NationStates Jolt Archive

When (And if) you play strategy games, which do you prefer? I personally prefer RTS games because in most TBS games you can't retreat when you finally realize that you're screwed:p.

Real time! Also, in b4 poll.

Mostly RTS, but there are some TBS classics. Hybrids, like the X-COM series, which was superb for the first 2, and Quite Good for the others, often turn out well, but are rare.

I don't prefer either, but I've noticed its a lot harder to make a good TBS game than an RTS.

ah i remember the old Shogun total war games, they were brilliant they honestly were, the little cardboard cut-outs fighting it out, lol very much.
Fav is Total war games, i like to control my peoples and destroy others, such a great stress reliever.

I used to be a RTS fan, back when I sucked and just played campaigns. After I started playing multiplayer and to win, I stopped having fun after a while. I think my problem was that all the strategy went out of it, and it became predetermined build orders+multitasking, so the only ones I still play are World in Conflict and M2TW. I've never really played TBS's except for the Total War campaign, what good ones are there?

ah i remember the old Shogun total war games, they were brilliant they honestly were, the little cardboard cut-outs fighting it out, lol very much.
Fav is Total war games, i like to control my peoples and destroy others, such a great stress reliever.

Shogun was the best, definitley.

I usually end up liking TBS's more. RTS's are more fun initially, but if you start playing competitively it sucks the entertainment out of it.

I've never really played TBS's except for the Total War campaign, what good ones are there?
Well there's the Civilisation series, they're good but kind of take ages to finish.

Jagged Alliance 2 is pretty great. Indeed, if you don't mind shit graphics, then the whole series (apart from JA1 : Deadly Games, which was dull) is pretty damned fine.

X-COM : UFO Defence and X-COM : Terror From The Deep have terrible graphics, but are superb in every way, and easy to obtain. The main problem you'll have is the incredible difficulty of TFTD, other than that, it's all gravy.

Well there's the Civilisation series, they're good but kind of take ages to finish.

Jagged Alliance 2 is pretty great. Indeed, if you don't mind shit graphics, then the whole series (apart from JA1 : Deadly Games, which was dull) is pretty damned fine.

X-COM : UFO Defence and X-COM : Terror From The Deep have terrible graphics, but are superb in every way, and easy to obtain. The main problem you'll have is the incredible difficulty of TFTD, other than that, it's all gravy.

Thanks

Shogun was the best, definitley.
Lies and foreign propaganda. Its limited unit count made it kind of tedious after a bit.

This thread is in code. :(

This thread is in code. :(

RTS=Real time strategy.
TBS=Turn based strategy.
not sure about the rest, just say your favourite games and no-one will notice, i never really knew about the code stuff either, i just play the games and oh damn it i should really revise now.

Meh.

I like 'em both the same. WiC, Civ series since the first one, WC since the first one,... Dune II, the grand daddy of all RTS, MoO I-II (I understand that 3 is bad?), AoE (II, not I, not III), CnC series, Fantasy/Panzer General (old SSI game), X-COM series and it's lesser derivatives, SRW (Hahahaha anime supa roboto), HOMM 1-5 (I even played King's Bounty), WH40K Dawn of War (something about religious mania vs plain 'ol mania intrigues me), Homeworld (sort of an RTS, right?), Dungeon Master (I likey being villain).

Depends on my general mood, really.

TBS tends to be more actually strategic. RTS tends to be more click like an over caffeinated monkey on speed.

Lies and foreign propaganda. Its limited unit count made it kind of tedious after a bit.

pah. Minor quibbles. Shougun was the only game that could make me get up, sit at my computer, and only rise again when the day was out and sleep fell upon me.

Shogun was the best, definitley.

Erm, Rome?

Erm, Rome?

Rome was where they intoduced the new army movement system. Although that had huge advantages, and may have been the better system, it lacked much of the simple elegance of the province system.

I've never really played TBS's except for the Total War campaign, what good ones are there?
Battle for Wesnoth is my favourite strategy game. The battles in the Fallout series which where awesome games at their time was a shallow kind of TBS. The Worms series and clones like Wormux are great fun with all the weird weapons but I'm not sure if those can be called TBS even though you do take turns to command your worms. Many board cames like Chess and Risk as well as card and trading card games are also kinda TBS in a way.

Rome was where they intoduced the new army movement system. Although that had huge advantages, and may have been the better system, it lacked much of the simple elegance of the province system.

