NationStates Jolt Archive

I have played most of the biggest modern strategy games, and they are all good, but every single game I have played has lacked something another game had. Take "Rise of Nations" for example, it has a lot of what I look for in a strategy game, but I turn around and play CIV 4 and find that it goes more in-depth than "Rise of Nations" but it is turn based and the Combat Interface is annoying as hell. So what is your ideal strategy game.






I have a poll for some of the best STrat games in the past few years.

I want a game that is dominated not by the meager strategy of a few armed forces, or the simplicity of combat found in Civ 4, but rather the true, devilishly complex strategy and subterfuge required in a strategy game like Diplomacy.

I'm not too fond of most RTS and other strategy games nowadays. Their too complicated. I prefer something a little simpler, like the Advance Wars series.

I want a game that is dominated not by the meager strategy of a few armed forces, or the simplicity of combat found in Civ 4, but rather the true, devilishly complex strategy and subterfuge required in a strategy game like Diplomacy.

I completely agree, the diplomacy section of most strategy games is TERRIBLE, peace, war, or meager trade. There is no in-depth down and dirty diplomacy. And the Combat interface in ALL Civ games is horriblly simplistic. The worst case was in CIV 3 when I had a modern tank beat by a persian immortal, I mean WTF.

The game Diplomacy was good, but it could have been done better, but I guess all games have room for improvement.

I'm not too fond of most RTS and other strategy games nowadays. Their too complicated. I prefer something a little simpler, like the Advance Wars series.

I've never played Advance Wars, I've heard of them, are they any good?

those are fun. Turn-based strategy in general is fun.

a friend of mine and I are trying to develop a purely text-based strategy game with a turn-based setup and "Civ"-like functionality.

I'd like to do more than set a few percentages and click deploy, but less than naming every living thing in my color.

I've never played Advance Wars, I've heard of them, are they any good?

Very much so, yes.

The worst case was in CIV 3 when I had a modern tank beat by a persian immortal, I mean WTF.

Well, duh. Immortals won't die, silly.

those are fun. Turn-based strategy in general is fun.

a friend of mine and I are trying to develop a purely text-based strategy game with a turn-based setup and "Civ"-like functionality.

I like real-time better because it gives Combat a greater sice of urgency, if you have your troops beat in turn-based strategy games, you have a couple turns before your are directly threatened. But real-time, you only have a few minutes at most.

Like ,Rise of Nations, I had my entire military beaten and only had about 45 seconds to try to build replacements. In a turn-based game there would have been movement points and it would have taken at least 12 turns for enemy troops to reach my cities, that is plenty of time to rebuild a strong military.

Well, duh. Immortals won't die, silly.

It still pissed me off. :)

But I'm serious, I hit it with a fresh tank and the conscript immortal bitch beat me.

Like ,Rise of Nations, I had my entire military beaten and only had about 45 seconds to try to build replacements. In a turn-based game there would have been movement points and it would have taken at least 12 turns for enemy troops to reach my cities, that is plenty of time to rebuild a strong military.

Umm...maybe. Seriously, depends on what game you playing.

Risk is teh ultimate shiz of all strategy games EVAR.

My favorite form of strat game is empire building. I love it. I'll sit down to play Medieval Total War ( the original) and select the Holy Roman Empire and lay down some major asskickery! It has a severely outdated graphics engine, (they used the same one from an earlier game to play on newer video cards)but nonetheless, it is a great game.

Umm...maybe. Seriously, depends on what game you playing.

I mostly play turn-based games,
A: because it is usually more in-depth
B: it more detailed units, (Like CIV4 )
C: they don't go by as quickly as RTS's

i was playing medieval 2 total war just a few minutes ago. i think it's my favorite. i used to like RTS a lot a few years back, but now i prefer TBS.

you want a truly involved strategy game, one where you WILL get owned at higher levels, with actual true complex diplomacy and trade with real options, real choices?

Galactic Civilizations II

Risk is teh ultimate shiz of all strategy games EVAR.

It is a great game, from a military stand-point, but it is not the ultimate shiz.
Risk 2 is. DUH. :D

I've gotten myself hooked on Star Wars: Empire at War, mostly cuz I'm a big Star Wars geek. :cool:

I mostly play turn-based games,
A: because it is usually more in-depth
B: it more detailed units, (Like CIV4 )
C: they don't go by as quickly as RTS's

Like I said, Advance Wars, much fun.

you want a truly involved strategy game, one where you WILL get owned at higher levels, with actual true complex diplomacy and trade with real options, real choices?

Galactic Civilizations II

I was trying to decide if I should by it yesterday, I was like 'I don' know' but maybe I will by it afterall, you make it sound like a better game. CIV games; you only get owned if you play on the hardest, before that, it is all baby stuff. I got owned in diety on CIV 3, 1hr 35min. and I was trashed by russian cossacks, they played me, drew out my troops and slaughterd me.

I like real-time better because it gives Combat a greater sice of urgency, if you have your troops beat in turn-based strategy games, you have a couple turns before your are directly threatened. But real-time, you only have a few minutes at most.

Like ,Rise of Nations, I had my entire military beaten and only had about 45 seconds to try to build replacements. In a turn-based game there would have been movement points and it would have taken at least 12 turns for enemy troops to reach my cities, that is plenty of time to rebuild a strong military.

It really depends on the game.

If you are playing a turn-based game, and your units are defeated, the amount of turns till you are seriously threatened depends on the distance and the movement speed of the units in question. Which can mean you have anywhere from 12 turns, to 1 turn before you die horribly. This is more urgent in TBSs like Advanced Wars and Fire Emblem, where your units are the majority of maps can be crossed in 4-5 turns. And that doesn't mean from the point where your army lost to where your base it, that means that from one corner of the map to the other is 4-5 turns. That's urgency right there. In an RTS that would be a matter of seconds.

The reason, and I think this is largely your point, that games like Civ have less of a sense of urgency, is that by default you're playing with a significantly larger map, which, if you converted into RTS would likely take you half an hour to traverse from the point where your units died to where your stuff is.

Ahh man I love strat games, at the mo i'm playing.

Football Manager 2007.
Rise of Nothland(or summit a free game BTW)
Spell Forge
Rise of Empires
Pretorians
Fable

Umm i think thats about it.

So what is your ideal strategy game.
.

Master of Orion 2 is as close as anything has come for me...

But i'd really like to see a geopolitical sim like Shadow President (http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=963), but with the domestic issues of Crisis in the Kremlin (http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=250) thrown into it, and the ability to play any country in the world and design military units as featured in Superpower 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperPower_2) (worth noting that the latter was extremely poorly done, flawed, and buggy). Something like a modern day Hearts of Iron 2, perhaps...

Like I said, Advance Wars, much fun.

I'll buy it today, and give it a run. But like I said, I am kind of on the fence between RTS and turn-based.

Like I said, Advance Wars, much fun.

A game like FFTactics has a single mission lasting maybe 20 minutes, at the very most. That's about how long I'd say the average RTS mission is.

I really want to see if someone eventually makes an RTS with the expansiveness of the Civ series. Where you literally have to cross the entire map in real time to get to your enemy's city, and then lay siege to it.

It really depends on the game.

If you are playing a turn-based game, and your units are defeated, the amount of turns till you are seriously threatened depends on the distance and the movement speed of the units in question. Which can mean you have anywhere from 12 turns, to 1 turn before you die horribly. This is more urgent in TBSs like Advanced Wars and Fire Emblem, where your units are the majority of maps can be crossed in 4-5 turns. And that doesn't mean from the point where your army lost to where your base it, that means that from one corner of the map to the other is 4-5 turns. That's urgency right there. In an RTS that would be a matter of seconds.

The reason, and I think this is largely your point, that games like Civ have less of a sense of urgency, is that by default you're playing with a significantly larger map, which, if you converted into RTS would likely take you half an hour to traverse from the point where your units died to where your stuff is.

True, thank you for clarifying that point up for everyone, I was dreading a question that would cause me to have to type exactly what you typed.

And, people in RTS's actually declare war on others instead of just you. On CIV 4, I declared war on Egypt, and suddenly her hated rival Russia joins the war on her side. WTF

The civilization series is the best, though from what others are saying, Diplomacy sounds interesting.

I was trying to decide if I should by it yesterday, I was like 'I don' know' but maybe I will by it afterall, you make it sound like a better game. CIV games; you only get owned if you play on the hardest, before that, it is all baby stuff. I got owned in diety on CIV 3, 1hr 35min. and I was trashed by russian cossacks, they played me, drew out my troops and slaughterd me.

galactic civilization II has like...9 difficulty settings. Ranging from "haha, they did what?" to "oh, shit, they did WHAT?"

It's very customizable since the size of teh galaxies, the amount of planet density, the number of races with you, are very customizable. Even individual races can be tuned up or down (like a few not very smart races and one or two hyper militaristic, very smart ones).

The tech tree is HUGE, very time consuming, and means you WILL NOT be able to get them all. LIkewise their ship customization is kick ass, the planet management is fun, and the Ai can be brutal.

One thing I like about the AI is it doesn't cheat. Most strategy games, the AI either can build faster than you, harvests more than you, moves faster, has more hit points and generally can beat you only because it is faster and/or smarter than you. It cheats.

This AI doesn't cheat. It's exactly like you are. Just at higher levels it's nonsensically efficient. At some points it'll even figure out your strategy and taunt you telling you that they know what you're doing and it won't work.

A game like FFTactics has a single mission lasting maybe 20 minutes, at the very most. That's about how long I'd say the average RTS mission is.

I really want to see if someone eventually makes an RTS with the expansiveness of the Civ series. Where you literally have to cross the entire map in real time to get to your enemy's city, and then lay siege to it.

That would be the greatest strat game in history, I think if Sid Miers would change CIV to an RTS, from a turn-based the game would be a lot better. But until then CIV is the series for me.

www.diplom.org

basically a recreation of pre-WW1 Europe with each of 7 players representing a major power at the time (England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, Turkey). In order to get anywhere, you need to constantly build alliances with other players in order to gain their support, and then just as quickly backstab them when necessary to get the much needed supply centers that allow you to build additional units.

Each nation except Russia starts with 3 units (Russia gets 4) and there are a number of neutral territories all over the map that you can acquire early in the game. However, once those neutral territories are exhausted, the game because a zero-sum game where the only way to get ahead is at someone else's expense.

Unlike Risk, you can't just bunch 20 billion units at a bottleneck and sit tight. Each unit is equal in power to every other unit, and only one unit can occupy at a territory at a time. This makes the strategy element important because of the amount of interrelation that goes into units on the board.

On top of that, it requires a good deal of finesse in being able to manipulate your opponents (everybody else) into giving your land while making sure you yourself don't get "stabbed" in turn.

True, thank you for clarifying that point up for everyone, I was dreading a question that would cause me to have to type exactly what you typed.

And, people in RTS's actually declare war on others instead of just you. On CIV 4, I declared war on Egypt, and suddenly her hated rival Russia joins the war on her side. WTFIf she pays Russia to help her then yeah, Russia will help her.
People in the other Civs (I haven't played 4) do declare war on each other.

galactic civilization II has like...9 difficulty settings. Ranging from "haha, they did what?" to "oh, shit, they did WHAT?"

It's very customizable since the size of teh galaxies, the amount of planet density, the number of races with you, are very customizable. Even individual races can be tuned up or down (like a few not very smart races and one or two hyper militaristic, very smart ones).

The tech tree is HUGE, very time consuming, and means you WILL NOT be able to get them all. LIkewise their ship customization is kick ass, the planet management is fun, and the Ai can be brutal.

One thing I like about the AI is it doesn't cheat. Most strategy games, the AI either can build faster than you, harvests more than you, moves faster, has more hit points and generally can beat you only because it is faster and/or smarter than you. It cheats.

This AI doesn't cheat. It's exactly like you are. Just at higher levels it's nonsensically efficient. At some points it'll even figure out your strategy and taunt you telling you that they know what you're doing and it won't work.


Okay, I am definently buying it now. FUCK yes, I am going to buy it.
( by the way, this is priceless, I love it--(Ranging from "haha, they did what?" to "oh, shit, they did WHAT?") it is great.)

The civilization series is the best, though from what others are saying, Diplomacy sounds interesting.

www.diplom.org

basically a recreation of pre-WW1 Europe with each of 7 players representing a major power at the time (England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, Turkey). In order to get anywhere, you need to constantly build alliances with other players in order to gain their support, and then just as quickly backstab them when necessary to get the much needed supply centers that allow you to build additional units.

Each nation except Russia starts with 3 units (Russia gets 4) and there are a number of neutral territories all over the map that you can acquire early in the game. However, once those neutral territories are exhausted, the game because a zero-sum game where the only way to get ahead is at someone else's expense.

Unlike Risk, you can't just bunch 20 billion units at a bottleneck and sit tight. Each unit is equal in power to every other unit, and only one unit can occupy at a territory at a time. This makes the strategy element important because of the amount of interrelation that goes into units on the board.

On top of that, it requires a good deal of finesse in being able to manipulate your opponents (everybody else) into giving your land while making sure you yourself don't get "stabbed" in turn.

I used to play the board game when I was in high school back in the late '80s. If they've managed to stick pretty much to the board game, I can only imagine that the PC game is outstanding.

you want a truly involved strategy game, one where you WILL get owned at higher levels, with actual true complex diplomacy and trade with real options, real choices?

Galactic Civilizations II

I liked the first one, but the big downer for me was the fact that you couldn't get right down into the thick of it and design your own ships like MOO2, or engage in tactical combat...

I can see how some people might prefer the simplicity behind that, but i'm not one of them. The rest of the game was cool, though, and the alignment system was interesting. I haven't played the second....does it fix my gripes?

If she pays Russia to help her then yeah, Russia will help her.
People in the other Civs (I haven't played 4) do declare war on each other.

In every game, I either had to start the war by going in, or paying unholy amounts of gold to force others to fight. I have never had them just fight for no reason. And force ME into the fight to protect MY economic,or military interests. NEVER happens in CIV.

I used to play the board game when I was in high school back in the late '80s. If they've managed to stick pretty much to the board game, I can only imagine that the PC game is outstanding.

I wasn't referring to a PC game. The PC game is actually terrible because of how predictable the AI is.

That link is to a Play By eMail network for Diplomacy, including a plethora of map variants and setup variants. For instance, you can play with "gray press" where you can't actually tell who is talking to you, which means you have to constantly sift through the information to tell if it's genuine or a ruse.

In every game, I either had to start the war by going in, or paying unholy amounts of gold to force others to fight. I have never had them just fight for no reason. And force ME into the fight to protect MY economic,or military interests. NEVER happens in CIV.I guess you just suck at diplomacy.

I wasn't referring to a PC game. The PC game is actually terrible because of how predictable the AI is.

That link is to a Play By eMail network for Diplomacy, including a plethora of map variants and setup variants. For instance, you can play with "gray press" where you can't actually tell who is talking to you, which means you have to constantly sift through the information to tell if it's genuine or a ruse.

