Strategy games

[Jason]

If you can stand old graphics, play Cossacks: Back to War [it's a stand-alone expansion and doesn't really have a campaign, but is superior to the original. The original, Cossacks: European Wars, does have a few campaigns, though, but they're ultra-hard. But the game is pretty awesome, so buy Back To War, it does have some pretty nice scenarios, too].

In the same vein, play American Conquest: Fight Back. Also a stand-alone expansion, including all the features from the original, and it has nice historical campaigns. It's from the makers of Cossacks, the main difference being that it's even more realistic than Cossacks and has better graphics. If you like the period of the American Civil War, too, you can buy the second standalone-expansion American Conquest: Divided Nation [which should still be in stores somewhere, at least here in Germany Media Markt still has it].

Then there's Cossacks 2, which is set in the Napoleonic Wars. I actually liked it a little less than the first Cossacks and American Conquest, but it's still good. Pretty realistic and if you don't know what you have to do it can be pretty hard, too. The campaign is harsh to newbies, but interesting.

Wow, are you sure you want to recommend GSC's RTS titles to a strategy newcomer? Or anyone, for that matter.
I'd go with the obvious choices: Ground Control, Homeworld,Warlords Battlecry series, maybe Dawn of War.
Or skip the whole RTS thing and try the Combat Mission games.

 

[DraQ]

Dynamic difficulty in Homeworld is well implemented, thus completely imperceptible on singlee playthrough and hard to notice otherwise. The game is simply perfect and not playing it would be like not playing PST and FO and claiming to know the genre.

Dark Reign is simply good, mechanics wise - there is variety of units, strong influence of terrain on everything, chock full of special functions and options and decent AI - you can't go wrong with DR.

As for Myth 1-2 it deserves all recommendation it can get, so I stress how awesome it is again.

 

[SuicideBunny]

is ground control 1 better or anything like gc2?

 

[Texas Red]

What was wrong with AoE 3? Why does everyone hate it?

I see somebody recommended Warlords Battlecry. Hmmm, wouldn't it be the obvious choise for someone from RPGCodex? RPG elements of it aside, how is it as a strategy game?

 

[kingcomrade]

What? I have Battlecry, that game is total shit. Why would anyone recommend it?

 

[MetalCraze]

What was wrong with AoE 3? Why does everyone hate it?

because it is stupid and dumbed down compared to AoE2. add to this shit like useless walls through which you can kill enemy units and retarded AI.

is ground control 1 better or anything like gc2?

in GC1 the difficulty is harder (you cannot build units, you cannot save during missions and AI really kicks ass) and also GC1 is more tactical while GC2 plays like RTS.

 

[dagorkan]

Really? Do you recommend it? aweigh's recommendations tend to have substance - I only ever played Myth 2 (loved it; thanks sheek!) but it was in French so I only understood half, and great music in a game gives me a boner. Think it's worth trying to find Myth 1 somewhere?

I don't think you need Myth 1, you can get all the levels and intro briefings as plugins for Myth 2... better interface, same game.

Here: http://projectmagma.net/downloads/TFL_Solo/

Should be in English too

 

[Texas Red]

What? I have Battlecry, that game is total shit. Why would anyone recommend it?

You want to clarify?

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

This thread is a gold mine. I like strategy games but it's never something I actually got into. I can recommend Age of Empires 2 and The Conquerors Expansion if you're into history... actually, just play it even if you're not. It's a classic! I can also recommend Dark Reign 2 if you're into post-apocalyptic sci-fi stuff. It isn't very innovative but it has a great atmosphere and you can play the campaign from the perspective of 2 different factions. As for me, I just looked up Homeworld and Homeworld 2 and I think that these are the games I'm going to play next... if I can find them somewhere.

Finding H1 and H2 won't be a problem bot getting Cataclysm may be a problem (it's not as bad as they say - it just takes a small turn in a other direction) but what-the-hell this is the internet, you can buy here everything... and not only buy.

 

[DraQ]

Finding H1 and H2 won't be a problem bot getting Cataclysm may be a problem (it's not as bad as they say - it just takes a small turn in a other direction) but what-the-hell this is the internet, you can buy here everything... and not only buy.

Cataclysm is certainly worthwhile, but it's a step back in several key areas, like gameplay balance - SUs and energy cannons ensure that you won't build any fihters when you'll be able to build dreadnoughts.

Plus it has mindfuckingly retarded animated backgrounds.

Other than that, I can't get it to run on my current rig, while HW1 runs flawlessly.

 

[Jasede]

What? I have Battlecry, that game is total shit. Why would anyone recommend it?

You want to clarify?

I think according to the laws of debate, he who recommended it would need to clarify. That said, Battlecry 2 and 3 are Asperger-tastic with how you can level up every unit and your hero has two dozens of abilities.

 

[obediah]

Can someone change the title of this thread to RTS Fag Shit?

I'm like a goldfish trying to eat it's own turd over and over. Every morning I look and "oh look, a strategy game thread!" *click*. And it's always this same fucking RTS thread.