True, but with Shogun once you passed the halfway mark and knocked out all but maybe 2 other clans - it got boring and over too quickly. But, meh, different horses and all that. :)

True, but with Shogun once you passed the halfway mark and knocked out all but maybe 2 other clans - it got boring and over too quickly. But, meh, different horses and all that. :)

keep in mind that I was really young when playing Shogun, which may have something to do with it's strong association in my mind. It was also the first video game I beat.

Turn based sucks.

RTS=Real time strategy.
TBS=Team based shooters.

TBS = Turn Based Strategy :p

like the Civilization series of games..

keep in mind that I was really young when playing Shogun, which may have something to do with it's strong association in my mind. It was also the first video game I beat.
Damn, that makes me feel old.

*puffs on pipe*

I remember when games were all on tapes, and floppy discs were actually floppy. And we completed our games before being sent down the pit at 5:00 in the morning, digging coal out with our teeth...

TBS tends to be more actually strategic. RTS tends to be more click like an over caffeinated monkey on speed.

Although I prefer Turn-based, I consider Ground Control 1 to be an exception to this rule, specially because it's focused on small units tactics rather than battalion-level strategy where there is an immense importance of taking advantage of terrain and early reconaissance, and you can't just keep spamming more and more units as cannon fodder. In GC1 once you lost a squad or unit, it's lost forever for the entire mission and if you lose an entire squad, it's lost forever for the rest of the campaign.

Turn Based Strategy, uber alles
Uber alles in der Welt...

jk, I'm not a nazi. But TBS is still the best.

RTS isn't really very good for pure strategy. Have you ever tried coordinating assaults in Age of Empires? Fucking impossible.

Damn, that makes me feel old.

*puffs on pipe*

I remember when games were all on tapes, and floppy discs were actually floppy. And we completed our games before being sent down the pit at 5:00 in the morning, digging coal out with our teeth...

Floppies? 5 1/4 inch ones? Those things gathers mold quicker than a block of cheese. I (well, my dad) used to own ... this thing,... that looked like a PC that uses both floppies and,... guess what,... tapes. Yes, magnetic tapes, cassette tapes to store data. I think it was an Acorn... don't remember much, cept that it allowed me to play Space Invaders.

When (And if) you play strategy games, which do you prefer? I personally prefer RTS games because in most TBS games you can't retreat when you finally realize that you're screwed:p.

Both are valid, solid game genres. I typically tend to prefer TBS or partial TBS, since I like to think things out.

With RTS I tend to dawdle a lot building up my forces into a huge army or what have you, which usually gets me yelled at online(Or it used to, anyway. I don't know anymore since I haven't played any game online for a year now. And the last game I played was F.E.A.R.'s free multiplayer.)

RTS isn't really very good for pure strategy. Have you ever tried coordinating assaults in Age of Empires? Fucking impossible
Age of Empires wasn't all that great. Tzar the burden of the crown on the other hand, is probably my favorite RTS game of all time. It's not too heavy on tactics, but micromanagment(Which some people don't like). Each unit through battles earn levels, like heroes in other games, and can become hero units. But if you're looking for a game with tactics, try very hard on Rome: Total war custom battle. I got my butt handed to me on a golden platter...

Turn Based Strategy, uber alles
Uber alles in der Welt...

jk, I'm not a nazi. But TBS is still the best.

RTS isn't really very good for pure strategy. Have you ever tried coordinating assaults in Age of Empires? Fucking impossible.

Tell me about it, i played it, and as long as you let the trebuchets hammer away and sit back you were okay, as soon as your men decided it was a jolly good idea to go and chase one man, then all hell broke loose when your men ran in front of a castle and got shot to hell. Which effectively meant you had to watch your men, and those damn annoying chases of one man running after the other, and how the archer can't use close combat because all he knows to do is aim and shoot. A valuable button i found was the pause button, then you could stop your mens re-enactments of the 10th light brigade charge, and actually get them to do rational things like charge large groups of men.
A problem with turn based strategy i found was you have to watch everything to make an effective attack force, where in Rome i got really good at making a conveyor belt system of troops moving up to crush the enemy, problem was when some arse felt like attacking me at my rear for no reason, i had to split my forces. Which meant a sort of repitition of tactics used, build up city garrisons and walls, and then attack with brilliant troops, while your enemy had mostly peasants.
One good thing about Rome was the cavalry were kick-ass which is how it should be, in Medieval Total War 2 the cavalry would treat charges as something to go slowly into, and didn't really have much power, and in animation battles against the PC they used the same tactics over and over, sit back while you're hammering them with your archers.