Yeah, I just realised that. I'm sifting through the site now.

I wasn't referring to a PC game. The PC game is actually terrible because of how predictable the AI is.

That link is to a Play By eMail network for Diplomacy, including a plethora of map variants and setup variants. For instance, you can play with "gray press" where you can't actually tell who is talking to you, which means you have to constantly sift through the information to tell if it's genuine or a ruse.

That sounds interesting.

I guess you just suck at diplomacy.

No, it is just that I am usuallythe sole superpower, and everyone seems to think that I want to make them my bitch. And they allie against me istead of with me and I have to nuke them all to shit. Lowering my world opinion and making them less likely to help me. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. It is not my fault that I am an econimic and military powerhouse, it just happens.

While I'm here... good God, Civ 3 was a poor game! How did they manage to get it so wrong?

While I'm here... good God, Civ 3 was a poor game! How did they manage to get it so wrong?

Come on it wasn't that bad, it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad, and they fixed some problems, like no multi-playing in CIV 3 Complete.

I liked the first one, but the big downer for me was the fact that you couldn't get right down into the thick of it and design your own ships like MOO2, or engage in tactical combat...

I can see how some people might prefer the simplicity behind that, but i'm not one of them. The rest of the game was cool, though, and the alignment system was interesting. I haven't played the second....does it fix my gripes?

ship design is HUGE in GCII. While you don't HAVE to do it, the stock ships are woefully inefficient and don't take in to account armor or weapon upgrades, so you kinda have to manually design new ships and upgrade old ones.

Ship combat is semi automated, but you can combine ships into fleets, mixing various ships of various designs for maximum efficiency. When ships engage it's automated, but the real trick is getting the right ships into the fleets.

No, it is just that I am usuallythe sole superpower, and everyone seems to think that I want to make them my bitch. And they allie against me istead of with me and I have to nuke them all to shit. Lowering my world opinion and making them less likely to help me. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. It is not my fault that I am an econimic and military powerhouse, it just happens.That would definitely be part of the reason, yes.

The civilization series is the best, though from what others are saying, Diplomacy sounds interesting.

You should check out Victoria: Empire Under the Sun (With the "Revolutions" expansion pack.)


(I probably should have made it clearer before that this particular series - Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis/Victoria/Hearts of Iron - is awesome...)

THat would definitely be part of the reason, yes.

If they don't make me mad by all ganging up and declaring war I won't have to uttly destroy their economic capability( yes that is what I said, economic capability, I never completely destroy a nation, I just cripple them so much that they destroy themselves.) and I didn't say I was always the superpower, sometimes Russia and Germany feel like stepping up to the plate, and they are more aggressive in their actions than me, and they still get more allies than I do. It really irritates me because then I have to go on the defensive and can't fight back.

ship design is HUGE in GCII. While you don't HAVE to do it, the stock ships are woefully inefficient and don't take in to account armor or weapon upgrades, so you kinda have to manually design new ships and upgrade old ones.

Ship combat is semi automated, but you can combine ships into fleets, mixing various ships of various designs for maximum efficiency. When ships engage it's automated, but the real trick is getting the right ships into the fleets.

That reminds me a little of Alpha Centauri, the Civ series's bastard child. Still my personal favorite of that type of game.


For those of you interested in Diplomacy, TG me if you have any questions you can't find answers to on the website. I'm not an expert, but I've been playing it for quite some time.

I would like to point out that the average PBeM game, if you manage to not die horribly in the first few turns of play, can last anywhere from 2-6 months. I actually just got out of one a week ago that had been going since October.

Edit: This is largely because one in-game season generally = one week of play.

That reminds me a little of Alpha Centauri, the Civ series's bastard child. Still my personal favorite of that type of game.


For those of you interested in Diplomacy, TG me if you have any questions you can't find answers to on the website. I'm not an expert, but I've been playing it for quite some time.

I would like to point out that the average PBeM game, if you manage to not die horribly in the first few turns of play, can last anywhere from 2-6 months. I actually just got out of one a week ago that had been going since October.

Edit: This is largely because one in-game season generally = one week of play.

Holy SHIT! 2-6 months, most of my CIV games only last 60-80 hours but never that long.

I liked the first one, but the big downer for me was the fact that you couldn't get right down into the thick of it and design your own ships like MOO2, or engage in tactical combat...

I can see how some people might prefer the simplicity behind that, but i'm not one of them. The rest of the game was cool, though, and the alignment system was interesting. I haven't played the second....does it fix my gripes?

A little. You can design your own ships, but not as in-depth as MoO2 or Space Empires 5, and there's still no tactical combat. There's a demo out that should give you quite a good overview.

To my mind it feels a bit too much like an RTS, driving your space-ships around the map... I much prefer SE5 (more detailed, tactical combat, systems feel like systems rather than planets and stars splattered around) and MoO2 (it's over ten years old and still the best game of its type).

--
Anyway, that's my favourite turn-based space-building game, but there are plenty of other strategy genres, where excellent games like Fragile Allegiance, Medieval:TW, Red Alert 2 and Total Annihilation, and plenty of others reside...
I was going to give the Europa Universalis 3 demo another go last night, but my games PC decided to die. Very vexing :mad:

Holy SHIT! 2-6 months, most of my CIV games only last 60-80 hours but never that long.

Well keep in mind that your only form of communication (an essential in Diplomacy) between players is through email, which not everyone checks every day. And you're emailing in your unit orders to be processed by an automated "Judge" system. So thinks tend to take a little longer than they might, but it's much easier for the GMs to adjudicate.

ship design is HUGE in GCII. While you don't HAVE to do it, the stock ships are woefully inefficient and don't take in to account armor or weapon upgrades, so you kinda have to manually design new ships and upgrade old ones.

Ship combat is semi automated, but you can combine ships into fleets, mixing various ships of various designs for maximum efficiency. When ships engage it's automated, but the real trick is getting the right ships into the fleets.

mmmkay...i'll download it I guess...if I like it, i'll buy it.

A little. You can design your own ships, but not as in-depth as MoO2 or Space Empires 5, and there's still no tactical combat. There's a demo out that should give you quite a good overview.

To my mind it feels a bit too much like an RTS, driving your space-ships around the map... I much prefer SE5 (more detailed, tactical combat, systems feel like systems rather than planets and stars splattered around) and MoO2 (it's over ten years old and still the best game of its type).

--
Anyway, that's my favourite turn-based space-building game, but there are plenty of other strategy genres, where excellent games like Fragile Allegiance, Medieval:TW, Red Alert 2 and Total Annihilation, and plenty of others reside...
I was going to give the Europa Universalis 3 demo another go last night, but my games PC decided to die. Very vexing :mad:


SO sorry about your PC dieing, it fucking sucks having to get them back to life, just last month I had a dramatic graphics overload and a blue screen crash that fucked up my video card, I lost all my game info and had to by a new 300$ video-card.

That reminds me a little of Alpha Centauri, the Civ series's bastard child. Still my personal favorite of that type of game.

Alpha Centauri was fantastic.

A little. You can design your own ships, but not as in-depth as MoO2 or Space Empires 5, and there's still no tactical combat. There's a demo out that should give you quite a good overview.

To my mind it feels a bit too much like an RTS, driving your space-ships around the map... I much prefer SE5 (more detailed, tactical combat, systems feel like systems rather than planets and stars splattered around) and MoO2 (it's over ten years old and still the best game of its type).

Gah, I guess it's probably going to be the same as Gal Civ 1, then.

