What are some good turn-based strategy games?

[Derek Larp]

Well I have no idea how it compares to it´s precessors, but Steel Panthers: World at War is fun and it´s free.

If you´re into hex wargaming you might want to try The Operational Art of War III.

 

[oldmanpaco]

Seldon, is the first Medieval: Total War as bad as the second? It's the only one in the series that looks interesting to me.

To my shame, I have never played the first one. Therefore I can not offer an analysis based on experience. However from what I have read based on opinions and the game's features it seems pretty good, and far, far beyond MTW2 . More similar to Shogun, and has that old strategical map that I like.

It is pretty cheap too nowadays, so it is most likely a good investment. I am going to get it myself one day, when I have time to play it.

M:TW 1 is 10 times the game M2 is. The historic achievement campaign mode where you try to match what the countries really did makes the game have a grander purpose than just taking over the world. Also no crappy micro-managing pointless units.

I haven't seen it mentioned but Warlords 1 is probably the strategy game I spent the most time with back in the day. I played that game for years. Unfortunately W2 and up started getting progressively more crappy.

 

[sqeecoo]

Alpha Centauri is probably the best strategy game I've played. Hearts of Iron is insanely interesting and complex, but also quite flawed.

 

[oldmanpaco]

Anyone remember Command HQ from the early 90's. That game was not turn based but RT on a global strategic level so it played out more turn based than RTS.

 

[oldschool]

I'll throw my 2 cents in as well.

Medieval TW 1 is one of my favorite games and I still roll back my video drivers to play it just because it's that good. Shogun is good, too. The rest of the series sucks all to hell.
You'll still find many good mods for it (MTW1) over at the Org. I'll even send you my Lithuanian Pagan mod if you're a masochist. :twisted:

Two games that have managed to get installed on every computer I've owned and still get played regularly are MOO2 and Alpha Centauri. Both great games that have stood the test of time well.

 

[Ghoulem]

I can agree that Medieval TW 2 wasn't up to par, but you can't dismiss Rome TW as sucking all the way to hell. IMO it's the best in the series so far. The chivalry-system is so ..lame and it makes less sense than a pancake factory out of a garden gnome's ass. Command, Influence and Management was more enjoyable and isn't some ridiculous Good vs. Evil scale. The setting, the factions. The world map movement. It's just the better game.

It seems like they're taking some right steps on Empire TW and I'm looking forward to it. Naval Combat ffs. There is so much improvement from Shogun to Empire, but not every thing they do are necessarily for the better, but they have to try out some new things if they want to improve. I didn't particularly fancy Medieval II myself, but it's much more entertaining than it's predecessor. And even though you fancy Medieval I, both you and I know there is a reason why they chose to redo it.

There is so much more potential to this series than the Medieval I-style gameplay. I would like to see more politics, more diplomacy, resources playing a more important role, researching, more choices in character development and faction uniqueness.

If they combined the detailed gameplay of an 4X game (Civilization anyone?) with their own combat system and some RPG-elements. Total War would be the undisputed champion of TB strategy games.

 

[oldschool]

Well, people like what they like, I guess. No offense to you, but for my money, Rome does indeed suck all to hell.

I can agree that Medieval TW 2 wasn't up to par, but you can't dismiss Rome TW as sucking all the way to hell. IMO it's the best in the series so far. The chivalry-system is so ..lame and it makes less sense than a pancake factory out of a garden gnome's ass. Command, Influence and Management was more enjoyable and isn't some ridiculous Good vs. Evil scale. The setting, the factions. The world map movement. It's just the better game.

It sounds like you're role playing the thing. What do I care about the chivalry system? I just look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of units and use them accordingly.

The Rome map was a good idea maybe, but a horrible implementation. We went from a simple and functional map that at least allowed the game to offer some resistance to your strategy, to a map where the enemy just randomly marches around, sieges a town, then arbitrarily breaks off the seige and marches clean out of sight. It's utterly ridiculous how bad the strategy map AI is.

I don't even know what you mean by Good vs. Evil scale?

It seems like they're taking some right steps on Empire TW and I'm looking forward to it. Naval Combat ffs. There is so much improvement from Shogun to Empire, but not every thing they do are necessarily for the better, but they have to try out some new things if they want to improve. I didn't particularly fancy Medieval II myself, but it's much more entertaining than it's predecessor. And even though you fancy Medieval I, both you and I know there is a reason why they chose to redo it.

There is so much more potential to this series than the Medieval I-style gameplay. I would like to see more politics, more diplomacy, resources playing a more important role, researching, more choices in character development and faction uniqueness.

If they combined the detailed gameplay of an 4X game (Civilization anyone?) with their own combat system and some RPG-elements. Total War would be the undisputed champion of TB strategy games.

You didn't even mention the heart of the game, the actual combat, which is completely nerfed in Rome. Hell, even after all this time in MTW, I still get in situations where the tactics I use make the difference between winning or losing a battle, or taking unneccessary casualties. I can tell exactly how every Rome battle will turn out, almost down to the number of casualties from each side.

As for why, it's pretty easy to see. They wanted a bigger audience, so they ripped out the gameplay and replaced it with fluff. Obviously, it has worked, so it's hard to fault them for it. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, though.

Anyway(s), I don't guess there is any purpose arguing this point by point. If you like where the series has gone, who am I to say different?

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

I agree with most when it comes to the newer TW maps. The old risk style maps allows greater, more decisive battles. The new maps create small, grind matches. A pity that some of the improvements of the newer games could not be grafted onto the older map styles.