One irritation i had with Medieval total war (not sure if anyone else had this) was half my population would rebel when i got too big as a power(say i took about a third of the map), and i ended up fighting the enemy as much as my own people (even though the % of loyalty in those rebelling provinces was about 200% very confusing), often the biggest battles were civil wars which was cool but got annoying when every turn the peasants would rebel in even greater numbers than the last year even when i wooped their last army with my increasingly perfect army.

Well I'm usually quite fond of the turn-based tactical strategy provided by games like Advance Wars and Fire Emblem. I'm also really quite a fan of Heroes III/IV.

I do like RTS games as well though. Particularly the Warhammer 40K Dawn of War series. A good RTS has to let you pause and take actions, though, otherwise the computer just beats you hands down through it's multitasking.

In general, I prefer slower RTS games like Age of Empires or Rise of Nations. I have little experience with multiplayer.

Floppies? 5 1/4 inch ones?
Yup.

Yes, magnetic tapes, cassette tapes to store data. I think it was an Acorn... don't remember much, cept that it allowed me to play Space Invaders.
One of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/ElectronMagazineAd.jpg) bad boys?

Well I'm usually quite fond of the turn-based tactical strategy provided by games like Advance Wars and Fire Emblem. I'm also really quite a fan of Heroes III/IV.

I do like RTS games as well though. Particularly the Warhammer 40K Dawn of War series.

I played that too! i got it, Warhammer 40k Dawn of War, and Winter assualt. They are very good RTS games, good graphical detail and you don't need a monster of a computer to run them.
I'd like to see them add some of the other races though, and maybe the chance to field more men, but other than that i liked it, as it tries to avoid the old build and rush tactics early in the game, although this can happen it's not too often.
I usually find after i have a large force there's a titanic battle between the two largest players in one case over and over where i went through about 4 baneblades, it was epic, i like the randomness of how powerful your enemy is going to be.

I love strategy games, but for the most part my preference lies with TBS or a combination of TBS and RTS. All-Time Favorite series of games are;

-Civilization: Drooling over the prospect of it being on the Wii and/or DS (http://www.gamespot.com/wii/strategy/sidmeierscivilizationrevolution/index.html?tag=result;title;1)
-Total War Series: By the way, for those of you who like the Rome one, check out this mod for it. (http://www.europabarbarorum.org/ebcomwww/)
-Europa Universalis: For all my Age Of Explorationt-to-Napoleonic Era gaming needs.(http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/europauniversalisiii/index.html?tag=result;title;0)
Can't wait for the Rome one: (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/europauniversalisrome/index.html?tag=result;title;2)

Other series I like;
-Age of Empires
-Empire Earth

I'm not into RTS games as much as TBS because I like having some time to think before making a move, collecting resources can get so very boring/annoying, and there is just something so satisfying for me to see a province on a map just change color and becoming mine (Total War and Europa Universalis). I love the Civilization series, though, because in that game I don't have to worry so much about military and can instead focus on building up my culture and economy. However, that does't make me a wimp, as it gives me an advantage in military technology. Still have fond memories of wiping out a medieval age Egypt using tanks and modern infantry while playing as India (ruler was Gandhi.lol).

I prefer TBS, it's more relaxed and it's more strategic. Although a nice RTS can be nice too.

Yup.


One of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/ElectronMagazineAd.jpg) bad boys?

Yea, that one. You even got the right model.

Tell me about it, i played it, and as long as you let the trebuchets hammer away and sit back you were okay, as soon as your men decided it was a jolly good idea to go and chase one man, then all hell broke loose when your men ran in front of a castle and got shot to hell. Which effectively meant you had to watch your men, and those damn annoying chases of one man running after the other, and how the archer can't use close combat because all he knows to do is aim and shoot. A valuable button i found was the pause button, then you could stop your mens re-enactments of the 10th light brigade charge, and actually get them to do rational things like charge large groups of men.
A problem with turn based strategy i found was you have to watch everything to make an effective attack force, where in Rome i got really good at making a conveyor belt system of troops moving up to crush the enemy, problem was when some arse felt like attacking me at my rear for no reason, i had to split my forces. Which meant a sort of repitition of tactics used, build up city garrisons and walls, and then attack with brilliant troops, while your enemy had mostly peasants.
One good thing about Rome was the cavalry were kick-ass which is how it should be, in Medieval Total War 2 the cavalry would treat charges as something to go slowly into, and didn't really have much power, and in animation battles against the PC they used the same tactics over and over, sit back while you're hammering them with your archers.

