Strategy Games

[Jonathan Blow]

I Rank The Strategy Game Features I Am Looking For As Follows:

1) How you use units matters a lot (interaction with terrain, direction of attack, etc whatever)
2) Mainly involves dealing with a given situation, rather than constructing tons of cities/bases/armies yourself as the game goes along
3) Relatively small number of different unit types
4) How you use units matters a lot (interaction with terrain, direction of attack, etc whatever)

I have played a lot of RTSs and I don't like them too much. I know there are a lot of people here with a lot of experience in turn-based strategy games, etc, and I'm hoping I can pick up some recommendations on games like this. If I can buy them over the internet then so much the better!

I played the first few levels of Advance Wars and that seems to be a little bit like what I am talking about above. But I think I want a game with more nuance than that. (I do plan to pick up the new Advance Wars for the DS though).

[Qenan]

When I read your list I thought of Fire Emblem, but it may be too simple for what you are looking for.

[Dave Long]

Fire Emblem would be better than Advance Wars, and he seems to be digging that. Go for the new Gamecube one or any of the portables.

--Dave

[Troy S Goodfellow]

1) How you use units matters a lot (interaction with terrain, direction of attack, etc whatever)
2) Mainly involves dealing with a given situation, rather than constructing tons of cities/bases/armies yourself as the game goes along
3) Relatively small number of different unit types
4) How you use units matters a lot (interaction with terrain, direction of attack, etc whatever)

If you don't have a lot of interest in the building and are more interested in fighting good tactical combat, conventional RTS may not be your thing.

Have you played any of the old Myth games? The Total War games are good for that sort of stuff, too, but Myth has nice battles with lots of blood.

Troy

[caesarbear]

If it's the standard RTS you don't like, not necessarily the real-time factor, you may want to try Kohan. It seems to fit your checklist.

[Mercutio]

I'd have thought the Combat Mission games would be right up your alley then.

[Jonathan Blow]

My big problem with the traditional RTS is that there isn't all that much strategy to it. You just kind of muddle your way through by building a bunch of crap and clicking fast.

In a way I miss the party combat from Ultima IV because, as simple as it was, it was at least very tactical and a little bit strategic.

Good suggestions so far, thanks, I will try them out.

[Pishtaco]

Airborne Assault? There's still a demo for the first one floating around somewhere.

[BaconTastesGood]

My big problem with the traditional RTS is that there isn't all that much strategy to it. You just kind of muddle your way through by building a bunch of crap and clicking fast.

Dude, you cannot say that in public, because some addled RTS freak will usually start screaming and foaming about how you simply don't understand RTSes, proven that you would make such an absurd statement. I say this from experience, since I despise RTSes and have had said as much in public only to be reviled and hated and ridiculed for "not being good enough to enjoy the game". Or something.

That said, the WC3 expansion pack is supposed to be, or so I've heard, more killing, less building.


In a way I miss the party combat from Ultima IV because, as simple as it was, it was at least very tactical and a little bit strategic.

Fire Emblem might be the ticket for you, but ask Casey about it since he and I both thought it was interesting but in the end it had some really stupid game design elements.

Shit, I probably shouldn't have said that in public either. =)

[DeathMonkey]

Fire Emblem might be the ticket for you, but ask Casey about it since he and I both thought it was interesting but in the end it had some really stupid game design elements.

Ha, I'll take the bait.

Just because you dislike some core design elements, doesn't make them "really stupid".

-Scott-

[BaconTastesGood]

Just because you dislike some core design elements, doesn't make them "really stupid".


That's like saying just because I disagreed with Hitler's domestic policies doesn't make him "evil".*

CUE THE DINOSAURS!

[Jonathan Blow]

I downloaded the Kohan 2 demo, but I quit in the middle of the 2nd tutorial mission because it just seemed like another bad C&C game.

Gonna pick up Fire Emblem tonight though.


Also. There are several areas where Casey's tastes agree with mine, but I don't think this category of games is one of them. I mean, he *loves* crap like Final Fantasy.

[MightyMooquack]

Might I be so bold as to recommend Homeworld 2?

There's relatively little in the way of building (you have a few ships that can build other ships, and a handfull of modules that can be built on each of those; also, the UI allows you to build stuff without looking away from the action), a tech-tree that's more horizontal than vertical, and a reasonably small collection of units that all remain useful throughout the game.

