Best non-squad (fantasy) TBS games?

[Jason]

Last I heard, the Matrix website is your best bet to get it (straight from the developers mouth) unfortunately. But you know, ordering online ain't that much of a problem, and you're hardly taking any risk anyway.

That would be Shrapnel, not Matrix. If credit cards are the issue for Ryuken, they also take Paypal. Another option is NWS. There's a European-based company selling it as well but I don't recall the name.

 

[Ryuken]

Ruyken, how does warlods *play* actually? I never tried any of the games in the series. I'd like to

Combat is passive, you're always producing units, conquering cities, and exploring the map for loot, quests, lairs etc.. Simplistic compared to AoW perhaps but I enjoyed it.

Thx for the link baby arm. There must be a place in Belgium where these things get imported/bought and resold anyway I guess.

 

[JarlFrank]

Try Battle of Wesnoth
http://www.wesnoth.org/
Great fun, especially in Multiplayer.

 

[jefklak]

The freakin' Warlords III demo refuses to run here on winXP.
Even with the tricks google gives me. Fuck it.

Installed HoMMIII - played for 30 minutes, so far indeed IV doesn't do justice at all, looks like most of it came directly from III minus the hex square battle thing which I kind of (no, really) like - with advanced tactics trait or so. Yay.

 

[mondblut]

Dominions 3 - Doesn't this fit in the Europa Universals / Alpha Centauri / Civilization / ... category instead of disciples / HoMM / etc?

More like Stars!/VGA Planets category actually, but in fantasy setting. THE most massive fantasy strategy title ever, that's for sure.

Oh, and HOMMs are teh oblivions of TBS genre. -
Care to elaborate?

Fact is, if a genre is generally ignored and avoided by general populace, yet a certain representative of it is universally praised and acclaimed, chances are something with this representative is very very wrong. For it is praised and acclaimed not because it belongs to said genre, but rather despite it. Which, in turn, generally means that as a game of said genre, it fucking sucks.

Teh pretti grafix and very little depth. "Take over the map and go to next scenario penniless and alone again" type campaigns targeted at RTS kids with too short an attention span to play a single map over 4 hours (while this stupid concept is pretty much mainstream nowadays, and has been around for ages, it was HOMM and no one else that made it so prevalent in TBS). Extremely artificial combat more suited for MTG or some "expanded fantasy chess 3000" than any kind of tactical warfare simulation. Silly economics. Annoying "cute light-hearted ESRB-rated-everyone" fantasy (which got gradually replaced with iron-pole-in-thy-arse dead-serious pretentiousness around HOMM3, but since nothing except writing and drawing style really changed, the outcome was even worse). To sum it up, thoroughly designed from top to bottom for "casual gamers". Sales illustrate.

I haven't seen HOMM5, but since no cry of outrage from the mass army of fans is audible, Nival probably did a fine job maintaining the series' selling points. That is, keeping it "casual".

What do people think about Lords of Magic? In particular, the Special Edition, which apparently actually worked.

I played the original edition back in the time. Strategy part was fine, but RT combat was awful, one of the worst in the genre ever. That couldn't likely change in SE, did it? Anyway, I downloaded the SE a while ago in good memory, but haven't give it a try yet.

 

[Dmitron]

Fact is, if a genre is generally ignored and avoided by general populace, yet a certain representative of it is universally praised and acclaimed, chances are something with this representative is very very wrong.

Elitism? Provide examples.. (excluding Oblivion).

Obviously there are underrated games in the less popular genres that haven't received the attention they deserve - does this mean that games that have received attention are automatically bad?

 

[Top Hat]

"Take over the map and go to next scenario penniless and alone again" type campaigns targeted at RTS kids with too short an attention span to play a single map over 4 hours

This is not exactly true - in Heroes 2 campaign for completing certain maps you were rewarded with "creature alliances" (wandering creatures of that kind would join your cause), the Ultimate Crown artifact or a carry-over army.

In Heroes 3 and 4 the heroes in the campaign carried over, usually including their spells at least.

Extremely artificial combat more suited for MTG or some expanded fantasy chess 3000" than any kind of tactical warfare simulation.

I don't really think it was meant to have ever been a tactical warfare simulation. It was essentially a chess-like game with a bunch of shiny treasures and simple resource management thrown in.

Chess is a game of strategy too, or am I missing something.

Silly economics.

I agree, but you haven't really explained why you think it's silly. Also, in all your anti-Heroes rambling you forgot to mention one of the most important blunders in the game - diplomacy, or a lack thereof. It's horribly irritating being forced to be allied to a computer player who follows your army around stealing all the resources behind you while you do all the fighting.