At least stay focused on combat-centric RT games with a full-featured pause.

 

[Jasede]

Why the irrational hatred for RTS? Dune 2 was cool.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Can someone change the title of this thread to RTS Fag Shit?

I'm like a goldfish trying to eat it's own turd over and over. Every morning I look and "oh look, a strategy game thread!" *click*. And it's always this same fucking RTS thread.

At least stay focused on combat-centric RT games with a full-featured pause.

Let's just recommend a turn-based one, Steel Panthers World at War : http://www.steelpanthersonline.com/main.asp
It's free, by the way.

I wonder how I forgot what's possibly my favourite strategy game, Victoria : An Empire Under The Sun. Great classical score, well-done economy, tons of stuff to do and great depth if a bit steep learning curve. You'll need to pay for what is essentially a patch, though (Revolutions). You propably won't find good reviews for it though unless you read finnish (Pelit), as it seems that simple 2D-graphics and that learning curve were too much for most reviewers.

 

[fastpunk]

This thread is a gold mine. I like strategy games but it's never something I actually got into. I can recommend Age of Empires 2 and The Conquerors Expansion if you're into history... actually, just play it even if you're not. It's a classic! I can also recommend Dark Reign 2 if you're into post-apocalyptic sci-fi stuff. It isn't very innovative but it has a great atmosphere and you can play the campaign from the perspective of 2 different factions. As for me, I just looked up Homeworld and Homeworld 2 and I think that these are the games I'm going to play next... if I can find them somewhere.

Finding H1 and H2 won't be a problem bot getting Cataclysm may be a problem (it's not as bad as they say - it just takes a small turn in a other direction) but what-the-hell this is the internet, you can buy here everything... and not only buy.

You're right. Turns out it isn't that hard to find, well, at least Homeworld 2 isn't. I like it so far, though I just did the tutorials, it's definitely different from the type of RTS I'm used to.

 

[JarlFrank]

What exactly was the problem with AoE 3 again? Does it have a real campaign?

Well, it's worse than AoE2. Not bad, I actually managed to like it, but AoE2 was at least ten times better. Blame it on dumbing down. Walls are pretty useless, cannons are severely overpowered, battles feel a lot less dynamic than in the previous titles [including Age of Mythology, which was pretty awesome, too], resource collection doesn't require your peasants to carry the stuff back to the base [they, like, stand at a tree and chop it and the resources go directly to your base] which eliminates a great part of the fun of RTS games, and especially the AoEs, because you have absolutely no need to build resource collecting outposts. Also, the campaign has a silly story which is a mixture between fantasy and actual history and has many inconsistencies. Like, first mission in the third campaign involves you and another railroad company striving to be the first ones to build a railroad through the west. And you fight each other. Yes, you are two railroad companies, both hired by the government, and you can build military units and fight each other. WTF?

 

[NiM82]

is ground control 1 better or anything like gc2?

GC1 was much better imo, but it's quite different. No resource management at all, no reinforcing of units, no bases, you just pre select units (and a drop zone) and make do. MP was fun, stalking an opponent and laying a successful ambush was amazingly rewarding. One of the few games where looking for vehicle tracks and signs of the enemy has meant anything

Only real problem is the balance, you need dedicated AA units to target planes, fail to select one and the opponent has an air unit - game over. Choose one and he doesn't have air, your disadvantaged, seriously. Provided you forbade the air units (or had to declare) it was fine tho. I think the exp added a multirole AA unit, but I never got around to trying it. Story/Voice acting was all solid.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Warcraft 2.

Red Alert 2.

Nuff said.

 

[Texas Red]

What exactly was the problem with AoE 3 again? Does it have a real campaign?

Well, it's worse than AoE2. Not bad, I actually managed to like it, but AoE2 was at least ten times better. Blame it on dumbing down. Walls are pretty useless, cannons are severely overpowered, battles feel a lot less dynamic than in the previous titles [including Age of Mythology, which was pretty awesome, too], resource collection doesn't require your peasants to carry the stuff back to the base [they, like, stand at a tree and chop it and the resources go directly to your base] which eliminates a great part of the fun of RTS games, and especially the AoEs, because you have absolutely no need to build resource collecting outposts. Also, the campaign has a silly story which is a mixture between fantasy and actual history and has many inconsistencies. Like, first mission in the third campaign involves you and another railroad company striving to be the first ones to build a railroad through the west. And you fight each other. Yes, you are two railroad companies, both hired by the government, and you can build military units and fight each other. WTF?

Hmmm, I don't see anything from these examples that would constitute dumbing down. I didn't recall anything that would indicate AoE 4 wanting to target new demographic groups. Maybe the unbalance issues of cannons and walls has been fixed in the expansions? I don't find the 2 railroad companies deal silly. After all, trading companies during the Britaiish empire were darn powerful and the action takes place in a lawless continent.

