About War of Whiskers

// WHO'S BUILDING THIS

A solo project, built in the gaps

I'm an indie dev with a full-time job and a family. War of Whiskers gets whatever's left over — evenings, weekends, and any hour I can get the laptop open.

Eight months ago I didn't know how to open Unity. I taught myself as I went: the first scene, the first working match, then the whole game loop. There's no studio behind this and no publisher setting deadlines. Every design decision, every balance change, and every bad idea I've had to walk back has come from the same desk.

I'm not going to pretend the game is finished — it isn't. A lot of what you'll play is still whitebox: placeholder art and rough edges holding up systems that do work. The polish comes later, once the game underneath is solid. What I'm proud of right now is the thinking that's gone into it.

A different kind of match-3

I've played hundreds of match-3 games. Candy Crush, Match Masters, most of the big ones. I love the genre — that's the whole reason I'm here. But I kept hitting the same wall: I'd lose a match, think back through it, and realise there was nothing I could have done differently. The board decided it, not me.

War of Whiskers is my answer to that. It's still match-3 at its heart, but your coloured pieces carry health and attack values and fight on the board while you play. You hold up to four Kings at once, each with its own perks — teleports, attacks, heals — and thirty seconds a turn to spend them. Every match reshapes the board, so you're reading it fresh each time.

There's still randomness — there has to be, it's match-3. The difference is that perks and positioning give you real ways to play around a bad board instead of just accepting it. When you lose, I want it to be because someone outplayed you.

Two ways to win

Most match-3 games give you one job: score. This one gives you a choice. Win on points, or win by taking out every one of your opponent's Kings — and switch between the two whenever you like.

That's what changes the feel of it. Fifteen thousand points down with the clock running, you're not beaten — you stop chasing score, move your Kings, and go for the kill instead. A match can end 5,000 to 20,000 and you still win, because the other side has nothing left standing.

Having a second route out means there's almost always a move worth making. Less like clearing a board, more like a colourful game of chess. Matches run five to twelve minutes, and skill decides them — not your wallet. No pay-to-win, no rigged difficulty spikes, no timers built to wear you down until you pay.

Now I need players

Everything in the game so far has been my call. Every mechanic, every number, every system — I designed it, built it, and argued myself out of the bad versions. That part I was happy to do alone.

This is the bit I can't do alone. I've built what I think is a skill-based match-3 game that's actually fun — but I'm the last person who can judge that, because I've been staring at it for eight months. So: play it, and tell me. Did I pull it off? If I did, brilliant. If I didn't, tell me exactly where it falls down and what would fix it.

Because the thing I'm actually trying to prove is that match-3 doesn't have to be a random money machine built for a corporate spreadsheet. It can be a game you win because you were better. If that's worth building, let's build it together.

Right now it's Alpha: the core game plays, but ranked battles, the full perk set, and special abilities are still to come. Beta is where it gets locked down and properly polished.

• Prototype
• Alpha
• Beta
• Full release