Strategy games

[Erzherzog]

Has anyone played Star Wars: Empire at War? Is it good or crap?

The game is extremely simple, the land battles are rather simplistic, and the low unit cap doesn't help. Once you get 3 vs. 3 or 4 vs. 4 matches though, both land and space battles really open up in the amount of strategy involved.

But the online community is and always has been crap. Unless you got at least 5 trustworthy people to play with, there's no point in the game.

 

[Texas Red]

Has anyone played Rise of Legends or not?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Has anyone played Rise of Legends or not?

It's Rise of Nations trying to be Starcraft. It's still made by Brian Reynolds of Civ II and Alpha Centauri brilliance, but it seems like it's trying too hard to be something it isn't. Also the campaign is like Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (faux Risk battles) but without the fun. Rise of Nations' Conquer the World was much cooler.

Man, Rise of Nations and the Thrones and Patriots expansion are as good as it gets for "Civ in real-time" style games.

 

[Shoelip]

Man, I never did finish Homeworld for some reason. Now I can't find the disc anymore.

I swear, I've looked under every stack of garbage in my room, and no luck...

 

[NiM82]

Meh, given you already own it I see no harm in you torrenting it for great justice.

 

[Shoelip]

I suppose. It's a pain to find a good torrent though, and it just doesn't feel right to me.

 

[Occasionally Fatal]

Thanks for the posts so far. But what are the RTS that have primitive gunpowder technologies aside fro RoN(which has a crappy campaign) and AoE 3(which appears to suck according to everyone here) that are great?

AoE2 has some primitive gunpowder techs, like bombard cannons, hand cannons, petards, etc, but they're all end game techs, iirc.

If you do go with AoE2, be sure to get the expansion, Age of Conquerers, as it makes it so much better imo.

Also, I last played it years ago and I don't recall it being very difficult...

 

[Texas Red]

Thanks for the posts so far. But what are the RTS that have primitive gunpowder technologies aside fro RoN(which has a crappy campaign) and AoE 3(which appears to suck according to everyone here) that are great?

AoE2 has some primitive gunpowder techs, like bombard cannons, hand cannons, petards, etc, but they're all end game techs, iirc.

If you do go with AoE2, be sure to get the expansion, Age of Conquerers, as it makes it so much better imo.

Also, I last played it years ago and I don't recall it being very difficult...

Call me a casual player but I like it to take it easy. Age of Mythology, for example, allows me to relax while grabbing attention. In AoE 2 I had constantly alarms here and there, farms expiring, a huge army of rams at the walls(god I love the lack of importance of walls in AoM)... I actually had to do a lot of loading and saving . And as I said it before, I don't like those stupid missions where you have to get a certain number of units from point A to B with minimum casualties, or that your bases are halfway built when you start.

What I did like about AoE 2, in comparison with AoM, is how easy it was to understand what units are good and what is needed to defeat something. In Age of Mythology I get some weird sounding Greek name to a nondestinct looking unit and a message saying "Only good against infrantry/archers/myth units" even though his stats can be worse or even better against something he is supposed to fight or not. Gah.

 

[Comrade Hamster]

Good luck finding another RTS with a good single-player campaign storyline and delivery. I don't know, but I found Supreme Commander to be sort of vapid, and the UI made me want to punch out my monitor. If you're not opposed to turn-based, Alpha Centauri, if you haven't played it, is one of the more intelligent games out there you could ever play. It's too bad about the insistence on base-building because there are a LOT of great tactical games out there.

Dawn of War is pretty interesting, and there's a lot of base-building and research, but I haven't had time to keep up with all the expansions and crap, and I don't know if it's gotten diluted or not. Shy away from Medieval II: Total War, as it's the most disappointing in the series, IMO. It has the tedium of Rome: Total War's new strategic map system, except with much more land to cover, and the A.I. isn't particularly anything challenging - sometimes tactics matter, but usually, you win the fight before you start it. It's certainly graphically appealing, but I find that the older games with the Risk-style strategy portions were much more pleasant to deal with (I've been with the Total War series since anticipating Shogun: Total War).

Back when I used to play StarCraft a lot, I got pretty decent (Attrokus was and probably is still better than me, but I won't give him the satisfaction of breaking our even win/loss ratio) and I could finish all the campaigns without any problems (beginning the last Zerg mission for Brood War is a little problematic, but nothing that can't be overcome). I also played a lot of AoE II during that time as well. Though I have to admit, SC and AoE II require some crazy APM to play properly, but there are few tactics as satisfying to pull off as castle rushes or tank-drop rushes. There's nothing like watching an enemy just emerging from the Feudal Age and go, "WTF? Castles next to my Town Center!"