I haven't been able to get into SE5, really, either. I mean, it's good...good enough for me to spend money on, but as you said, MOO2 is still better...so I end up going back to that. :P My main problem with SE5 is that it's simply too abstract. "Whee. I have researched beam weapons XVI and applied research IV. I can now upgrade my labs to level IV." Boring! The whole game just feels like work, after a while.

Why can't somebody just rip off everything that was awesome about MOO2, leave the formula exactly the same, and update the graphics a little? Whyyy?

Alpha Centauri was fantastic.



Gah, I guess it's probably going to be the same as Gal Civ 1, then.

I haven't been able to get into SE5, really, either. I mean, it's good...good enough for me to spend money on, but as you said, MOO2 is still better...so I end up going back to that. :P My main problem with SE5 is that it's simply too abstract. "Whee. I have researched beam weapons XVI and applied research IV. I can now upgrade my labs to level IV." Boring! The whole game just feels like work, after a while.

Why can't somebody just rip off everything that was awesome about MOO2, leave the formula exactly the same, and update the graphics a little? Whyyy?

THey are stubborn and want something new and shiny that amazes everyone with their catchy graphics so they buy the game at unholy prices before realizing that deep down the game SUCKS!

Panzer General
Battle Isle I (plus Moon & Desert) & II
Risk I & II
Civilization (I)
Star Trek - Birth of the Federation

Notice something? They're all turn-based.

THey are stubborn and want something new and shiny that amazes everyone with their catchy graphics so they buy the game at unholy prices before realizing that deep down the game SUCKS!

Well, let's be fair...strategy game developers and gamers are usually immune to this effect.

Well, let's be fair...strategy game developers and gamers are usually immune to this effect.

True.

Panzer General
Battle Isle I (plus Moon & Desert) & II
Risk I & II
Civilization (I)
Star Trek - Birth of the Federation

Notice something? They're all turn-based.

I have played them all except Battle Isle I. Is it any good?

Star Trek - Birth of the Federation


Gah, that's another one to throw into the "BE MORE LIKE MOO2!" pile, but one of the better efforts (probably because it was also developed by Microprose, but I think most of the original design team were long gone).

It had a lot of cool features, but messed others up. I can understand that they threw the ship design out of the window considering the licence setting, but they screwed up the tactical combat and oversimplified the colony management.

The idea of minor races and unique buildings associated with them was cool, though. The MOO2 clone should steal this feature.

I still play it sometimes, though.

Does anyone here no how to code and write graphics? In a few years I am going to start a game making company called "Imperial Games" and the focus will be on Turn-Based games and RTS's.

Star Wars: Empire at war. It's brutal at the higher levels, and I love the idea that you don't necessarily win every battle in a campaign, but sometimes have to retreat, or try to recover from a loss.

And I'm a massive geek, of star wars and other things.

So what is your ideal strategy game.
I have a poll for some of the best STrat games in the past few years.numero dos:

http://www-jlc.kek.jp/~norik/samvel/pictures/warcraft.gif

Well I've got to go, because apparently, I'm supposed to pay attention to the teacher and not sit on the net, for three frikin' hours, as she put it, so see ya! Please feel free to talk without me, I know you will all be sad that I am leaving, but I'll be back.

numero uno
http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/wes/projects/valerie_webpages_2003/Jesse/images/starcraft.jpg

It's funny. 10 years or so later no rts has really unthroned starcraft.

Dawn of War is pretty kickass, but starcraft still rules the day.

But a RTS game and a 3X game are entirely different.

Yeah, my favorite strategy games are

1) Starcraft
2) Masters of Orion 2
3) Medieval: Total War 1

Sadly, only MOO2 has any type of diplomacy, which is my favorite part of strategy games. The only game with decent diplomacy that I can think of is Masters of Orion 3, and well...the rest of that game was absolute rubbish.

It's funny. 10 years or so later no rts has really unthroned starcraft.

That's because the genre was nearly killed due to oversaturation...the period for strategy games between Warcraft 2/C&C and Starcraft/Age of Empires 2 was terrible. For every good release, there were a million shitty ones, and pretty much every one of those was an RTS. People got sick of pure RTS games, so companies started mix-and-matching genre elements to attract a wider audience, since simple RTS games weren't the in-thing anymore.

The ones that have stuck to the basic RTS formula (Rise of Nations, etc.) aren't nearly as successful as the RTS games of old, regardless of quality.

Space Empires 55?! Shiite.. I'm still playing v.3 Only computer game I ever really played too. Not much in the way of graphics though.

I like the mix of RTS and TBS that the Total War series gives, but the diplomacy side of it needs a serious overhaul. Hopefully they'll give it a serious re-working for the next one.

It's funny. 10 years or so later no rts has really unthroned starcraft.

Dawn of War is pretty kickass, but starcraft still rules the day.

But a RTS game and a 3X game are entirely different.

I have to admit, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade is considerably better than Starcraft ever was.

I have to admit, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade is considerably better than Starcraft ever was.

Well, one would certainly hope it has improved on a game released almost 9 years ago.

A like the type of game where you can have a quick, fun game without it being too complicated, but also offers support for a really complicated, longwhinded game that requires tactics.

SO sorry about your PC dieing, it fucking sucks having to get them back to life, just last month I had a dramatic graphics overload and a blue screen crash that fucked up my video card, I lost all my game info and had to by a new 300$ video-card.

Motherboard in this case, I'm pretty certain (that's what over-volting the southbridge gets you, I suppose ;) ). A8R-MVP, so pretty cheap if I just replace it, but I won't; it's a perfect excuse for an upgrade :D . Not that the machine's over a year old, but it's a single-core Socket-939 system and I was considering a new CPU for it anyway.

Just to find a decent Core2Duo mainboard that supports Crossfire, won't stretch the water-pipes too much, and has an actually-usable PCI slot. Complete waste of cash of course, I've not done anything demanding for months, but shiny tech, yay! (And Supreme Commander is on pre-order ;) )

Ooh, and on-topic: Birth of the Federation would've been great if they'd finished it (and just stolen MoO2's tactical combat). Same with Braveheart; that could've been Scotland: Total War years before Shogun, if it had actually worked.

I have played most of the biggest modern strategy games, and they are all good, but every single game I have played has lacked something another game had. Take "Rise of Nations" for example, it has a lot of what I look for in a strategy game, but I turn around and play CIV 4 and find that it goes more in-depth than "Rise of Nations" but it is turn based and the Combat Interface is annoying as hell. So what is your ideal strategy game.






I have a poll for some of the best STrat games in the past few years.

Civ4 is a great game, but I also love Imperial Glory, but my fav RTS is probably Civil War Generals 2.

I have played them all except Battle Isle I. Is it any good?
It's really old, that's for sure. I still play it ever once in a while because it's a classic. You can read more about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Isle_series).

And I forgot to mention another great game, topped only by Panzer General - History Line: 1914-1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Line:_1914-1918), aka Great War: 1914-1918. Pretty much the same engine as BI, but set in WWI. I literally spent hours playing against my friends as it is a split-screen game.
Besides, it literally gives tons of information on WWI, has a very nice intro explaining how things developed before the war and how it came to the escalation. Solid material. :p
Gah, that's another one to throw into the "BE MORE LIKE MOO2!" pile, but one of the better efforts (probably because it was also developed by Microprose, but I think most of the original design team were long gone).
It had a lot of cool features, but messed others up. I can understand that they threw the ship design out of the window considering the licence setting, but they screwed up the tactical combat and oversimplified the colony management.
The idea of minor races and unique buildings associated with them was cool, though. The MOO2 clone should steal this feature.
I still play it sometimes, though.
What can I say - I'm still loving it. (I have to admit, though, that I never played Master of Orion.)