Annoying "cute light-hearted ESRB-rated-everyone" fantasy

Not everything has to be OMG emo wrist-slitting dark gothic seriousness. If you couldn't tell from the screen shots on the box or on the Internet that that was their style, and you knew you wouldn't like that style, why the fuck buy it?

To sum it up, thoroughly designed from top to bottom for "casual gamers". Sales illustrate.

Well, it was made by the same people who made Might and Magic, which weren't exactly Mr. Serious in terms of RPGs. So what were you expecting?

 

[mondblut]

Elitism? Provide examples.. (excluding Oblivion).

Elitism is not a cause. Elitism is a consequence.

Eye of the Beholder. Diablo. Comanche. First point-and-click adventures. Myst. Each and every of these games at their time enjoyed an "attraction of new fans", whereas most genuine fans of RPG, simulation, adventure genres rejected them for dumbing down the genre. And had a good reason for it.

Games in this aspect are no different from music, literature, cinema and pretty much every other cultural phenomena.

Obviously there are underrated games in the less popular genres that haven't received the attention they deserve - does this mean that games that have received attention are automatically bad?

If said attention generally comes outside of the presumed target auditory - yes, definitely.

And pardon me, I never said they are "automatically bad games". They are automatically bad TBS'es, RPGs, adventures and so on. Just because Diablo is a joke of an RPG, it doesn't mean it's a bad game - it just shouldn't have ever been marketed as an RPG.

 

[mondblut]

This is not exactly true - in Heroes 2 campaign for completing certain maps you were rewarded with "creature alliances" (wandering creatures of that kind would join your cause), the Ultimate Crown artifact or a carry-over army. In Heroes 3 and 4 the heroes in the campaign carried over, usually including their spells at least.

I know. Where did those heroes lost 50 bone dragons, 80 vampire lords and 25 archfiends though? Along with about 175000 gold?

"Campaigns" = ovens. Now.

I don't really think it was meant to have ever been a tactical warfare simulation. It was essentially a chess-like game with a bunch of shiny treasures and simple resource management thrown in.

Absolutely. Problem is, when I play a strategy game, I expect it to be based on rules, not on exceptions.

Chess is a game of strategy too, or am I missing something.

It's mostly a logic game with elements of strategic planning. An interactive puzzle for two.

Curious thing though, a typical casual gamer would put chess sims on "strategy" shelf, while a hardcore shelves them as puzzle/logic/traditional. Speaks a bit about primary HOMM target auditory as well.

I agree, but you haven't really explained why you think it's silly.

Sunday respawn of units (fixed by HOMM4...to universal cry of outrage from the fans, no less!). Strange recruitment costs based solely on game balance. Demand to take over special locations instead of producing abundant resources via labour of population (a town sits in the middle of a forest yet needs to capture a "sawmill" 3 days away to get wood? R00fles). Heh, no population at all, by the way... Gold and gems enough for any man scattered all across the maps with nobody except a bunch of "heroes" to bother about them. I could go on and on...

I want my strategy games to be "realistic" (i.e. believable), not a fancy chess-like exhibition of exceptions and puzzles.

Also, in all your anti-Heroes rambling you forgot to mention one of the most important blunders in the game - diplomacy, or a lack thereof.

Well, diplomacy is a weak point in many of the best strategy games, and some do well enough without it at all (those very Dominions, for example, due to being primarily multiplayer-focused). Singling out HOMM would be unfair in the least.

Not everything has to be OMG emo wrist-slitting dark gothic seriousness.

Yes, but coupled with everything else mentioned above, it gives a pretty sad picture.

If you couldn't tell from the screen shots on the box or on the Internet that that was their style, and you knew you wouldn't like that style, why the fuck buy it?
Well, it was made by the same people who made Might and Magic, which weren't exactly Mr. Serious in terms of RPGs. So what were you expecting?

Oh, I was well realizing what HOMM is and what it is going to be back when HOMM1 was just released. So as far as the games themselves are concerned, they are exactly what I expected them to be, and I don't mind that at all, to each his own. What I did not expect however, is that it would be considered a pinnacle and perfection of turn-based strategy gaming ten years onwards. Kinda sad, really.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

... directly from III minus the hex square battle thing which I kind of (no, really) like...

What? Either I'm failing at humour or you are actually implying there is some reason to prefer squares over hexes. Which is it?