I also remember that AoE II games could last a ridiculously long time - I had a 2 vs. 2 game that lasted over six hours. The most fun I ever had with AoE II though were games where I shared control with another player.

 

[kingcomrade]

I never beat Homeworld either. Some of the later missions are just so ridiculous. It doesn't help that the game is -SLOW-.

SC and AoE II require some crazy APM to play properly

NO STARCRAFT IS ENTIRELY A GAME OF SKILL AND STRATEGY

 

[Comrade Hamster]

NO STARCRAFT IS ENTIRELY A GAME OF SKILL AND STRATEGY

Zerg rush.

 

[Texas Red]

I'm not a fan of these strategy games, but am I the only one who finds those Dungeon Siege-like missions all Shitcraft 3 to be annoying? Like I said, there was absolutely no mission in the human campaign of Warcraft 3 where you could build up a base from beginning to the end. I don't like AoE 2 because of such missions either and when I *am* getting a base to build, it already has everything set up. But all the reviews for Shitcraft 3 were extremely positive...

And what's the deal with the popularity of Starcraft? Don't give me the bullshit that it requires more skill than other games, even a nooby such as me can easily see that newer strategy games have a lot more options and subtleties. It's those decadent asians again, isn't it?

 

[GeneralSamov]

I don't like AoE 2 because of such missions either and when I *am* getting a base to build, it already has everything set up.

Are you implying AoE 2 railroaded you? If so, I'll call in court, for example, the "Cleansing of the Loire" mission of the Frankish campaign, where you could decide to either set up camp at the site south of Fastolf's base, or take out Fastolf's base right away, or even wipe the Burgundy base and settle their spot.

 

[Seboss]

I don't know if it's been mentioned before but Sins of A Solar Empire is mighty awesome.

 

[Texas Red]

I don't like AoE 2 because of such missions either and when I *am* getting a base to build, it already has everything set up.

Are you implying AoE 2 railroaded you? If so, I'll call in court, for example, the "Cleansing of the Loire" mission of the Frankish campaign, where you could decide to either set up camp at the site south of Fastolf's base, or take out Fastolf's base right away, or even wipe the Burgundy base and settle their spot.

Not implying that. I only want a settlement and villagers for a beginning, like in random maps. I don't want to begin a game by studying what buildings, technologies, troops I have etc. Starcraft got it right for me but Warcraft 3 was the complete opposite.

 

[The Dude]

Recently found Warlords Battlecry 3 in a bargain box, and for what it is it's pretty enjoyable. I guess you could call it a Warcraft 3 clone (though the first Battlecry game might even predate wc3) only with persistent heroes + retinues and a Puzzle Quest like single player campaign. There's a shitload of races that are all pretty unique, and the choices when it comes to heroes and their skills are pretty immense. The unit sprites and map tiles are competently drawn, though nothing breathtaking. The game seems to suffer a bit when it comes to the variety of loot for your heroes, and the mage type units the different races has are pretty much the same except for what spells they have access to. Anyway, it's a pretty competent little game that can be fun in medium doses. I have no idea of how unbalanced the multiplayer might be though, but considering the game's 5 years old that's pretty much a non issue since I would be surprised if a game of that age not made by Blizzard has a active multiplayer community.

 

[Thydron]

Any TB strat games anyone would recommend? i'm a bit burnt out on Alpha Centauri - something without a tech tree / city management would be cool.

 

[Kraszu]

I never beat Homeworld either. Some of the later missions are just so ridiculous. It doesn't help that the game is -SLOW-.

SC and AoE II require some crazy APM to play properly

NO STARCRAFT IS ENTIRELY A GAME OF SKILL AND STRATEGY

Multitasking and fast control isn't a skill?

 

[MetalCraze]

I've played Homeworld. it's a good game and was innovative for it's time when it comes to design. yet the problem of Homeworld is that you can't do time compression like in later installments. also the game is ridiculously easy compared to HW:C and HW2
HW's storyline is also good and each cosmic sector you go through brings something new.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

Any TB strat games anyone would recommend? i'm a bit burnt out on Alpha Centauri - something without a tech tree / city management would be cool.

Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic

 

[Thalkirst]

Fantasy General

 

[Damned Registrations]

And what's the deal with the popularity of Starcraft? Don't give me the bullshit that it requires more skill than other games, even a nooby such as me can easily see that newer strategy games have a lot more options and subtleties. It's those decadent asians again, isn't it?