One irritation i had with Medieval total war (not sure if anyone else had this) was half my population would rebel when i got too big as a power(say i took about a third of the map), and i ended up fighting the enemy as much as my own people (even though the % of loyalty in those rebelling provinces was about 200% very confusing), often the biggest battles were civil wars which was cool but got annoying when every turn the peasants would rebel in even greater numbers than the last year even when i wooped their last army with my increasingly perfect army.

Hmm, the mass unrest in the original Medieval Total War wasn't a huge problem. True, it was very annoying but you largely just needed to temporarily lower taxes, increase garrisons and send out priests to keep everyone sticking to the main religion. No, the biggest problem I had was that the game had a very frustrating in-built equaliser: After you conquered roughly 1/2 the map, pretty much every other nation on the map, regardless of allegiance and affiliation, would attack you and only you in order to keep things equal. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this was that after you lost about 5-6 provinces, the country would immediately plunge into civil war and thus, you'd be helpless while your country split in two whilst every nation in the world kicked you while you were down. VERY ANNOYING.

Anyway, I guess I tend to lean to RTS's more, though I have to admit, Civ is one of the best games I've played. That, and the RTS/TBS hybrid, the Total War Series is bloody brill'.

RTS!!

I like, Knights of Honor (from the maker of Tzar, puff!), AoE, RoN, FoW, CoH, et ceteria...

Hmm, the mass unrest in the original Medieval Total War wasn't a huge problem. True, it was very annoying but you largely just needed to temporarily lower taxes, increase garrisons and send out priests to keep everyone sticking to the main religion. No, the biggest problem I had was that the game had a very frustrating in-built equaliser: After you conquered roughly 1/2 the map, pretty much every other nation on the map, regardless of allegiance and affiliation, would attack you and only you in order to keep things equal. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this was that after you lost about 5-6 provinces, the country would immediately plunge into civil war and thus, you'd be helpless while your country split in two whilst every nation in the world kicked you while you were down. VERY ANNOYING.

Anyway, I guess I tend to lean to RTS's more, though I have to admit, Civ is one of the best games I've played. That, and the RTS/TBS hybrid, the Total War Series is bloody brill'.

What I also found annoying were the nations you had killed reappearing, if it was early in the game they often had very hight tech armies while I had still mainly spearmen :(

I'd have to say I'm somewhere in the middle; the ideal game for me would be one where all action happens in real-time, but due to various real-world factors such as distance, logistics weather, terrain, politics, and other variables it progresses at a rate slow enough for me to have some time for long-term tactics.

Advances in technology and infrastructure would cut down on the amount of time and difficulty involved with large-scale troop movements, enhancing the value that these factors play in combat, which is quite often understated (need I remind anyone of the tank-destroying spearmen in Civilization 3?). It would mirror similar trends in the real world, where a force capable of moving quickly or leveraging its military edge would be able to win, but could also be thwarted by an enemy better capable of managing its resources and taking advantage of its territory.

In other words, I want something that falls between the backyard-scale battles of many RTS games and the mysterious five-year F-16 flights over the Americas of the TBS series. One where there's enough time to look at the big picture, but not so much that you can have an unrealistic amount of time to plan without consequences.

Real Time strategy games tend to divert from actual strategy, and used watered down 'tactics'.

It becomes especially degenerate when you can use infinite build queues, because in too many cases you can simply crank out a pretty diverse mix of units and send them to a spawn point, replacing them as needed. The only real "strategy" is making sure you don't run out of resources, and in more than a few games this isn't even a problem (especially when the resource can be produced at a constant, endless rate without having to secure new sources).

I'd like to see one where, say, oil platforms have a finite resource base that can be expanded through investment of other resources to discover new reserves, but at an increasing cost which produces realistic diminishing returns over time. This would also work in TBS games, especially when a person lucky enough to have access to critical resources can sit on them and turtle indefinitely while others can be stuck in the Middle Ages for lack of a key resource (such as coal or iron, and oil in Civ).