 

[Jasede]

I actually think moonblood is correct. I usually don't fire up HoMM 2 if I want some mind-wrecking tactical gaming. It's more a game that's simply fun to play, like Diablo. I like it; HoMM 2 had an excellent presentation and I think the combat system was fabulous, as was the unit balance. Except for black dragons.

And hexes > squares. Actually one of the reasons why I am going to sell my HoMM 5 as quickly as I bought it. Along with the horrible graphics, the outright silly story, and the loooong turn-time. Also, the gameplay is not even 1% different from the older HoMMs so there is absolutely no reason to play HoMM 5.

 

[LCJr.]

I just gotta ask, why are hexes better than squares? Hexes allow movement in 60 degrees increments and squares in 45 degree. Unless of course the developer does something stupid like charge double movement cost for diagonal movement.

 

[jefklak]

I meant the HoMMIII battle hex system, sorry for mixing "hex" and "square" up in one sentence, wasn't meant as a joke. HoMMIV does not have squares or am I missing something? You simply move forward or wherever you want to go to, which creates clumsy moving tactics. V does have squares.
I did not say hexes > squares, I did say III battle system > IV, in my opinion.

 

[obediah]

I just gotta ask, why are hexes better than squares? Hexes allow movement in 60 degrees increments and squares in 45 degree. Unless of course the developer does something stupid like charge double movement cost for diagonal movement.

The diagonal is the problem. It's about 1.41 times as far as a cardinal move. So charging 1 or 2 moves for using a diagonal are nearly equally innacurate. With hexes, in the worst case, you will pay 2 moves to go 1.73 hexes (or something like that, it's been a looong time since geometry) of distance. Also with 6 faces instead of 4, you should be required to pay this penalty less often.

To clarify the number-jumble above:

In a normal square system you can use the diagonal system to move 2.82 units of distance for the cost of 2 units.

In a double-cost diagonal square system you can use the diagonal system to move 1.41 units of distance for the cost of 2 units.

In a hex system, you can use the diagonals to move 1.73 units of distance for the cost of 2 units.

So the "stupid" double cost diagonal is more accurate for square movement, but hex wins over both. As a game designer you just need to balance complexity vs accuracy and fit them into your definition of fun.

 

[LCJr.]

Or just ignore it/keep it abstract and allow movement in 8 directions. If a developer wants that much accuracy they should ditch the grid and go with miniature wargaming type rules.

 

[obediah]

Or just ignore it/keep it abstract and allow movement in 8 directions. If a developer wants that much accuracy they should ditch the grid and go with miniature wargaming type rules.

Have you ever played a gridless system that constrained movement to 8 directions? It seems an odd combination, and I can't remember having seen it.

Free-form movement is a big step up in complexity from a grid-based system. That's why you usually only see it in tabletop games where movement is constrained, or the number of units is limited. With computer games, it's as much (if not more) about ease for the designer as for the player. Back on topic, the jump in complexity from squares to hexes is nothing compared to the jump associated with moving from hexes to gridless.

The choice between squares and hexes really depends on the game. The conflict would be largely solved if you could make a regular tessellation of octagons, but you can't. In a game like warhammer quest, where you deal with long narrow spaces, or any design otherwise limits diagonal movement, squares are best. However, on a large open map, where you will often move in a diagonal, hexes are better.

 

[LCJr.]

Guess I wasn't too clear. What I was trying to say is keep the grid and simply count a square as a square. Similiar to roguelikes that use the numpad(12346789) for movement.

I can see keeping a grid/hexes for easing the load on the developer. But by the same token there's a lot of miniature rules systems to copy/get ideas from.

 

[DaViLLaN]

Nothing can compare to HOMM III, especially with Wake of Gods or Equilibris,
but I gotta say, Discples II has been the most addicting game I think I have ever played. Cant explain it, but there is just something about it. The only negative thing aside from the predictable AI, is there comes that plateau in every game, where you become unbeatable.

I just started replaying DII with a mod that change the units, upgrade paths, etc, and its totally sucked me back in. If you guys want any more info about it, or want to try it, let me know.

I also have a bad feeling about DIII. Gameplay will probably suffer because all the attention is on teh 3D graphix!! Ghey. I so dont understand the 3d thing. So many games look worse in 3D than 2D. 3D models dont have the detail that a 2D unit or model can have.
anyway, enough ranting.

 

[GrudgeHolder]

Discples II has been the most addicting game I think I have ever played. Cant explain it, but there is just something about it. The only negative thing aside from the predictable AI, is there comes that plateau in every game, where you become unbeatable.

But then, you may become able to conquer the enemies' fortresses. And that's a kick and a half, even if the battle takes, like, 30 turns. The first time I managed to do it... one of the sweetest moments in my gaming experience

I just started replaying DII with a mod that change the units, upgrade paths, etc, and its totally sucked me back in. If you guys want any more info about it, or want to try it, let me know.

Linky plz.

I also have a bad feeling about DIII. Gameplay will probably suffer because all the attention is on teh 3D graphix!! Ghey. I so dont understand the 3d thing. So many games look worse in 3D than 2D. 3D models dont have the detail that a 2D unit or model can have.

I already felt that the DII gfx were a notch below those of the original Disciples - especially the spells effects did nothing for me. And the Elven expansion was even worse.

 

[DaViLLaN]

GrudgeHolder,
PM me your email address and I will forward it to you. It isnt downloadable, the author mailed it to me.

here is a brief description of some of the things he did......
http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000108


I never played Disciples 1. You think I should try it, or is it very similar to II???

 

[jefklak]

DaViLLaN, could you post a link to the mod, or give us at least the mod's name? thanks!
I need to play it again. Do you have any starting tips for newbies? 'Cause my ass is getting kicked pretty badly after a few battles. Main reason: enemies which get hurt don't regenerate after battle, and after some fights, most units simply die and I can't promote them when they're dead, of course. Again, I played it in a rush so I need to give it a better second chance.

Edit: damn, too late!

 

[Top Hat]

Definitely one of the good things about the Disciples games released so far is that they are quite stylish in the art department.

It was also a little disturbing the first time I heard the heroes talking - I knew they did it at the beginning of their turn, but they also do it after waiting a while.

 

[DaViLLaN]

Whoever wants to try it, give me your email address and Ill send it.

Here is the body of the email the author sent me......

sure i still have it...
i believe you know how to "install" disciples 2 mods ?
back up your Globals folder and then just extract mine (overwriting
any files) and that's it...
i'm sorry but i do not have a full changelog, i maintained one for
some time and then i just stopped for some reason, but i can give you
some highlights if you wish... i really recommend playing around in
ScenEdit for at least 15 minutes before you actually start playing the
mod because it introduces/changes a few fundamental concepts of D2
gameplay like unit capping at lvl10 (for some units, it is as low as
lvl8 or high as lvl13) buffs up the guardians quite a bit, and many
*crap* units aren't crap anymore...
the Elementalist has been changed into a Black Mage, the Wolf Lord is
now a really good unit (be warned though, his XP need is just the XP
needed to upgrade into a Wolf Master - a much stronger version of the
WL with a buffed Fenrir), no doppelganger anymore - instead you have
the Doombringer, and the succubi are great now (i use them on a
regular basis) ...

if the mod doesn't work, use the exe files provided (back up your old
exes, then extract these two into the Disciples 2 folder and rename
them to .exe respectively)

i have also attached the GotL and SotD campaigns, a little tweaked to
show you around with the mod, and try to provide with a little more
challenging gameplay... you extract these in the Campaigns folder and
access them through Play Custom Saga mode...

any feedback except "you made everything too imba" is welcome, as are
any requests/suggestions... as far as requests go, they can't be nerfs
(unless you manage to reason me somehow, it happened a couple of
times) and they're open for any race or NPC alike (you wish a new NPC?
sure thing, i've already made more than a dozen NPCs and mini-bosses)

hope it works for you and that you enjoy it :D btw, your old savegames
won't work with this mod so don't bother reporting that as a bug... i
know exactly why it doesn't work either, and it's a game engine thing
- nothing i can do about it except to revert that change... and i
liked that change very much :D

Its a great mod. The Legions and Undead are great to play with this mod. Playing on hard was a nice challenge also.

Crap!! I forgot to mention that this is for DII Elves.

 

[jefklak]

Okay, a question for the disciples trainees here:
what determines who can hit first? I tought if I attack, I hit first, right?
Is there an agility parameter involved somewhere?

'Cause I'd like to take out the fucking archer who keeps on killing my apprentice mage on one hit (5mins in the campaign, talking about the boat and the arger with one thug there). If I win that battle, I can take on the master thug since my units will upgrade. Any tips? My hero screams "attack!" but I don't attack, they do, and my unit dies. In other battles, sometimes I got to go first. Hmm.

Edit: also, how am I supposed to kill the Ogre without losing any units? That's insane he does one hit kills even to my knights... :evil:

 

[no]

If I remember correctly, there's an initiative stat that determines who goes first, from higher to lower. Archers/assassins usually had the highest score, fighters got a mid 50's, magic users got 20-40 and so on.