I would imagine it's bnet mostly. That combined with the fact that it's by no means a poorly designed game, = good stuff. It'[s rather rare that I find an RTS that doesn't have the same damned unit for every race with minor stat teaks and a few uber units you'll hardly ever see anyways at the top tier that supposedly make them so varied. Theres not a single unit in SC with an analogue in another race. They're all quite radically different. Even something that seems quite basic, like say, a hydralisk and a marine, are quite different: Hydralisks do a different kind of damage more effective on buildings and vehicles, have double the HP, upgradeable movement and the burrow ability, as well as innate health regeneration. Marines have stimpacks that make them attack more rapidly than anything in the game except cracklings. Marines benefit more from attack damage upgrades than hydralisks do, but fare worse against heavily armored things like reavers or battle cruisers, or somply other units with high armor upgrades. Zealots, scouts and firebats actually deal damage multiple times for a fraction of their listed damage per attack; making them weak to higher armor. Stuff like that makes it really interesting. In WC3 by comparison, armor always just = 6% more hp except vs spells. Yawn. Damage upgrades are scaled equally between most units, grunts footmen and ghouls are all basically the same fucking thing. (Footmen get an ability to defend against piercing damage and ghouls get cannibalize? Woooo...) They all fare equally well vs targets because they all have the same basic components. Pretty much all RTS games are like that. Thats how they get balanced. SC is balanced by actual fucking balance. Flying buildings vs creep vs pylon control areas. Repairs vs regeneration vs shielding. Overlords and parasites vs comsats vs observers. Laying spidermines next to unit producing structures is much more interesting than building a generic damage tower/seige weapon near your enemy's base. SC also got the feel of the resource war right imo. In most games the resources last damned near forever relative to how difficult they are to claim. In SC, it's actually quite possible to spend so many minerals defending a patch that it's not an advantage at all if you're just spamming out units without fighting tactically and strategically. It also puts pressure on the macromanagement factor; in most other RTS games I don't feel a lot of pressure to remember to always be scouting, researching, organizing, colonizing and repairing shit at once. Usually because half that stuff is irrlevant or takes care of itself.

 

[Texas Red]

I've been playing Age of Mythology and I have some things on my mind regarding it.

First of all, is it me or are Egyptians overpowered? Whenever I play with the Greeks I fail but with the Egyptians everything is much easier. Haven't yet tried the Norsemen but they seem even weaker than the Greeks.

Most random maps 2 vs 2 go like this: opponents annihilate my ally. Opponents band together and start attacking me simultaneously. I simply don't have enough man power and lose.

What gives?

 

[Thydron]

Any TB strat games anyone would recommend? i'm a bit burnt out on Alpha Centauri - something without a tech tree / city management would be cool.

Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic

You may have just destroyed any chance I had at doing any revision . Cheers

 

[Lingwe]

I found AoE 2 to be quite difficult. Am I just a failure or is it actually considered hard?

Either you have the difficulty set on hard or you are infact a failure. The missions where you are given a limited number of troops are relatively easy to beat if the difficulty is set to easiest/easy, although you will usually need to be sure to heal your troops properly (since they usually give you a priest or two). As for wanting to build the bases up then just play random maps. The campaign is meant to give you prebuilt towns or a limited set of units so that it presents a different challenge, as opposed to just 6 'build-town-beat-enemy' missions.

Age of Empires 3 isn't a bad as what some people say, it is just different. The 'dumbing down' that is supposedly there is basically that you don't need to build gathering buildings any more and that buildings auto repair. The auto repairing buildings actually serve to make the weak walls even weaker since it means that you can't use a villager to repair a building while it is being attacked. I personally think that Age of Empires 2 is better, but Age of Empires 3 isn't 'shit' either. I rate it much higher than Age of Mythology in which the AI was either way too weak or way too strong. If it was set to moderate then it wouldn't do anything, but if it was set to hard then I would constantly be on the defensive from about 10 minutes into the game.

What I'm really worried about is how Ensemble Studios has been whored off to the Xbox and are now produing a strategy game for the Xbox - Halo Wars of all things. As if you can play a strategy game that requires an entire keyboard worth of hotkeys and the control provided by a mouse on a console.

The Total War series is also pretty good and a bit different to either the Age of Empires series or the Age of Wonders series or Civilization series. It has a strategic turn based map but then you also fight the battles in a real time tactical map (or you can just auto resolve it anyway). There is a noticeable difference between the earlier two, which use sprites, and the later two which are full 3D. I think that the second of each type (Medieval and Medieval 2) are the better ones.