When (And if) you play strategy games, which do you prefer? I personally prefer RTS games because in most TBS games you can't retreat when you finally realize that you're screwed:p.

Turn-Based Strategy.

Real Time strategy games tend to divert from actual strategy, and used watered down 'tactics'.

Much like traditional RPGs versus action RPGs like Fable.

Age of Wonders
Alpha Centauri
Civ series
Europa Universalis 2
Galactic Civilizations 1
Heroes of might and magic series
Master of Orion series
Starknights

(Also good TB games )
Anachronox
Arcanum of steamworks and magick obscura
Fallout 1&2
Imperium Galactica 2

So, eh, TBS. Most definitely.
Nothing wrong with a little RTS from time to time.
But not for its strategic gameplay, thats for sure.

I'm something of a Total War nut, I've got them all except the Alexander expansion. MTW was the one I liked the most, it was about the only game I played for about two years, before RTW came out. And at the time it was so insanely pretty that I got hooked. The main thing I liked about Rome though, was its sheer modability. I know next to nothing about coding, but even I have been able to unlock all factions, change faction colours so all three of the Roman factions appeared in red on the zoomed out campaign map, gave Carthage archers (they didn't have any for some reason), made the Egyptian faction lose their Moses era chariots and get Greek looking generals instead of a Ramases II lookalike. I also managed to edit buildings to make legionary 1st cohorts recruitable, Urban Cohorts (Roman faction's most powerful infantry) available to recruit only in Rome and high level military structures provide law bonuses.

I'm looking forward to Empire: Total War at the moment. Muskets ftw. :p

I also like Dawn of War, I've got all three now. Did you know there's a new expansion coming out soon? It adds the Dark Eldar (spiky torture elves) and the Sisters of Battle (Imperial warrior nuns. I know. I was expecting Tyrannids too.)

Oh, and I recently got Company of Heroes and Opposing Fronts. I'm currently enjoying the only WWII RTS I know of that lets me play the British!

I'm something of a Total War nut, I've got them all except the Alexander expansion
You didn't miss anything. It was utter shit, due to being seriously rushed. The fact that it has... 4 factions, only one of which is playable just takes the cake tbqh.

Eugh.
Oh, and I recently got Company of Heroes and Opposing Fronts. I'm currently enjoying the only WWII RTS I know of that lets me play the British!
Try Soldiers : Heroes of World War II (not its sequel, Faces of War, which was shite), that has the British and is really quite good.

Very small scale, mind. Think Commandoes, but faster-paced, and with the ability to control one of your soldiers personally, whilst performing extremely A-Team-esque feats of heroism (although the people you're fighting against aren't protected by bulletproof cardboard boxes, nor by indestructable sedans).

You didn't miss anything. It was utter shit, due to being seriously rushed. The fact that it has... 4 factions, only one of which is playable just takes the cake tbqh.

Eugh.


Heh, yeah. Plus to buy it on disk would have cost me £9, and they only released it in one store chain, so they could charge what they liked. As far as I know, its only saving grace is that Brian Blessed does some voiceover work in it! ^_^

Thanks for the tip on the Soldiers game, how old is it?

Heh, yeah. Plus to buy it on disk would have cost me £9, and they only released it in one store chain, so they could charge what they liked. As far as I know, its only saving grace is that Brian Blessed does some voiceover work in it! ^_^
Aye, for like 5 seconds he does.
Thanks for the tip on the Soldiers game, how old is it?
You can find it pretty easily in HMV and GAME on the Sold Out label for a fiver. Well worth having.

I love RTS, and I was hooked by WarCraft (the original). But as I progressed through better computers and online gaming experiences, I began to discover that the majority of RTS online players could wipe the floor with me because I didn't put a premium on multitasking and speed. I've always favored the slow-and-steady approach against computer AI. The thirteen-year-old Korean kid mocking me in the chat window is usually not impressed and lets me know in no uncertain terms (LOL u suk...and so forth).

I am therefore drawn to the more deliberate and thought-out nature of TBS. I still play RTS games, but not as much. I'm the same way with first-person shooters in online multiplayer. I am a regular at the sniping/camping servers in Unreal Tournament 2004, and I will be in UT3 when I get that. I just don't twitch or multitask well.

