SP-first).
No conclusions written into canonical files until Stage 3 approval.

Gate — Scope / Non-goals required

Approve the research questions (RQ1–RQ8), segment in/out boundaries, and non-goals above?

Approve scope as proposed RQ1–RQ8, segments and non-goals exactly as written. Approve with changes (describe in notes) Broadly right; add/remove/reword specific research questions or boundaries per my notes. Other / None of the above Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

Section feedback notes

3. Source Plan

Section feedback notes

3.1 Source categories

Availability below is a plan, not verified coverage — actual reachability is confirmed in Stage 2. scope evidence

Category	Planned sources (examples)	Serves	Known limits
S1. Steam data & reviews	Store pages + tag structures for WARNO, Wargame: Red Dragon, Broken Arrow, Steel Division 2, CoH 2/3; review language sampling (positive + negative); follower/review counts; SteamDB/Steam Charts concurrency where accessible.	RQ1–RQ3, RQ5	SteamDB blocks some automated access; concurrency numbers may come from secondary reporting. Review sampling is qualitative, not statistically representative.
S2. Community forums / Reddit	r/wargamebs / r/warno, r/brokenarrowgame, r/CompanyOfHeroes, r/Steel_Division, r/RealTimeStrategy, r/hoi4 + TNO/Kaiserreich subreddits, r/AlternateHistory; Steam community discussions.	RQ2–RQ4, RQ7	Vocal-minority bias; Discord communities (significant for Broken Arrow) are not directly searchable — covered only via secondhand mentions.
S3. Content / creator ecosystem	YouTube channels covering the comparables (e.g., VulcanHDGaming-class wargame channels, CoH casters, TNO/Kaiserreich lore channels); subscriber/view scale; what formats land (casts, lore, guides).	RQ4–RQ6	View counts are a reach proxy, not a conversion measure.
S4. Browser-game platform data	itch.io strategy/RTS browsing data; CrazyGames/Poki strategy sections; public writing on web-game player behavior; precedents of "real" strategy games on the web (e.g., OpenFront, Generals-likes, web ports).	RQ7–RQ8 (wedge evidence only)	Platform player counts are rarely public; evidence will be directional. Explicitly not used to define a target segment.

3.2 Method notes

Broad web sweep per user preference: multiple search angles per segment (by-game, by-community, by-complaint, by-platform), with claims tied to quoted/linked sources in the working packet's evidence matrix.
Each claim in the Stage 2 packet carries: source, quote/observation, date, confidence, and the inference connecting it to the claim.
Lower-confidence and contradictory findings are kept and labeled, not dropped.

Gate — Evidence Coverage required

Approve the four source categories and their limits as sufficient evidence coverage for RQ1–RQ8?

Approve all four categories S1–S4 as planned, limits accepted. Adjust categories (describe in notes) Add, drop, or re-weight specific source categories. Other / None of the above Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

Gate — Coverage Checkpoint (sweep depth) required

"Broad web sweep" was chosen in conversation. How deep should Stage 2 go before stopping?

Standard broad sweep Roughly 20–35 distinct sources across the four categories; stop when each RQ has at least two independent sources or a documented gap. Exhaustive sweep Keep searching until new angles stop producing novel evidence (loop-until-dry); slower, maximal coverage. Light pass ~10–15 key sources, fastest; accept thinner evidence. Other / None of the above Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

Section feedback notes

4. Assumptions & Confidence (pre-research)

Section feedback notes

#	Assumption	Confidence	What would change it
A1	Passion-project framing holds: research informs design and future options, not a go/no-go commercial decision. No TAM/pricing work needed.	High (user-stated)	User signals commercial intent → re-scope toward ICP-style sizing.
A2	The comparable set from the idea brief (Wargame/Warno, Broken Arrow, Steel Division, CoH, EndWar) is the right anchor for segment definition; deeper comparable analysis belongs to `/game-comparables` later, not here.	Medium-high	Sweep surfaces a closer comparable whose community materially differs.
A3	The riskiest audience assumption is the browser wedge: desktop wargamers may equate "browser game" with shallow/casual and dismiss it regardless of actual depth.	Medium (hypothesis to test in RQ7)	Strong positive precedents (deep web strategy titles embraced by core players) or strong negative sentiment evidence.
A4	Alt-history enthusiasts overlap with, but are not identical to, the wargame core; the Operation Unthinkable hook may pull narrative-motivated players who never touch Wargame-likes.	Medium	RQ4 evidence on TNO/Kaiserreich audience behavior and crossover.
A5	Desk research (reviews, forums, creator data) is sufficient for this stage; no playtest or survey data exists yet, so all motivation findings are provisional until prototype playtests.	High (structural)	Nothing at this stage — flagged so Stage 2 findings carry "to validate in playtest" markers.

Gate — Assumptions / Confidence required

Accept A1–A5 as the working baseline for Stage 2 research?

Accept all assumptions A1–A5 stand as written. Correct some (describe in notes) One or more assumptions are wrong or mis-weighted; see notes. Other / None of the above Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

5. Artifact Destination & Proposed File Changes

Section feedback notes

These are separate approval concepts: the artifact destination gate approves where review-stage artifacts live; the proposed file changes gate approves what canonical files Stage 3 may create or update after artifact approval.

Stage	Path	Status
Stage 2 (working)	`research/_working/preliminary-game-audience-research.md`	Non-canonical working packet (flat mode); fully rendered into this page; archived to `docs/history/archive/2026-06-10/HHMMSS/…` at Stage 3 and removed.
Stage 2 (this page)	`alignment/game-audience-omega-war.html`	Updated in place with findings, evidence matrix, artifact gates (prior version archived first).
Stage 3 (canonical)	`research/game-audience.md`	New canonical artifact: target segments, platform fit, genre familiarity, motivations, adjacent audiences, risky assumptions to validate.
Stage 3 (index)	`alignment/index.html`	Entry updated (added now as `review`; flips to `confirmed`).
Stage 3 (tasks)	`tasks/*.md`	Only if Stage 2 surfaces genuine follow-up work (e.g., a record-todo to validate the browser-wedge assumption in playtest); none planned a priori.

Gate — Artifact Destination (Stage 2 working packet) required

Approve research/_working/preliminary-game-audience-research.md as the Stage 2 working-packet destination, with this alignment page updated in place?

Approve working-packet destination Other / None of the above Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

Gate — Proposed File Changes (Stage 3 canonical set) required

Approve the Stage 3 mutation scope: write research/game-audience.md, update alignment/index.html, archive + remove the working packet, convert this page to confirmed, and touch tasks/*.md only if real follow-up work emerges?

Approve the proposed file set Approve, but never touch tasks/ in this cycle Other / None of the above Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

6. Post-Approval Route

Section feedback notes

This audience run was spawned from an interrupted /game-fantasy invocation. The recorded fantasy-scope preferences (broad web sweep; design north star + hook/positioning + first-session promise) are preserved for that run.

Gate — Post-Approval Route required

After research/game-audience.md is approved and written (Stage 3), what happens next?

Resume /game-fantasy Return to the originally requested fantasy work, now grounded in the audience artifact. Stop after the audience artifact I will decide the next step myself. Other / None of the above Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

7. Compile

Feedback-only YAML

Available as soon as any section-feedback control is set; gate questions need not be answered. Sends emphasis requests, concerns, or clarification needs as a revision request.

Final approval answers

Aggregates all 7 required gate questions plus any section feedback. Enabled when every required question has a selection.

Page: alignment/game-audience-omega-war.html · review · 2026-06-10 · game-audience (Stage 1 of staged research workflow)