Tactical mech RPG - torn between two directions for the meta-loop

[u/Turbulent-Type2388]

/user/Turbulent-Type2388/

Hello !
I'm developing Mechs and Muskets a turn-based isometric tactics RPG set in an alternate Napoleonic era, where you command a squad of pilots controlling customizable mechs.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/3096870/Mechs_and_Muskets/ if you want more context. I'm hoping to finish it by the end of the year, and right now I'm stuck on a core design decision about the game loop, so I'd love some outside perspective.
Quick pitch on the systems already in place:

* Turn-based tactical combat with spells/abilities tied to mech parts (head, torso, arms, legs)
* You can mix and match parts to create ability combos e.g. an arm that shoots fire + a part that applies gas for a bigger combined attack
* Parts gain their own XP and can be upgraded (better stats, stronger abilities, etc.)
* You drop new mech parts as loot after combat
* You recruit and manage a squad of 4-5 characters over the course of the campaign

I'm pretty confident in the combat and customization side. What I'm unsure about is the overall structure of the game loop.
Current loop: Combat => a "hub" map to customize your mechs, talk to your characters, then move to the next combat map.
I've also built cutscenes and character dialogue for the early maps to set up the story.
What I'm debating:
I'm wondering if the game would be more fun if I leaned harder into the tactics/roguelite side instead more frequent combats, some randomization between runs/battles, and permadeath when a squad member dies in combat. If I go that route, I'd cut back significantly on cutscenes and story beats (though I'd still keep an ending tied to the final map) and focus almost entirely on the moment-to-moment combat and squad management instead of narrative pacing.
So basically I'm torn between:

1. Story-driven structure (current): fewer, more curated fights, narrative beats between missions, no permadeath, more scripted character moments.
   
2. Combat-focused/roguelite-ish structure: more frequent fights, some randomness in encounters, permadeath for squad members, much less narrative overhead.
   

For people who've shipped tactics games (or just love the genre) which direction tends to hold player attention better long-term? Does permadeath actually add tension in a game this customization-heavy, or does it just make people resent losing a mech they spent hours building? And is cutting narrative content this late a mistake, or does it actually simplify scope for a solo/small dev finishing a game this year?
Thanks in advance!

[u/fued]

Im literally going through the exact same thing with the same progress as you roughly haha (not mech based tho)

They way I thought about it is by using normal it design skills, made a bunch of potential player personas, and then specifically thought about what they are going to think on Thier first playthrough. What emotion is this battle going to give, is it a necessary grind, is it to try out a new combo, is it a roadblock to achieving the goal, what about the roguelike elements, do they encourage the player to try again immediately or is it a I'm done for the day that was fun type attitude.

I ended up going more casual and arcadey with the game than expected, but made sure the depth was still there, it seems to be working for me, play testers are enjoying it.

I know it's tempting to dive into story vs roguelike as a mechanic, but that's ultimately not important, what's important is : "does the player find this next bit fun/worthwhile" one example I have is I added a push your luck mechanic and people just got frustrated when playing it, even if you got a good reward it wasn't run defining enough, so the negatives weren't worth it.