There's essentially no terrain to interact with (beyond where the resources are), but direction of attack does matter. The big ships and ponderous and slow to turn, and tend to be more lightly armored on the top and bottom.

[cliffski]

by the thread title you seem to be classing strategy games as just being RTS games. Plenty of other genres out there. Sim City is a kind of strategy game, then you have your civilisation series etc. I could even pimp Democracy here...

[BaconTastesGood]

Also. There are several areas where Casey's tastes agree with mine, but I don't think this category of games is one of them. I mean, he *loves* crap like Final Fantasy.

Well, I think FF is just a blind spot with him. I remember playing FFX-2 with him and I was like "Uhhh...dude?" the whole time, and he was just convinced it was awesome.

[caesarbear]

I downloaded the Kohan 2 demo, but I quit in the middle of the 2nd tutorial mission because it just seemed like another bad C&C game.
you would be mistaken there. Although I'd actually recommend one of the original Kohans.

[Jonathan Blow]

Well I guess to be more specific, I am looking for combat strategy games. Turn-based or realtime would both be fine, but I am not nearly as familiar with the turn-based games of the past decade or so, hopefully someone can give some good recommendations.

As for Homeworld 2... I liked the original Homeworld tremendously, but I stopped playing Homeworld 2 after a couple of missions. It didn't seem to improve on the original's gameplay, instead dumbing it down, and then stylistically they screwed up all the good things about the original (e.g. the voice acting -- the spaceship pilots in the original were all calm and stoic, like, they fly through the blackness of space all the time and this is just another order you are giving them and they are doing it. The way that was acted/directed was quite inspired. Homeworld 2 replaced it with your standard bullshit peppy C&C "Yes sir, as you command!" type of crap. That by itself is not too big a deal, but the whole game seemed to suffer from the same kind of lameness. And then, the story [or what I saw of it]... ugh.)

I remember liking HOMM2 a lot, but it is just a little too wacky compared to what I am looking for now (what with all the spells and myriad creatures with weird abilities). I haven't tried any of the later installments of the series but haven't exactly heard good things.

[Jonathan Blow]

you would be mistaken there.

Well, hey. All I have to go by is what they were showing me in the Kohan 2 demo.

I just don't want to build a hut and upgrade it to a citadel and build a library and a lumber yard and a stone quarry and a whorehouse and capture a tech outpost and manufacture 3 squadrons of pikemen, 2 squadrons of archers, a squadron of cavalry, and send them around attacking random shit. That's been done to death and they didn't appear to be doing it any better than anyone else. Okay, maybe Kohan 2 is "a good C&C game" by many peoples' accounts, but I don't think C&C is a very good game to begin with, so a "better" version of that is still not up my alley.


... But nevertheless I will try out the original Kohans (hopefully there are demos of them too).

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I'd just like to take a moment to reiterate here all the tired crap about the original Homeworld's "sense of wonder," because it happens to be true. Remember the Garden? Shit yeah. The voice acting in Homeworld was, as Mr. Blow says, perfect. It had a quiet, subdued, serious style that you don't often hear in computer games. Cataclysm was a huge step backwards in voice acting, and Homeworld 2 was not the triumph of the art that the first one was.

[Jasper Phillips]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest Freedom Force 1 and/or 2, although they're not typically classified as "strategy games". They have alot of the tactical tightness you (Jon) seem to be looking for, and are excellent all around games. Plus after you finish there are mod/campaigns that are about as good as the main game (e.g. Strangers).

It's real time, but if you slow the clock down and right-click/pause to give orders it plays out alot like a turn based game. It's not to everyone's taste, and is as much a CRPG as a strategy game, but it's definitely worth taking a look.

I'll also second the recommendation of Myth 1 and 2 (but not 3). That's pretty much the pinnacle of the Real Time Tactical gaming world IMHO.

Other thoughts include Combat Mission, and Jagged Alliance 2.

