Ash & Adam's Existential Treads

Rebuilding a broken world, one tank shell at a time

Ash & Adam's Existential Treads is a mini action city-builder set in a post-post-apocalyptic world, long after rogue artificial intelligence and environmental collapse reduced civilisation to scattered remnants, and nature has begun quietly reclaiming the ruins. Players pilot a heavily armed tank across dangerous terrain, gathering resources, rescuing survivors, and building up settlements while defending them from waves of hostile machines called Noise. It's made by a two-person developer, Ash & Adam's Games, and published alongside CC Games. This review draws on an English review sample, 136 reviews at the time of research, rated Very Positive overall.

Praised repeatedly for a genuinely satisfying genre-blending loop

The sample's most consistent theme is how well the game's disparate systems, shooting, tower defense, and settlement-building, come together into a single coherent loop. "The game does a great job mixing city-building with action gameplay. The core loop of exploring, gathering resources, building your settlement, and defending against waves feels very satisfying and never really got boring," reads one detailed review. A separate reviewer independently credits the same design cohesion: "I really liked how the different buildings work together and how each one has a purpose within the overall system. It feels like the game was carefully planned." This review treats that convergence as fair and meaningful: multiple reviewers independently crediting a three-genre hybrid for feeling intentional rather than bolted-together is credible evidence of genuinely thoughtful design.

Praised for striking presentation from a two-person team

Reviewers also specifically credit the game's audiovisual craft, often noting the small size of the team behind it. "I really have to credit SO much of this indie game's dedication to detail. While it's a very cartoony fashion on the top, EVERYTHING feels polished," reads one review, while a separate reviewer independently praises its dynamic combat music alongside a broader assessment of the visuals: "Great mood and aesthetics." A third reviewer frames the achievement in context: "Considering this was developed by just two people, it's a very impressive achievement." This review treats that as fair: reviewers repeatedly singling out visual and audio polish while explicitly noting the team's small size is a credible sign of disciplined scope and craft.

Praised for strong technical performance

This review also found specific, credible praise for the game's technical execution. "Performance was excellent on my MacBook Pro M4 (around 2 GB RAM usage), with smooth gameplay and no noticeable bugs," reads one review, while a separate reviewer reports solid, if occasionally strained, handheld performance: "steamdeck performance is good. my deck's fan is running a bit loud but that doesn't bother me much. the framerate struggles a bit when the action gets very busy but eh, i think it's okay." This review treats both as fair and meaningful: confirmed cross-platform performance, including on Apple Silicon and Steam Deck, from a small two-person team is a genuinely strong technical showing.

A fair, corroborated complaint about balance issues

Set against that praise, this review found a specific, recurring complaint about the game's difficulty balance. "The problem is that there are serious balance issues, and they just spoil the whole game because it means you can be screwed by the RNG. Basically: the Gunsmith is, by far, the most powerful building in the game," reads one detailed review, while a separate reviewer independently reports unpredictable, sometimes unfair upgrade offers: "Tower upgrades keep appearing even when I don't have any towers or when all tower slots are already occupied. The building selection feels too random." This review treats that as fair: multiple reviewers independently identifying specific, concrete balance and randomness problems is a credible, corroborated complaint rather than an isolated frustration.

A fair, corroborated complaint about resource scarcity and thin post-campaign content

This review also found two related, corroborated complaints about the game's later stages. On resources, one reviewer reports: "Trees are everywhere, but eventually there's almost no wood left. At that point, the only reliable source is demolishing ruins." On post-campaign depth, a separate reviewer requests more lasting progression: "This game would definitely be so much better if there were upgrades you can carry over to the next game," while another independently asks for expanded skirmish-mode options: "I really wish it had is in the skirmish mode, completing matches added crew members, or added the option to select a party of unlocked crew." This review treats both as fair: a resource bottleneck reported by multiple reviewers, alongside independent requests for more meta-progression, point to a game whose campaign is stronger than its endgame.

Achievement data corroborates an approachable campaign and thin post-campaign content

This review's own check of Steam's global achievement data, across 22 tracked milestones, shows the large majority of players clear the tutorial (91.4%) and reach their first settlement population milestone (92.5%), with a majority also completing the second map (65.9%) and roughly a third finishing the full campaign (30.6%). By contrast, skirmish and challenge-mode achievements sit far lower, from 3.6% down to as little as 0.7% for the hardest challenge completion. That steep drop-off corroborates both the approachable, satisfying core campaign reviewers describe and their independent requests for deeper post-campaign content to keep players engaged once the story maps are finished.

Final verdict

Ash & Adam's Existential Treads is a charming, genuinely satisfying genre-blending indie debut that earns real credit for how naturally its shooting, tower defense, and settlement-building systems interlock, backed by striking presentation and strong cross-platform performance for a two-person team's first outing. This review found that praise tempered by fair, corroborated complaints about specific balance issues, a resource bottleneck in the later game, and comparatively thin post-campaign content once the main maps are cleared. For fans of short, colourful, satisfying hybrid runs, it's a confident recommendation; players hoping for a tightly balanced difficulty curve or substantial endgame replay value should weigh those gaps before buying.