The paradoxes of Achron

Achron is not a Real-time Strategy Game.

So sayeth the developer, Hazardous Software. Rather, they call it a “Meta-Time Strategy Game”, though it is played mostly in real-time.

The basic gameplay is that of a typical RTS. Players have a set of buildings available, which through upgrades allow a menagerie of different military units. Each of the game’s three races has a unique look and complimentary strategic units available. Players must gather resources to build and maintain an army in a contest against the AI or human opponents on a variety of battlfields.

A typical start—note that the red player is already giving orders a few minutes behind.

There are two features of the game which make it stand out, however.

The first of these is the time travel. During the game, players have a bar on their display which represents their current chrono energy. A timeline at the bottom of the screen shows the game’s progression, with one line marked as the present. At any time, the player can click this timeline to move their frame of reference to a different point in the battle. If one has enough chrono energy, one may issue commands to the units in that time frame, potentially changing what has already happened from the perspective of the present. In practice, it is only possible to make major changes up to about two minutes in the past. Beyond that, it usually costs too much chrono energy.

Also shown on the timeline are time waves which divide up the bar, and move more rapidly than real time, catching up to the present about once per minute. Actions changed in the past are not reflected in the present until the time wave in which they were changed reaches that point. It is possible to move into the future to issue orders, but it doesn’t seem to have much benefit, at least for a beginner to the game.

The mechanic is intensely interesting, and a lot of fun to play with, but its practical value I found questionable. First, it was difficult to actually make sweeping changes sometimes, because orders which are made in one time are set, and so if you spent a bunch of time during an attack clicking all over the enemy base, but then decided to go back in time to call off the attack (the aspect of the timeline changing which I saw used most) you must counteract all of those commands as the timeline catches up with them, meaning that you essentially have to babysit a group of units through a portion of the timeline, telling them over and over again not to attack as the original orders continue to filter in.

Here I've gone back in time a few minutes to build more resource collectors, so that I would have enough resources in the present.

Also, it seems like the most useful function—again, this is from the perspective of a novice—of the timeline is to take back attack orders after seeing that an attack fails. I’m certain that this would change with more experience, but while learning, this leads to very long games, as each player tentatively attacks, experimenting with the units and tactics, and simply undoing it all when the attack fails, leading to a final timeline that just looks like a bunch of turtling.

The other interesting feature is the command tree. Units can be quickly and easily assigned to a command structure which is as detailed, and has as many levels, as the player wishes. Any time a unit is given orders, all of the units which have been assigned to it follow those same orders. This is a novel way of grouping units, but is also a necessary part of the time travel mechanic, as when not in the present the amount of chrono energy needed to give orders is dependent upon two factors: the chronological distance from the present and the number of units receiving the orders. If a player plans ahead with their command structure, they can save a lot of chrono energy giving orders in the past only to the commanders.

These two features are enough to make the game novel, but the learning curve is much steeper than most modern RTS games. For this reason, I think the game could have benefited from a simplified building and unit selection (or at least the option to limit them for multi-player), since learning the time-travel mechanics while also learning the unit strengths and weaknesses was a bit too much to try to focus on at once. I found myself wishing for the simplicity of WarCraft 2 in the units and buildings. Then again, I almost always wish for the simplicity of WarCraft 2, since that’s the last RTS which I was able to win consistently.

These units are all tied to the command of the flying unit in the front of the party. The timeline shows no loss of units in my future based on current orders.

The single-player campaign is not a place where this game shines. The story is too slow, the voice acting is sub-par, and the plot is cliché. I know very few of us play RTS games for their immersive plots, but I felt you should know.

Also, there is a distinct indie feel to the whole experience. This is a good thing in many ways, especially since it is an indie game, but don’t expect the latest 3D graphics or physics engines here. The graphics here are very rudimentary, and quite utilitarian—a style I prefer myself—but if you’ve been playing StarCraft 2 non-stop for the last few months, this game will make you feel a bit thrown back.

Overall, Achron is a fun RTS with some interesting gimmicks. It’s worth a shot for any RTS fan, and I absolutely recommend that everyone who is into that genre should try it, but with this caveat: Wait for it to go on sale. It’s a great indie game, but it sits at an A-budget price. If you’re really into RTS games or time travel mechanics, get it now.  Everyone else, get it when it goes to a 50% off Stream sale.

Achron is available on Windows only for $29.99 on Steam, and comes with two copies.