 

[Severian Silk]

(unlike many older RTS games, actual collision detection is used to determine hits)

Great game, but this is not true. Hits are determined using chance-to-hit calculations, just like in an RPG. Collision detection is merely cosmetic (except in the case of ships actually colliding with each other). This didn't diminish the game in my opinion, and made the game run much faster.

 

[DraQ]

(unlike many older RTS games, actual collision detection is used to determine hits)

This is not true. Hits are determined using chance-to-hit calculations, just like in an RPG. Collision detection is merely cosmetic (except in the case of ship-vs-ship collisions).

Are you sure? I mean engine level/modding experience sure. It certainly looks as if game was detecting collision between the projectile and the ship's collision volume, with all the resulting consequences.

 

[Severian Silk]

I've probably over-simplified things by comparing them to RPGs. But, I believe that "hits" are calculated first (using complex and realistic variables, such as weapon tracking speed, bullet speed, weapon accuracy, etc.), followed by playing an animation. Collision volumes are only used for determining where to place special effects (and for determining ship-to-ship collisions). I think only SupCom models ballistics in the detail you describe.

I'm having trouble searching for information on this topic, so I may remember incorrectly.

[edit]
Here is a thread that sort of discusses the issue. I think the thread is conflicting in this regard. Several users mention collision detection in this context, and request further modifications to the engine to allow this to be taken further. Another (FluxX) calls bullet chance-to-hit calculations as "fake" (as I've described). A developer (mecha) stresses the amount of overhead required for these types of calculations. In the end, I'm not sure after reading this which is in fact the case.

[edit]
mecha (the developer) also says, "Small point but, bullets curve, that's how they actually hit things in a predicatable manner, this is critical for balance. I'm sure it pisses off you 'realists' though." I believe this means that bullet trajectories are modified to fit the predetermined calculations, not the other way around.

 

[JarlFrank]

Hmmm, I don't see anything from these examples that would constitute dumbing down. I didn't recall anything that would indicate AoE 4 wanting to target new demographic groups. Maybe the unbalance issues of cannons and walls has been fixed in the expansions? I don't find the 2 railroad companies deal silly. After all, trading companies during the Britaiish empire were darn powerful and the action takes place in a lawless continent.

Well, the game isn't that awful. I didn't like it as much as AoE2, which just owned, but it was fun to play overall. Didn't last as long as AoE2 or Age of Mythology, and was a lot worse than those two in my opinion [especially because of the resource collection without storage centers], but it can be enjoyable. You could try it out, but play AoE2 and AoM first, as those are superior.

 

[DraQ]

I've probably over-simplified things by comparing them to RPGs. But, I believe that "hits" are calculated first (using complex and realistic variables, such as weapon tracking speed, bullet speed, weapon accuracy, etc.), followed by playing an animation. Collision volumes are only used for determining where to place special effects (and for determining ship-to-ship collisions). I think only SupCom models ballistics in the detail you describe.

I'm having trouble searching for information on this topic, so I may remember incorrectly.

[edit]
Here is a thread that sort of discusses the issue. I think the thread is conflicting in this regard. Several users mention collision detection in this context, and request further modifications to the engine to allow this to be taken further. Another (FluxX) calls bullet chance-to-hit calculations as "fake" (as I've described). A developer (mecha) stresses the amount of overhead required for these types of calculations. In the end, I'm not sure after reading this which is in fact the case. mecha (the developer) also says, "Small point but, bullets curve, that's how they actually hit things in a predicatable manner, this is critical for balance. I'm sure it pisses off you 'realists' though." I believe this means that bullet trajectories are modified to fit the predetermined calculations, not the other way around.

I'm almost sure that Homeworld used actual projectiles (or in some instances bursts of several projectiles treated as single objects) that actually colided with stuff.
1. The thread discusses HW2 and also mentions the difficulty of making workable antiprojectile weapon. Such a weapon exists in HW1 which suggests some major differences between to hit mechanics in both games and greatly reduces relevance of the thread.
2. Close up visual observation of fighters in combat failed to confirm presence of visuual artifacts typical to "RPG mechanics" used in most RPGs and older RTS games (namely hits that shouldn't be and projectiles passing through objects).
3. Projectiles transfer momentum, which is especially visible with assault frigates which are able to push massive objects away with concetrated gunfire.
4. Off-center hits seem to be able to send objects tumbling.
5. DFF's can repell projectiles that sometimes hit the attackers.
6. You can do pretty wacky stuff with very fast ships and homing missiles,

Spoiler

once I was able to consistently outrun missiles from a missile destroyer while making them slam into the Ghost Ship using a captured swarmer

.
7. (Purely theoretical argument) coding all this shit using RPGish calculations would not only make little sense considering that game is no longer 2D RTS with tiles and units occupying them, but would also take up much more resources than allowing bullets to collide with simple convex collision hulls.

 

[Texas Red]

Does AoE 3 run decently on computers slightly above minimums? I'm not a graphics whore but these 3D games on minimum look worse than old 2D and have a tendecy to lag anyway if you are below or even on the recommended specs.