[caesarbear]

I just don't want to build a hut and upgrade it to a citadel and build a library and a lumber yard and a stone quarry and a whorehouse and capture a tech outpost and manufacture 3 squadrons of pikemen, 2 squadrons of archers, a squadron of cavalry, and send them around attacking random shit. That's been done to death and they didn't appear to be doing it any better than anyone else. Okay, maybe Kohan 2 is "a good C&C game" by many peoples' accounts, but I don't think C&C is a very good game to begin with, so a "better" version of that is still not up my alley.


And I'm telling you that it isn't the same kind of a C&C type RTS, it's much better and puts some of the strategy back into RTS. But if you don't want to believe me that's fine, no problem. I'm just trying to help you out here.

How about Soldiers: Heroes of WW2. Maybe that's what you are looking for, no base building whatsoever and dirt cheap now.

[Dave Long]

Codename: Panzers Phase One or Two are also great RTS games that feature no base building, only on-field strategy. My review for the second game is in CGM this month.

--Dave

[Peter Frazier]

It just shows how fucking barren the ground is for a decent strategy game on the PC, doesn't it? Where has all the turn-based goodness gone? Where have all the serious made-for-beardy-men sort of games gone?

[Hetzer]

It just shows how fucking barren the ground is for a decent strategy game on the PC, doesn't it? Where has all the turn-based goodness gone? Where have all the serious made-for-beardy-men sort of games gone?

Ahem (sarcastic) You Know there was a most recent try to sell a strategic game, its called Master of Orion 3. Since it didnt sold so well (for such a fantastic game :wink: ) old gamers like us seem to stop buying strategie games.


But you know there are a few titles in the pipe: Civ4 & Homm5, perhaps they will revitalise our loved strategy games.

[caesarbear]

It just shows how fucking barren the ground is for a decent strategy game on the PC, doesn't it? Where has all the turn-based goodness gone? Where have all the serious made-for-beardy-men sort of games gone?
You're just not looking.
Supreme Ruler 2010 (http://www.supremeruler2010.com/)
Shattered Union (http://www.take2games.com/index.php?p=games&title=sunion)
Diplomacy (http://www.diplomacy-pcgame.com/)
Galactic Civilizations II (http://www.galciv2.com/)
Space Empires V (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/spaceempiresv/news.html?sid=6129822&mode=previews)
Combat Mission Campaigns (http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/)

and of course most of the games at Matrix Games (http://www.matrixgames.com/) or Shrapnel Games (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/)

[Jasper Phillips]

It just shows how fucking barren the ground is for a decent strategy game on the PC, doesn't it? Where has all the turn-based goodness gone? Where have all the serious made-for-beardy-men sort of games gone?
There are more such games now than I recall there ever being.

[slantz]

I recommend downloading the demo for Land of Legends from http://www.shrapnelgames.com/.

The game has relatively few units, each square matters, and terrain matters a lot too. It sounds like what you're asking for from what I can tell.

[Anders Hallin]

Diplomacy seems to have gotten middling reviews from Swedish newspapers. Which either indicate that Paradox's honeymoon as a Swedish game developer is over, or that it bites.

[Samurai]

Diplomacy seems to have gotten middling reviews from Swedish newspapers. Which either indicate that Paradox's honeymoon as a Swedish game developer is over, or that it bites.

Diplomacy just seemed like such an odd choice for Paradox to develop. They go from the entertaining and complex Hearts of Iron 2, with a full tech tree, diplomatic model, research, and every country in the world modeled. Now we get... a rehash of a board game that I'm supposed to pay 40 bucks for.

Meh.

[Peter Frazier]

You're just not looking.
Supreme Ruler 2010 (http://www.supremeruler2010.com/)
Shattered Union (http://www.take2games.com/index.php?p=games&title=sunion)
Diplomacy (http://www.diplomacy-pcgame.com/)
Galactic Civilizations II (http://www.galciv2.com/)
Space Empires V (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/spaceempiresv/news.html?sid=6129822&mode=previews)
Combat Mission Campaigns (http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/)

and of course most of the games at Matrix Games (http://www.matrixgames.com/) or Shrapnel Games (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/)
Supreme Ruler isn't turn-based. (And it's a mess).
Shattered Union isn't out and has pink tanks. Serious beardy-men don't push pink tanks around their maps. And it aint out.
Diplomacy isn't a serious game.
GalCiv 2 aint out.
SEV aint out.
CMC aint out.