I took a look at the ageod games, but they are too US centric for my tastes, however...how is the Napoleonic game? Nobody seems to have mentioned it so I am assuming there is some big reason why the ACW is better than the Nappy game? Please go into details if you would.

 

[oldmanpaco]

Rome without mods is not all that great. The EB mod for Rome makes the game and battles much, much better. I haven't played Rome without it for years.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I took a look at the ageod games, but they are too US centric for my tastes, however...how is the Napoleonic game? Nobody seems to have mentioned it so I am assuming there is some big reason why the ACW is better than the Nappy game? Please go into details if you would.

The napoleonic game has no grand campaign, so you're missing the best part. It was released stripped of many features and not many people like it.

I dunno what you mean with US-centric, if you make game about the American Civil War you will end up more or less this way. The next game (Vainglory of Nations) will be about victorian Europe though.

For the first game I recommend WiA because it has easier mechanics, though ACW has more depth.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Going to check out WiA then. I did a research on it and it seems interesting, especially the usage of Indian allies. One thing it didn't specify, are ambushes possible? And also, do the French stand a chance in the first campaign?

 

[Burning Bridges]

I was busy with playing the War of Independence from both sides, so I have yet to play the French Indian campaign. But as the French you will have very little regular units and are forced to fight some sort of partisan war. This might be a good campaign to learn the attrition and movement rules, you have that wide and beautiful terrain to your advantage. It is not the easiest campaign to play the french but you always have a chance.

Ambushes are possible. You place an irregular unit somewhere along a road or railway and set posture to ambush. In ACW I did this several times with Bushwacker or Cherokee units. However, the real advantage of irregular units is that they are the only ones that can operate in the wilderness. Some important forts are defended by puny regiments, and it's tempting to move some powerful divisions of line infantry, artillery and supply wagons through to the great lakes. But the game will penalize you heavily, it might even end in disaster (if winter sets in). I was able to take elusive objectives like Fort Niagara, but only with well prepared irregular leaders and pathfinders. They move faster and with less attrition through rugged terrain.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Interesting. Perhaps this might be a good game, I think I might pick this one up after I have given R3K11 demo a thrashing.

If WiA is good I will check out ACW.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Yeah, ACW after WiA is the right order.

 

[Lightknight]

Finally the torrent on demonoid has FIVE seeds on Spellcross. I waited for months to have a single seed and then gave up half a year ago, and now there are FIVE !

Spellcross is highly recommended for anyone who lusts for some real CHALLENGE, which so many games today fails so much at providing.

 

[PennyAnte]

I'm going to agree on Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri + Expansion, a.k.a. SMAC. Absolutely my favorite TBS ever.

What distinguishes it from Civ are two things, and they transform it utterly: 'Formers (short for terraformers) and supply crawlers. This allows you to do things like raise mountains from plains at a location away from your city and cover it in solar panels, then transport all the energy back to a single town for insane resources. It opens all kinds of new strategies. You can dig channels to the sea, build floating cities, grow food in water, etc.

The units also are customizable with chassis, armor, guns and special abilities all selectable. You can build a highly specialized military will all kinds of tactical approaches.

Many technologies also are imaginative and all have voiceovers that add perfect flavor.

That game is truly a masterpiece, although not everyone likes Alien Crossfire.

 

[Higher Game]

Alpha Centauri also has z levels, which are important when you have global warming. I'm not kidding. That game has so much depth, literally.

 

[Trash]

Allthough I'm utterly bored and tired of mtw2 it has one thing going for it with the stainless steel mod. The strategy map AI really offers resistance now. I was amazed at the amount of full stack invasions I had to endure as the British and the enemy really seemed to plan ahead attacks and sieges. I fondly remember seeing stack after stack of Scottish forces form on the border for a few years on end. When they had 8 or 9 full armies they invaded and raped me.

Still, it gets dull after awhile.

 

[AzraelCC]

I don't see Dominions 3 getting much love here, but it deserves another mention. I know it's sometimes too micromanagement intensive and a bit unbalanced for some of the nations, but the sheer number of options you have is just so compelling. Multiplayer, though taking several weeks to finish/play, is really fun too.

 

[YourConscience]

I don't see Dominions 3 getting much love here, but it deserves another mention. I know it's sometimes too micromanagement intensive and a bit unbalanced for some of the nations, but the sheer number of options you have is just so compelling. Multiplayer, though taking several weeks to finish/play, is really fun too.

I think you are mistaken. From what I can gather, Dominions 3 is one of those games that the hive mind here deems to be a precious gem out there. Something I agree very much with, for once.

And actually I think that unbalancedness makes it interesting. Similar as the Battlecry2 and 3 unbelancedness made it more interesting, even though in itself it's just a RTS with a bit of RPG.

 

[AzraelCC]

Yeah, the hivemind loves dom3, but it was mentioned just once in this thread, so in the interest of informing the original poster of its awesomeness, I decided to chime in.

I also agree that the imbalance of dom3 does give it a certain appeal, especially in single player. During MP games though, with all the the min-maxing going on, I do sometimes wish that all the factions were competitive, especially since the variety and flavor of the factions are impressive (I'm looking at you, Machaka). I myself play ME Marignon despite Pythium being better overall, but the whole Inquisition/burn in hell heretic flavor of ME Marignon is just too awesome. And of course, there's the Seraph spam....

I liked Battlecry too, particularly Battlecry 3. The Barbarians are so imbalanced especially with a high Charisma hero with the Barbarian King ability, but that's what makes it fun. :twisted: