Grand Strategy Imperiums: Greek Wars any good?

[hayst]

Looking for a game that takes place during or around The Peloponnesian war. So far I've been scratching this itch with Total War: Rome 2 Wrath of The Spartans DLC, but I'm looking for something a bit more involved. Checked a few Steam workshops for various games with mods that might work but didn't find any in a quick search.

Saw Imperiums: Greek Wars and thought it looks pretty close to what I'm looking for. Bit worried about the mythical aspects but the description makes it seem minor. I'd prefer something historical. Any thoughts on this game?

 

[JarlFrank]

It's pretty historical and pretty good for a 4X. Combat is shit, of course, like in most 4X games, don't expect anything like Total War. Empire building is better than in the Civilization games, diplomacy actually works.

 

[Malakal]

It's pretty historical and pretty good for a 4X. Combat is shit, of course, like in most 4X games, don't expect anything like Total War. Empire building is better than in the Civilization games, diplomacy actually works.

Total War games combat is awful because it negates the strategic part of the game almost entirely. I dont play strategy games so I can undo everything later in one-two battles.

 

[Ryzer]

It's pretty historical and pretty good for a 4X. Combat is shit, of course, like in most 4X games, don't expect anything like Total War. Empire building is better than in the Civilization games, diplomacy actually works.

Total War games combat is awful because it negates the strategic part of the game almost entirely. I dont play strategy games so I can undo everything later in one-two battles.

Don't be difficult, it's not like we have plentiful of ongoing strategic games to be released soon.

 

[Sinilevä]

It's pretty historical and pretty good for a 4X. Combat is shit, of course, like in most 4X games, don't expect anything like Total War. Empire building is better than in the Civilization games, diplomacy actually works.

Total War games combat is awful because it negates the strategic part of the game almost entirely. I dont play strategy games so I can undo everything later in one-two battles.

Don't be difficult, it's not like we have plentiful of ongoing strategic games to be released soon.

Having few strategy games to play doesn't make total fail games any good.

 

[thesecret1]

Looking for a game that takes place during or around The Peloponnesian war. So far I've been scratching this itch with Total War: Rome 2 Wrath of The Spartans DLC, but I'm looking for something a bit more involved.

What you want is this:

It's an excellent game, and while the "main" campaign focuses on Philip of Macedon, there are actually multiple campaigns, including a Peloponnesian War one, IIRC.

 

[hayst]

Looking for a game that takes place during or around The Peloponnesian war. So far I've been scratching this itch with Total War: Rome 2 Wrath of The Spartans DLC, but I'm looking for something a bit more involved.

What you want is this:

It's an excellent game, and while the "main" campaign focuses on Philip of Macedon, there are actually multiple campaigns, including a Peloponnesian War one, IIRC.

I saw this in some of my searching. Good to know it's something I should look into.

 

[JarlFrank]

It's pretty historical and pretty good for a 4X. Combat is shit, of course, like in most 4X games, don't expect anything like Total War. Empire building is better than in the Civilization games, diplomacy actually works.

Total War games combat is awful because it negates the strategic part of the game almost entirely. I dont play strategy games so I can undo everything later in one-two battles.

Total War games are amazing because you actually get to fight out battles with those armies you recruit, instead of it just being some boring abstract autoresolve. The strategic part adds context to the battles you fight.

And fighting as a tiny outnumbered nation against superior foes is great fun in TW games.

 

[Sinilevä]

How does this compare to fields of glory? The game looks interesting and has some pretty art, also no kangz for Egypt and Carthage which is a good sign. I wonder however why the game is so obscure.

 

[JarlFrank]

Field of Glory: Empires is better because you can combine it with Field of Glory 2 to play out tactical battles.

 

[Serious_Business]

Yes it's pretty good. The mythical aspects are optional. I haven't played it enough for a great analysis, but I do intend to play it more when I have the time. It has an interesting design in the sense that the management is limited but impactful. You don't construct endless chains of buildings or painfully optimise your numbers like some warehouse manager. It also has a varied resource system, as I remember it ; not so abstract, including things like stone, iron, etc, and not only gold. The scenarios are historical as they come, if anything it sometimes draws from very precise sources that aren't exploited very much in these kinds of games ; for example the base scenario is in the time of Philip rather than Alexander, and you can play obscure greek city states.

I also think Field of Glory Empires is good, quite underrated, although you will not play the tactical battles (which actually require Field of Glory 2), because that would make campaigns complete nightmares. A FoE2 battle can take 30 mins to 1h, and you have those every turn in Empires. But really Empires is interesting in itself, a grand strategy game on its own right, no doubt superior to the Pdox attempts at tackling the era. There's really a number of interesting systems with this game, with some interesting faction dissymetry. You don't need the control on the battles to make it interesting ; I find this criteria rather obtuse for strategy games, even if I do like and actually also prefer series like TW or AoW. When you play a strategy games you want a kind of experience of flow, and playing battles in detail usually breaks it.

 

[Atlet]

Yes it's pretty good. The mythical aspects are optional. I haven't played it enough for a great analysis, but I do intend to play it more when I have the time. It has an interesting design in the sense that the management is limited but impactful. You don't construct endless chains of buildings or painfully optimise your numbers like some warehouse manager. It also has a varied resource system, as I remember it ; not so abstract, including things like stone, iron, etc, and not only gold. The scenarios are historical as they come, if anything it sometimes draws from very precise sources that aren't exploited very much in these kinds of games ; for example the base scenario is in the time of Philip rather than Alexander, and you can play obscure greek city states.

I also think Field of Glory Empires is good, quite underrated, although you will not play the tactical battles (which actually require Field of Glory 2), because that would make campaigns complete nightmares. A FoE2 battle can take 30 mins to 1h, and you have those every turn in Empires. But really Empires is interesting in itself, a grand strategy game on its own right, no doubt superior to the Pdox attempts at tackling the era. There's really a number of interesting systems with this game, with some interesting faction dissymetry. You don't need the control on the battles to make it interesting ; I find this criteria rather obtuse for strategy games, even if I do like and actually also prefer series like TW or AoW. When you play a strategy games you want a kind of experience of flow, and playing battles in detail usually breaks it.

So, did you play it more?

 

[Modron]

This got a demo on steam a week ago if any fence sitters out there want to test the waters (and a new expansion as well).

 

[Galdred]

It's pretty historical and pretty good for a 4X. Combat is shit, of course, like in most 4X games, don't expect anything like Total War. Empire building is better than in the Civilization games, diplomacy actually works.

Total War games combat is awful because it negates the strategic part of the game almost entirely. I dont play strategy games so I can undo everything later in one-two battles.

Actually, Total War should have remained a tactical battle engine with a thin strategic layer as it was early on (in Shogun 1 Total War and Medieval 1 Total War).
It used to be 90% tactical and 10% strategy. Now, it is a hybrid in which both parts fight against each other.

Yes it's pretty good. The mythical aspects are optional. I haven't played it enough for a great analysis, but I do intend to play it more when I have the time. It has an interesting design in the sense that the management is limited but impactful. You don't construct endless chains of buildings or painfully optimise your numbers like some warehouse manager. It also has a varied resource system, as I remember it ; not so abstract, including things like stone, iron, etc, and not only gold. The scenarios are historical as they come, if anything it sometimes draws from very precise sources that aren't exploited very much in these kinds of games ; for example the base scenario is in the time of Philip rather than Alexander, and you can play obscure greek city states.

I also think Field of Glory Empires is good, quite underrated, although you will not play the tactical battles (which actually require Field of Glory 2), because that would make campaigns complete nightmares. A FoE2 battle can take 30 mins to 1h, and you have those every turn in Empires. But really Empires is interesting in itself, a grand strategy game on its own right, no doubt superior to the Pdox attempts at tackling the era. There's really a number of interesting systems with this game, with some interesting faction dissymetry. You don't need the control on the battles to make it interesting ; I find this criteria rather obtuse for strategy games, even if I do like and actually also prefer series like TW or AoW. When you play a strategy games you want a kind of experience of flow, and playing battles in detail usually breaks it.

As for FoGE, I liked the game a lot, but I found it much more manageable with minor factions (like Sparta and Athens) than larger ones (like Rome).
For tactical battes, I ended up playing some of the critical ones myself, and letting the AI handle 90% of them.
Actually, I liked it better than Total War in this regard, because "auto battles" didn't give unpredictable results.