Galciv2 and SEV are definitely on my radar.
I'm tempted to loook at LoL but Wesnoth made me aware that cutesie anime-inspired games with puzzle-like solutions aren't my thing. Especially when things you should have done two scenarios ago come back to bite you on your arse.

I'm just feeling that the days of games being developed to suit my tastes are over. Note that my tastes are different from Jonathon's- it looks like he's pining for a Panzer General renaissance.

[Jaysun]

Jagged Alliance 2.

[caesarbear]

GalCiv 2 aint out.
SEV aint out.
CMC aint out.

oh, my bad, you were looking for instant gratification, not a reassurance that the ground for good strategy is not barren.


I'm just feeling that the days of games being developed to suit my tastes are over. Note that my tastes are different from Jonathon's- it looks like he's pining for a Panzer General renaissance.
Well tell us what your tastes are more specifically and maybe we can find something that you haven't played.

[Rob Beschizza]

Board game Diplomacy is Risk for grown-ups.

All the computer versions have been crap. It's very easy indeed to make a computer game that perfectly represents the board game. But more than any game I can think of it requires humans to play.

The game is designed to create long stalemate lines that would remain so forever if everyone played rationally - there are no random dice rolls to disturb the simple and even balance of forces. The problem is that every player is weak: you have to cooperate with your neighborts to maintain the stalemate lines.

So the game's satisfaction is in schadenfreud, betrayal and negotiation. Playing it literally involves trying to secretly pass notes; pre-game agreements; poker faces; lying to your friends, and so on.

[Peter Frazier]

oh, my bad, you were looking for instant gratification, not a reassurance that the ground for good strategy is not barren.

Very snide. How about we talk about games that have been released instead of things we know little of.

As for my tastes, they're similar enough to Jonathon's except I don't mind strategic level as opposed to tactical/operational level games. I also like having a pile of unit types (but not unit numbers) so that the puzzle element is less dependant on specific unit builds and actions.

The one thing that I really love but can't define adequately is a game that feels like it is creating a narrative or history as it's played. Like when you take a break in the later stages of the game and remember that fight you had to put up to stop the enemy at that pass in the beginning, or the one stage of the game that was the El Alamein moment where it became the beginning of the end for the enemy. In theory, all games have these stages but only some have given me that moment. Like the first Warlords game, Alpha Centauri, MOOs 1+2 etc.

[caesarbear]

Very snide.
true, but you did make a very broad and damning statement without anything to back it up.


The one thing that I really love but can't define adequately is a game that feels like it is creating a narrative or history as it's played.
I know exactly what you mean. Yet I think this has a lot to do with personal taste as well as the game. For me, one of the more recent games to do that is Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic (http://www.triumphstudios.com/shadowmagic/index.php). It already has a lot of story telling built into the official campaign, although with Trimuph's odd sense of humor through out. Still, it lends itself to a narrative, possibly due to varied feel of the terrain. It generates random scenarios well and there is a sizable scenario and mod community.

An old title you may not have played is Conquest of the New World (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/conquest-of-the-new-world-deluxe-edition). Not without it's faults, but it has a lot of unique character and has a excellent representational combat system. It will require DOSBox (http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1) to run now.

Another odd title I think has a lot of narrative potential is Port Royale (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/portroyale/). It's not turnbased, nor is it a wargame. It's kind of a strategic level Pirates! with a robust economic model. And while I'm outside turnbased, I'll nod to RT2 as well. It's a "financial" narrative rather than conquest, but any game that lets you stop building your empire, sell off controlling interest for a small fortune and then start building a new empire to compete with your old one, can really have a history.

***

I wish they would make another Master of Magic or Imperialism but In terms of traditional TBS war there isn't much that is hot and just released, but I'm hopeful for Shattered Union. I don't no why some are starting an uproar about the graphics. I'm perfectly comfortable with my sexuality so the pink tanks don't scare me. For a TBS the graphics look fine. If I wanted Act of War graphics, I'd look at a mainstream RTS.

Also, the greater number of real-time games isn't that troubling. As long a detail and depth are there, it can still be great hardcore strategy. Look at EU2 or HoI2. Plus I find a lot of strategy in some of the lesser known RTS titles, like Seven Kingdoms or Kohan.