This sums up my wants here. (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wargames.html)

Star Wars: Empire at war. It's brutal at the higher levels, and I love the idea that you don't necessarily win every battle in a campaign, but sometimes have to retreat, or try to recover from a loss.

And I'm a massive geek, of star wars and other things.

Same here -- both being a Star Wars geek and liking the difficulty of the game. I only got it a few weeks ago, so I'm currently playing on the medium level. Have you got the Forces of Corruption expansion?

My favorite? Europa Universalis II (which some of you may have guessed from my nation name - it makes sense if you've played the game.)

And I'm impatiently waiting for my copy of EU III, which was supposed to be released two weeks ago, but hasn't arrived yet.

i prefer the real time games over the turn based. my favourite turn based one was civ 2. much more fun than 3 and alpha centauri. haven't played any others as far as i remember. the command & conquer games are my favourite, red alert being the top one for me. total anihilation was fun too but a bit short on depth of story.

edit: i have a vague recollection of a game that might have been called "a brifge too far", i think that was turn based but looked like an rts. it might have been just a demo i had, but i enjoyed it for a while.

Of the ones you listed, Civ 4 and Medieval Total War (I play the Danes) are both very good. I haven't tried Medieval 2 yet, and I never played (sadly) Civ 2. Civ 3 was hugely disappointing, though.

My favourites was Alpha Centauri (very much like Civ). Unlike Civ 4, where I can win a Space Race Victory pretty much at will on the neutral difficulty setting, winning the analogous Transcendent Victory in AC is more difficult.

GalCiv2 looks good. I was a fan of the Space Empires series for years, so that's a good sign, though I hear GalCiv2 still doesn't approach the level of Masters of Orion. But MoO's a classic - it's hard to beat that.

Take "Rise of Nations" for example, it has a lot of what I look for in a strategy game,

The problem, IMO, with RoN is that in every turn you start from the beginning. It has no continuity in that sense and the repeated routine gets tedious after some time.


but I turn around and play CIV 4 and find that it goes more in-depth than "Rise of Nations" but it is turn based and the Combat Interface is annoying as hell. So what is your ideal strategy game.

ummm..you really should not play Civ 4 for combat interface. I have played many strategy games, both RTS and TBS, and Civ 4 is the best. The only thing I hated about it is - the game no longer allows tabbing :mad: . I can't work and play at the same time as I used to with Civ 3.

edit: i have a vague recollection of a game that might have been called "a brifge too far", i think that was turn based but looked like an rts. it might have been just a demo i had, but i enjoyed it for a while.

The second in the "Close Combat" games? They were pretty good...very realistic, with units just running off because they'd been under heavy fire for too long. It could get a bit tedious, though.

As far as I'm concerned, StarCraft is possibly the most fun, well-rounded RTS out there. With Blizzard updating/tweaking it every so often, it has become nigh-on perfect - except for certain pathfinding issues.

I used to think Starcraft was the end-all be-all of scifi RTS too. Then I got Total Annihilation and learned to appreciate where Blizzard had got it wrong.

I'm an ardent Civs 2 and 3 dinosaur. I love 'em both.

Holy SHIT! 2-6 months, most of my CIV games only last 60-80 hours but never that long.

Well, I've got one Civ II game that's been going on for seven months and a Civ III game which'll be turning two years old this summer.
It could have something to do with my strategy, though: be as peaceful as possible but at the same time block every border in sight with a tonne of troops. And this is on gigantic maps.
I'm currently playing as China on a real-world map but for some reason I started in Africa; currently hold dominion over the entire African continent, all of South Asia, virtually all of the rest of Asia (just the Japanese left and they're beginning to fall) and small parts of various other regions.
I've single-handedly wiped out three or four nations thus far, each one a superpower at the time. Fortunately, I'm an even bigger superpower.
Last of my report: every single other nation on the planet is currently at war with me because of the stupid Egyptians, who attacked me and, when I retaliated (instantly destroying a third of their empire, but there you go) they invoked mutual protectiong pacts with three other nations, who then signed military alliances against me with formerly neutral powers.
*sighs*
I'm a nation of peace, if massive power. Unfortunately, they're not the first, and their power combined is almost equal to mine.

I support the idea of essentially an RTS of Civilization. Best game ever; if it's ever done.

Oh, and I recommend Warcraft III to anyone. The RPGs are rubbish, but I've been a dedicated WC III player for years and have never got bored.

Ilaer

Civ IV owns me.
I was playing it just now in fact.

I used to think Starcraft was the end-all be-all of scifi RTS too. Then I got Total Annihilation and learned to appreciate where Blizzard had got it wrong.Starcraft campaign is great.. online Starcraft iz da zhit.. awesome zhit.
Its no fun humiliating the AI.

<< Battle.net is the largest online gaming network in the world. Blizzard claims "millions of active users" on Battle.net, and that they are the leaders of online gaming, noting that even Xbox Live doesn't even come close[1]. By November 1997 they had 22 million games played, 1.25 million different users, and that they averaged 3,500 new users each day[2]. By April 1999, it was reported that Battle.net had 2.3 million active users, and more than 50,000 concurrent users[3]. By September 2002, their active user count had jumped to 11 million[4]. By September 2004, their active user count was up to nearly 12 million, spending more than 2.1 million hours online each day, and they had an average of 200,000 concurrent users, with a peak concurrent user count of 400,000[5]. <<

The second in the "Close Combat" games? They were pretty good...very realistic, with units just running off because they'd been under heavy fire for too long. It could get a bit tedious, though.


yeh, that's the one! the running away added an extra level of difficulty, can't send units on suicide missions if they're not programmed to be suicidal! yellow bellied cowards!

I tend to prefer a turn-based games or a mixup of turn-based and real-time - like Total War. If WWII had been a real time RTS it would have gone something like this

*Hitler_89 enters WWII
*T3h_Iron_Man enters WWII
*M0ścicki enters WWII
*3rd_r3pu81ic enters WWII
*British_Bu11d0g enters WWII
<Hitler_89> -> <T3h_Iron_Man> truce? wanna screw Poland?
<T3h_Iron_Man> -> <Hitler_89> y not koolz
<M0ścicki> shit!!!!1!one11 Help plz!
*M0ścicki has been defeated
*M0ścicki has left WWII
<T3h_Iron_Man> pwnt
<3rd_r3pu81ic> lolz what 4 n00b
<Hitler_89> dun laugh frenchy, youre next
<3rd_r3pu81ic> whatever tard
<3rd_r3pu81ic> oh noes! Panzer IV rush.
<British_Bu11d0g> shite, youre g3tting screwed. evac!
<3rd_r3pu81ic> stfu n00b
*3rd_r3pu81ic has been defeated
<3rd_r3pu81ic> Dun ever come to the EC forums Winston. Ill kick yoyur arse. I are teh admin there
*3rd_r3pu81ic has left WWII
<British_Bu11d0g> ph34r my spitfire loser
<T3h_Iron_Man> lolz
<Hitler_89> you gonna die 4 that joe
<T3h_Iron_Man> bite me
<T3h_Iron_Man> guys. I need a script to so I don't have to keep training infantry manually.
*R0053\/317_33 has joined WWII
*emperor_of_j4p4n has joined WWII
<emperor_of_j4p4n> rolf, just pwn3d china, your next franky
R0053\/317_33 and T3h_Iron_Man are now allies
R0053\/317_33 and British_Bu11d0g are now allies
<Hitler_89> n00bs. too scared to take me on your own?
<T3h_Iron_Man> ph34r my T34s
*Hitler_89 has been defeated
<Hitler_89> I hate you guys. always pickin on me. screw you losers
*Hitler_89 has left the game
<British_Bu11d0g> what an emo, I bet he's gonna go top himself now.
<T3h_Iron_Man> lmao
<emperor_of_j4p4n> wtf?! hacks. Franklin's a cheater
<R0053\/317_33> lol, not hacks, i r game admin now. I got t3h nukes.
*emperor_of_j4p4n has been defeated
ALLIES WIN the round
Round 2 starts in 30 seconds -- map_coldwarwoah, that got overly long... I only meant to compare the blitzkreig to a zerg rush or something. >.>

I tend to prefer a turn-based games or a mixup of turn-based and real-time - like Total War. If WWII had been a real time RTS it would have gone something like this

woah, that got overly long... I only meant to compare the blitzkreig to a zerg rush or something. >.>

You forgot Mussolini.