So cheers to all you guys who can manage resources and units from three bases at a time. I'll be the guy you crush handily, but whose units were teched-up and in perfect formation. I guess that's just how I roll.

You can find it pretty easily in HMV and GAME on the Sold Out label for a fiver. Well worth having.
Very much so.

It's a tricky game at times, though that's not a bad thing by any means.

The Total War games are ftw.

I think I prefer TBS games like Civ and Total War - I know its a hybrid but still. Mainly because you get time to think - My sole strategy for stuff like C&C or AOE was to turtle like buggery until I had an unstoppable army. Needless to say, this doesn't work against the harder AI levels or human players.

Defcon is something I've been playing a lot of, and its a very minimalist RTS - no resource juggling - everyone starts off with the same amount of units so there is just pure strategy. Very interesting.

True, but with Shogun once you passed the halfway mark and knocked out all but maybe 2 other clans - it got boring and over too quickly. But, meh, different horses and all that. :)

I had two thirds one time, clearly was destroying everything.

My Daimyo fell ill and died, no heirs, and I lost.

It sucked.

HOMM 3 Anyone? (four sucked, haven't played five, two was ok, but not balanced at all, one is old as the hills, so no comment).

Also, there was a Scottish, Braveheart-style game that was very similar to the Total War series, I recall a friend playing it, does anyone happen to know the name of it?

EDIT: Nevermind... the game is called Braveheart, and taken directly form the movie, lol.

I had two thirds one time, clearly was destroying everything.

My Daimyo fell ill and died, no heirs, and I lost.

It sucked.



Ouch. My 100-something star daimyo with no heirs was cornered in a province and defeated, then commited seppuku. Although their was the time I made an alliance with the Poweful Hoda, then killed their daimyo and all heirs with a geisha, causing all of their holdings to be donated to me, and putting me in control of over half the map. Let me telly you, the Takeda regretted betraying their alliance with me.

Any game with LG in it wins. Hands down.

I'm a real-time-strategy kind of guy, though I do appreciate the chess-like strategy of turn-based strategy. I'm just better at thinking on the run than I am at really making decisions that take time. The more time I spend thinking, the more I mess up and the more time I have to make a move, the more likely I am to take my time.

Turn-based. I'm not particularly quick.

HOMM 3 was awesome.

Indeed!

IV and V were pretty awful though.

HOMM 3 Anyone? (four sucked, haven't played five, two was ok, but not balanced at all, one is old as the hills, so no comment).

HOMM 3 was awesome. I liked the Armageddon's Blade expansion, but the Conflux was so obviously overpowered initially that they had to fix it with a patch.

Indeed!

IV and V were pretty awful though.

I couldn't even get V to work...

I love RTS, and I was hooked by WarCraft (the original). But as I progressed through better computers and online gaming experiences, I began to discover that the majority of RTS online players could wipe the floor with me because I didn't put a premium on multitasking and speed. I've always favored the slow-and-steady approach against computer AI. The thirteen-year-old Korean kid mocking me in the chat window is usually not impressed and lets me know in no uncertain terms (LOL u suk...and so forth).

I am therefore drawn to the more deliberate and thought-out nature of TBS. I still play RTS games, but not as much. I'm the same way with first-person shooters in online multiplayer. I am a regular at the sniping/camping servers in Unreal Tournament 2004, and I will be in UT3 when I get that. I just don't twitch or multitask well.

So cheers to all you guys who can manage resources and units from three bases at a time. I'll be the guy you crush handily, but whose units were teched-up and in perfect formation. I guess that's just how I roll.

I think I prefer TBS games like Civ and Total War - I know its a hybrid but still. Mainly because you get time to think - My sole strategy for stuff like C&C or AOE was to turtle like buggery until I had an unstoppable army. Needless to say, this doesn't work against the harder AI levels or human players.

Defcon is something I've been playing a lot of, and its a very minimalist RTS - no resource juggling - everyone starts off with the same amount of units so there is just pure strategy. Very interesting.

I hear that.

But I tend to be even worse at TBS (Civ, anyway) so I still prefer RTS.

Turn based sucks.

I am guessing you have never played this: http://www.gmtgames.com/p-43-conquest-of-paradise.aspx

Indeed!

IV and V were pretty awful though.
I wouldn't describe them as "pretty awful", more "sub-par for the series".

Any of you guys play the vaguely similar Etherlords (2)?