<IL_DUCE_123> U guyz r laym!
<British_Bu11d0g> GTFO n00b!
<R0053\/317_33> We're in ur base, killing ur d00dz!
<IL_DUCE_123> Fuk u guyz!
*IL_DUCE_123 has left the game

Or something like that...

I tend to prefer a turn-based games or a mixup of turn-based and real-time - like Total War. If WWII had been a real time RTS it would have gone something like this

woah, that got overly long... I only meant to compare the blitzkreig to a zerg rush or something. >.>

There's been a much better version floating around teh intarwebs for a loooooong time.

There's been a much better version floating around teh intarwebs for a loooooong time.Meh, I haven't seen it. Besides, I came up with that in a couple of minutes. No doubt the one you refer to was written over an extended period and refined by others. Anyway, I got some major points covered - the division of poland, the fall of france, De Gaulle's blocking UK membership of the EC, the battle of Britain, operation Barbarossa, the insane amounts of casualties that the USSR sustained, Hitler's suicide, nuclear weapons, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and the descension into the cold war. :p
You forgot Mussolini.
<IL_DUCE_123> U guyz r laym!
<British_Bu11d0g> GTFO n00b!
<R0053\/317_33> We're in ur base, killing ur d00dz!
<IL_DUCE_123> Fuk u guyz!
*IL_DUCE_123 has left the game
Or something like that...Heh, I like the name. Though I'm not sure I'll think of Anzio in quite the same way again.

Europa Universalis 2 is the greatest because you get the perfect combination of widescale clashes between the Eurasian super-powers combined with the fun of brutally slaughtering the fledging American nations and taking all their resources.
The other Paradox titles are also pretty good (and I actually prefer the level of detail in Victoria or Hearts or Iron), but you just can't beat EU's time period.

Galactic Civilizations II has kept my attention for weeks, now. I had missed turn-based, galactic empire-building games, ever since MOO III let me down so hard.

I think my favorite strategy games are:

Homeworld Series

Total War Series

I loved the 3D aspect of Homeworld, and the incredibly easy-to-use interface. Homeworld2's graphical improvements were just icing on a great game. The fleet battles, especially when you ditch the unit cap, are awesome. Put a few mods on there like Point Defense and it looks insane. Homeworld is not really strategy, per se - it's more tactics based, but still great.

I first got into the Total War series with Medieval (the first one). I had downloaded the demo for it and was blown away by the awesomeness of commanding thousands of troops - I hadn't ever played a game like it before. I was no stranger to strategy games but none had ever displayed the battles like M:TW did. I also liked the Campaign map, the turn-based part. Admittedly M:TW lacked - severely - diplomatic options, but then those aren't the most interesting to me anyway. :D

The only strategy games I dislike are ones that just become a huge upkeep fest like Civilization. As soon as your empire becomes reasonably large the turns become incredibly long and it gets boring. I did love the original Civilization and its sequel, Civ2, however, probably because they were much simpler than the later incarnations. I have Civ3 but I really can't stand it. :p

I think my favorite strategy games are:

Homeworld Series

Total War Series

I loved the 3D aspect of Homeworld, and the incredibly easy-to-use interface. Homeworld2's graphical improvements were just icing on a great game. The fleet battles, especially when you ditch the unit cap, are awesome. Put a few mods on there like Point Defense and it looks insane. Homeworld is not really strategy, per se - it's more tactics based, but still great.

I first got into the Total War series with Medieval (the first one). I had downloaded the demo for it and was blown away by the awesomeness of commanding thousands of troops - I hadn't ever played a game like it before. I was no stranger to strategy games but none had ever displayed the battles like M:TW did. I also liked the Campaign map, the turn-based part. Admittedly M:TW lacked - severely - diplomatic options, but then those aren't the most interesting to me anyway. :D

The only strategy games I dislike are ones that just become a huge upkeep fest like Civilization. As soon as your empire becomes reasonably large the turns become incredibly long and it gets boring. I did love the original Civilization and its sequel, Civ2, however, probably because they were much simpler than the later incarnations. I have Civ3 but I really can't stand it. :p

A lot of people gave up on Civ because of Civ 3, but the trouble is that Civ 3 was an outlier. It was bad, sure, but Civ 4 is much better.

As for Homeworld, I just really don't like RTS games. If the action is frantic, it ceases to be fun.

I love Medival Total war 2 at the moment:)

HOW DARE YOU NOT LIST THE SUPERIOR AGE OF EMPIRES SERIES?!?!?!?!? :eek: :mad:

Hey guys, I own MoOII and I would like to know how the hell you transport suppplies and food betwwen planets.

HOW DARE YOU NOT LIST THE SUPERIOR AGE OF EMPIRES SERIES?!?!?!?!? :eek: :mad:

Ah but Total Annihilation rules still!

I would have to say my all-time favorites are: the Star Trek: Armada series, oh the game shmeers! The Advanced Wars series, and Master of Olympus: Zeus, and it's expansion Master of Atlantis: Poseiden.

For fans of Star Trek I HIGHLY reccomend Armada I and II. It's a game of tactical RT combat. You can be Starfleet, the Klingons, the Romulans, and *GASP* the BORG! :eek: You can build Birds of Prey, Cubes, Spheres, Warbirds, and dozens more. You can board enemy ships, assimilate people, and much more.
Armada II adds the Cardassians, and SPECIES 8472! Plus, the game fully three-demensional in space (they both have 3-D graphics though). Also, it adds new ships Intrepid-Class, Galaxy-Class (yes it does do "sperating sequence" :D), and the many, many new ships given to the allready extent spicies, plus new fleets for the two new arrivals. Also you can collonize and attack planets.
So go ahead, and build that Starbase, engage that Warbird, beam aboard the Cardassians ships, "and boldly go...no, boldy fight, where no man (no-one) has fought before!" (TNG song kicks-in).
Screen Shots: 1 (http://bonusweb.idnes.cz/obrazek/armada2scr27s.jpg) 2 (http://bonusweb.idnes.cz/obrazek/armada2scr01.jpg) 3 (http://stgu.com/startrekarmada/armada1/borg/locutusscreen2.jpg) 4 (http://www.treknation.com/images/articles/activision_armada_2s.jpg) 5 (http://bonusweb.idnes.cz/obrazek/armada2scr22.jpg)

Next, I have to say that Zeus is one helluva game. It's tagline "Build Cities, Challange the Gods, Become a Legend!"
You rule a Greek city-state, where Mythology runs amok. Ask for Hecules, or Theseus to come to your city! Worship Zeus, Hermes, Hera, and the rest of the Greek Pantheon! Slay Monsters with Heroes, or you Army! Invade! See the Epic fight between Achillies and Hector! Lead the Trojan war! Aquire the Golden Fleece! Rule Atlantis!
I don't really care for city-builders, but thios sucker is AWSOME!

I would have to say my all-time favorites are: the Star Trek: Armada series, oh the game shmeers! The Advanced Wars series, and Master of Olympus: Zeus, and it's expansion Master of Atlantis: Poseiden.

For fans of Star Trek I HIGHLY reccomend Armada I and II. It's a game of tactical RT combat. You can be Starfleet, the Klingons, the Romulans, and *GASP* the BORG! :eek: You can build Birds of Prey, Cubes, Spheres, Warbirds, and dozens more. You can board enemy ships, assimilate people, and much more.
Armada II adds the Cardassians, and SPECIES 8472! Plus, the game fully three-demensional in space (they both have 3-D graphics though). Also, it adds new ships Intrepid-Class, Galaxy-Class (yes it does do "sperating sequence" :D), and the many, many new ships given to the allready extent spicies, plus new fleets for the two new arrivals. Also you can collonize and attack planets.
So go ahead, and build that Starbase, engage that Warbird, beam aboard the Cardassians ships, "and boldly go...no, boldy fight, where no man (no-one) has fought before!" (TNG song kicks-in).
Screen Shots: 1 (http://bonusweb.idnes.cz/obrazek/armada2scr27s.jpg) 2 (http://bonusweb.idnes.cz/obrazek/armada2scr01.jpg) 3 (http://stgu.com/startrekarmada/armada1/borg/locutusscreen2.jpg) 4 (http://www.treknation.com/images/articles/activision_armada_2s.jpg) 5 (http://bonusweb.idnes.cz/obrazek/armada2scr22.jpg)


I quite enjoyed it when I borrowed 2 of a mate. Only thing was that I could never get the hang of the 3D mode for accual game play, great for screen shots but not much else. Oh and akira class ship rule that special abilty of theres is so cool.

Oh and akira class ship rule that special abilty of theres is so cool.

:D

I did think that the borg, while fitting with the serise, where too over powered. Once you have cubes there is no point playing anymore, only a moron could lose.

So what is your ideal strategy game.

Anything with hot Elf on Elf action!

seriously: Starcraft

I did think that the borg, while fitting with the serise, where too over powered. Once you have cubes there is no point playing anymore, only a moron could lose.

You mean fusion-cubes? Yeah, those things are evil.
The only things better in Armada was A: NO fuzers! and B: battles aren't resolved Uber-fast. I mean, Armada II is slightly less true to Star Trek with the speed that the game ends.
But then again, fuzers are more like REAL cubes...

I did think that the borg, while fitting with the serise, where too over powered. Once you have cubes there is no point playing anymore, only a moron could lose.

Also, have you thought of A: not including the Borg in the game, and B: making an alliance agaisnt them?

none of your poll options are good enough to be a "favorite"

A lot of people gave up on Civ because of Civ 3, but the trouble is that Civ 3 was an outlier. It was bad, sure, but Civ 4 is much better.Hmm, maybe I'll have to look into it.

As for Homeworld, I just really don't like RTS games. If the action is frantic, it ceases to be fun.I confess I sometimes lose track of what's happening too (though usually only on the harder bits or games w/o the unit cap). However, it's just so beautiful watching all those explosions and ships whizzing around and beam weapons firing that I could probably be content just watching! :)

Medieval TW1
Starcraft

...and the ultimate DAI SENRYAKU VII!!!!!

http://www.kemcogames.com/game_detail.html?id=40

Favourite computer strategy games:

Europa Universalis II

Medieval Total War

Civ series, including Alpha Centauri (Civ 2 best balance, but haven't played 4)

Football Manager series.



I also play a lot of Pax Britannica, a 1980s strategy boardgame based on the late 19th century, and with a high diplomacy factor, via e-mail.

The worst case was in CIV 3 when I had a modern tank beat by a persian immortal, I mean WTF.

What they didn't show is that he used an RPG-7 to kill the tank.

I want complete control. No past or present strategy game has offered quite enough control for me to really mastermind anything. The RTS games, such as Age of Empires, offer a lot of depth as far as military aspects are concerned, though there's still not enough in-depth control (special instructions, maneuvers, etc.). Then, there's the absolutely rubbish "economic" models of these RTS games, which reward ruthless micromanagement exploiters above all else.

Turn-based strategy games off a lot on the building side of things, though the combat is usually severely lacking (not so much on the Total War series, though that's still not too deep). Too many times on Civilization IV have I lost battles that I might've won with an RTS-style interface, so I could really command my armies. Rock-Paper-Scissors just doesn't cut it.

I want to build from the ground-up: start small and establish a real economy, build infrastructure, and expand in true fashion, while shrewdly allocating resources (both human and otherwise) to build a strong, efficient military. This would incorporate city building on the scale of Sim City (but with true-to-life resources and an actual economic model) with the civilisation building aspect of Civilization, and a totally new concept for a military interface.

I could write a massive game design documentation for such a game, and I might do just that, since I have so much free time now. It would be strategy on a truly epic scale; a game that doesn't allow any one player to shamelessly exploit inherent flaws in a primitive game style such as RTS or TBS. It would be the real thinking man's game.

Though to be honest, I've been cultivating the design for this game for some years now.

I really enjoyed Company of Heroes, but like all RTS it's the most fun playing over lan or online.

I played PTO II on SNES when I was younger, and it was as close to perfect as a mortal man's creation can be. Not totally perfect, but close enough.

~ Romandeos.

you want a truly involved strategy game, one where you WILL get owned at higher levels, with actual true complex diplomacy and trade with real options, real choices?

Galactic Civilizations II

i'm playing the original one now. How are they different?

Hey guys, I own MoOII and I would like to know how the hell you transport suppplies and food betwwen planets.

Build freighters? :P

Here ya go.

If WWII was an RTS (http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_20057151.asp)

I like METW2 and Company of Heroes since I'm hopeless at strategy when it's an active part of the game, like Civ, although I enjoy it. In an RTS, I think both realism and scale are what I look for most, although I'll buy anything. :p

By the way are there any decent strategy games ,RTS or Turn-based, which are based around the cold war?

The strategy game I would like is one which is similar to civ in turn based style (though simultaneous turns rather than sequential turns is even better, less god like knowledge) but when it came to combat it would be like a RTS.

A game I quite liked that I found on the internet was space empires (3, 4 and 5), it is turn based, in 5 the combat is real time, you design your own units based around a list of components and if a computer is really annoying you in a particular star system you can always supa nova the star (if you have the research) as a last resort. The diplomacy is also pretty flexible though it is turn based so you send a proposal, they then send a reply etc so it can take a while.

I want complete control. No past or present strategy game has offered quite enough control for me to really mastermind anything. The RTS games, such as Age of Empires, offer a lot of depth as far as military aspects are concerned, though there's still not enough in-depth control (special instructions, maneuvers, etc.). Then, there's the absolutely rubbish "economic" models of these RTS games, which reward ruthless micromanagement exploiters above all else.

Turn-based strategy games off a lot on the building side of things, though the combat is usually severely lacking (not so much on the Total War series, though that's still not too deep). Too many times on Civilization IV have I lost battles that I might've won with an RTS-style interface, so I could really command my armies. Rock-Paper-Scissors just doesn't cut it.

I want to build from the ground-up: start small and establish a real economy, build infrastructure, and expand in true fashion, while shrewdly allocating resources (both human and otherwise) to build a strong, efficient military. This would incorporate city building on the scale of Sim City (but with true-to-life resources and an actual economic model) with the civilisation building aspect of Civilization, and a totally new concept for a military interface.

I could write a massive game design documentation for such a game, and I might do just that, since I have so much free time now. It would be strategy on a truly epic scale; a game that doesn't allow any one player to shamelessly exploit inherent flaws in a primitive game style such as RTS or TBS. It would be the real thinking man's game.

Though to be honest, I've been cultivating the design for this game for some years now.

What you describe as your ideal would be a brilliant game, though the length of the game could be a problem, damn real life getting in the way.

I want naval warfare that isn't a fucking joke.

I want man to man on a scale of Corp to Corp battle.
I don't think i could handle an Army vs Army battle at platoon level...

last couple of nights me and a couple of friends played risk. we all had a great time. the element of luck can sometimes be annoying, but most of the time it ads to the fun. it's also fun to manipulate people IRL (instead of manipulating an AI).
so hereby i change my vote from M2:TW to RISK.

I played PTO II on SNES when I was younger, and it was as close to perfect as a mortal man's creation can be. Not totally perfect, but close enough.

~ Romandeos.
As a PTO IV player (currently out of commission until I get my copy to a disc doctor; right now it keeps locking up every second battle...:rolleyes:), you are hereby QFT.:cool:
Personally, my ideal would combine the snazzy digital world map interface from the Ace Combat series with PTO style strategy meetings. The only operational control I really want over forces is over mission objectives, global deployment, corresponding supply routes, force morale, composition, and posture/rules of engagement. The economy would be a factor, but only in really long modern or World Wars-era scenarios/campaigns. Coups (both d'etat and d'armee) and other political/psychological warfare could also play a role, if handled basically enough for new players to pick them up. Thus, true maneuver warfare could be waged at last by those sick of economy-wanking attrition-fests (like me).
Random/custom world maps and countries could be generated, with you picking your enemies and designing their governments, economic policies, and basic force types (Army/Navy/Air-centric, or balanced instead?). Again, this all should be kept as basic as possible; to fit within the basic PTO-style staff game format. You'd be a general, no more or less; unlike the proverbial "President and platoon commander" syndrome most RTS titles perpetuate...

Europa Universalis II
Crusader Kings
Victoria
Heart of Iron II: Doomsday
Medieval Total War: Viking Invasion
Civ II

How could it take 6 pages, before someone mentioned Total Annihilation? One of the first economic management gameswhere you had real options. Too many of Blizzards xxxxCraft, pretty much had set tactics.
Going full on aircraft, using missiles at range, saturating someones missile defence. Moving radar cloaked guys within big gun range, and building a Big gun. Shoving a heap of tanks at them. You had options.
Myth I and Myth II were also great. More small unit tactics than strategy though, I guess.

Hehe, Star Trek Armada. I especially enjoyed going up against the Borg. It's funny when you assimilate them. :D

How could it take 6 pages, before someone mentioned Total Annihilation? One of the first economic management gameswhere you had real options. Too many of Blizzards xxxxCraft, pretty much had set tactics.
Going full on aircraft, using missiles at range, saturating someones missile defence. Moving radar cloaked guys within big gun range, and building a Big gun. Shoving a heap of tanks at them. You had options.
Myth I and Myth II were also great. More small unit tactics than strategy though, I guess.

I never really got into Total Annihilation as much as I should have...whenever I played it multiplayer, I felt there were just far, far too many units available, and I didn't have a clue what was going on. Had I stuck at it, maybe I'd have enjoyed it more.

How the hell did I forget Myth? I'm angry at myself for that...they were fantastic games. Lacking in the traditional economic areas of "normal" RTS
games, they had small unit engagement down to a fine "t". Hills, rain and snow actually had an effect on battles!

As for the person who mentioned Age of Empires...I always felt it was substandard to the likes of the other games so far mentioned. Sure, it looks pretty (AoE III is stunning) but the rest of it tends to be infuriating. There's no unit balance (AoE II: go the turks, build 120 elite janissaries and some bombard cannons, and you've just won the game) and the A.I. has gotten me into a murderous rage on more than one occasion.

Hehe, Star Trek Armada. I especially enjoyed going up against the Borg. It's funny when you assimilate them. :D

Um, I own that one, and ST Armada 2, and mentioned them on the previous page. Um, how the hell do you assimilate the Borg in that game, unless you're the Borg too?

I want naval warfare that isn't a fucking joke.

Have you considered the Midway series by David Riggle? It's graphics are only made of typing symbols, but it still is the only realistic naval game I've played. Carriers can send out bombers, or fighters, or topedo bombers. You have to decide whether or not to brake radio silence. It's quite fun, here is a link to screen shots. It's the third window down: http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/capitalistpig.htm

Have you considered the Midway series by David Riggle? It's graphics are only made of typing symbols, but it still is the only realistic naval game I've played. Carriers can send out bombers, or fighters, or topedo bombers. You have to decide whether or not to brake radio silence. It's quite fun, here is a link to screen shots. It's the third window down: http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/capitalistpig.htm

*sees 4th window down*

Mac Missiles! God, I loved that game...

Um, I own that one, and ST Armada 2, and mentioned them on the previous page. Um, how the hell do you assimilate the Borg in that game, unless you're the Borg too?
It's been more than 2 years since I've played them - isn't there some sort of mission wherer you find a stranded borg vessel or something? I can't remember for sure, I only know that I've been fighting Borg with Borg. :confused:

You forgot DoW and Age of Empires, Age of Kings, Age of Empires III and Close Combat V: Invasion Normandy (Great game BTW!).

STARCRAFT!!!

Omgomgomgomgomg!

I voted 'other' because I love Europa Universalis II

I haven't played III yet :(

You forgot DoW and Age of Empires, Age of Kings, Age of Empires III and Close Combat V: Invasion Normandy (Great game BTW!).

DoW (and its expantions), while one of the best games I have played recently, isn't what I would call your typical RTS game. It's more a real time computer based version of the original table top game. For one they aren't to worried about making the armies balanced just true to the original game.

What you describe as your ideal would be a brilliant game, though the length of the game could be a problem, damn real life getting in the way.

Yeah, but I think that the length of a single game would have its advantages. I feel that both RTS and TBS games are way too short (even Civilization IV), and the design of this game would eliminate that problem. Sure, it wouldn't be for everyone, but a lot of people would like it all the same.

The multiplayer would have to be done like Civilization IV, of course (world saves, game spots open when people leave, though this one's optional). It'd be impossible to have it like Age of Empires. How would you find the time to eat, much less go to the bathroom? :p

I voted 'other' because I love Europa Universalis II

I haven't played III yet :(

I picked III up today. It's awesome. :)

By the way are there any decent strategy games ,RTS or Turn-based, which are based around the cold war?

Tons.

If you want a deep turnbased wargame, look into getting The Operational Art of War 3, it includes several massive Warsaw Pact/Nato scenarios as well as pretty much every historical conflict from that period, from Grenada to Vietnam.

If you want something more like a country management sim, try Crisis in the Kremlin (http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=250), which is probably the only game focusing on USSR politics from the mid 1980s onwards. You can download it as abandonware from that link (legal grey area, do so at your own discretion), but you'll probably need dosbox or similar to get it running on a modern machine.

There's even things like Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space (http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=160) for a slightly different take on superpower rivalry.

Three words:

Axis and Allies

Best Strategy Game EVAR.

For RTS, I haven't seen anything better than Warhammer: Dawn of War, primarily because the core strategy, unit development, art, and concept was pretty well pre-packaged for the developers, all they had to do was the engine.

For casual strategy that's very mentally engaging, I recommend Blokus. The best pure game design I've seen in a while. Any game who's instruction booklet is half a page, but produces scenarios of the complexity of Chess, is good in my book.