What do you enjoy in grand strategy games over 4x/war games

[KainenMorden]

Just curious to hear what grand strategy gamers enjoy about the genre and what they look for in a grand strategy game.

 

[KateMicucci]

Sir please sir stop trying to discuss video games on this video game forum this instant sir I will not have it sir

 

[Axioms]

I wouldn't say I prefer standard gsg games that much. I approve of the *goal* of adding Diplomacy/Intrigue/Politics and internal barriers to snowballing. The execution I'm less happy with.

 

[Catacombs]

They're challenging and require time to learn; the payoff is often worth it.

You can do some interesting things in the world, i.e. become an incestuous emperor in CK2 whose power stretches across the continents and is always in danger from jealous relatives/sexual partners.

 

[KainenMorden]

Sir please sir stop trying to discuss video games on this video game forum this instant sir I will not have it sir

I know its a shocking change of pace for many codexers.

 

[zapotec]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation on the forums.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

The emergent storytelling aspect of it, although it's only good as the historical simulation is (same as with alternate history fiction, it requires plausibility in order for one to suspend their disbelief and to enjoy it).

 

[Lady Error]

Having more freedom in what goals you pursue and especially how you go about it. It's also a good workout for the brain and strategic behavior with many possible courses of action is what a lot in life is about.

 

[Zarniwoop]

First we have to ask, what IS a grand strategy game

But seriously, how do you distinguish between grand strategy and 4X?

Crusader Kangz, Victoria and Hearts of Iron: Grand Strategy. Same game with same engine by the same developers (Stellaris), but in space, suddenly becomes 4X?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Crusader Kangz, Victoria and Hearts of Iron: Grand Strategy. Same game with same engine by the same developers (Stellaris), but in space, suddenly becomes 4X?

Mostly the lack of a predetermined map setup and a fleshed out exploration system (unlike grand strat titles, which either have none or at most have limited stuff like colonization mechanics and partial fog of war). Although I'd classify Stellaris as a grand strat & 4X hybrid since it has no conventional victory conditions unlike 4X titles.

 

[what am i doing]

First we have to ask, what IS a grand strategy game

But seriously, how do you distinguish between grand strategy and 4X?

Crusader Kangz, Victoria and Hearts of Iron: Grand Strategy. Same game with same engine by the same developers (Stellaris), but in space, suddenly becomes 4X?

A 4X has a randomly generated world, and generally follows a paradigm where players start out small, on equal footing.
A Grand Strategy game has a hand-made world, and generally follows a paradigm where the world is moderately to heavily populated by existing civilizations to reflect either historical/present accuracy, a plausible future, or a plausible fictional world, rather than symmetry or balance.

This is also why I prefer GS over 4X. Randomly generated worlds feel soulless, pointless, and unauthentic. The fact that GS is typically real-time (the ticks represent a longer time period than in, say, an RTS, but it's still essentially tick-based which is what we usually take real-time to mean) rather than turn-based is also a huge plus, but the main thing is that they aren't randomly generated. Stellaris is real-time, sure, but it has the random generation shit design so my enjoyment of it is greatly diminished even before we get to all the other design problems it has.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

This is also why I prefer GS over 4X. Randomly generated worlds feel soulless, pointless, and unauthentic.

Pretty much my stance on the matter. Especially with 'historical' 4x titles which are outright nonsensical in their mapping of real civilizations onto randomly generated maps and their detachment of cultural products from their civilizational background (e.g. the wonder system in Civ titles or the more recent and much more outrageous culture system in Humankind). Fictional settings, be they fantasy or SF, fit the 4X genre much better.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Crusader Kangz, Victoria and Hearts of Iron: Grand Strategy. Same game with same engine by the same developers (Stellaris), but in space, suddenly becomes 4X?

Mostly the lack of a predetermined map setup and less of a focus on exploration (stuff like colonization mechanics and partial fog of war in some grandstrat titles aside). Although I'd classify Stellaris as a grand strat & 4X hybrid since it has no conventional victory conditions unlike conventional 4X titles.

But the Total War series is Grand Strategy and it has victory conditions.

A 4X has a randomly generated world, and generally follows a paradigm where players start out small, on equal footing.

This is the wikipedo definition too, but again see Stellaris. The factions there don't start out equal. It does have the randomly generated map though, unless you use mods.

So I guess the predetermined map and factions makes it then?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

But the Total War series is Grand Strategy and it has victory conditions.

I wouldn't consider Total War to be grand strategy though due to its combat system being detached from the world map and being implemented in a non-abstract capacity (i.e. it's a parallel system to the state management systems that take place on the world map). Not to mention that, with perhaps the exception of a few titles like Shogun 2, both the diplomacy system and the internal management one are too barebones (and even Shogun 2 has less of that than something like the Hearts of Iron series which is the wargame franchise of Paradox grandstrat titles).

 

[what am i doing]

This is also why I prefer GS over 4X. Randomly generated worlds feel soulless, pointless, and unauthentic.

Pretty much my stance on the matter. Especially with 'historical' 4x titles which are outright nonsensical in their mapping of real civilizations onto randomly generated maps and their detachment of cultural products from their civilizational background (e.g. the wonder system in Civ titles or the more recent and much more outrageous culture system in Humankind). Fictional settings, be they fantasy or SF, fit the 4X genre much better.

True, but I find the soullessness still permeates even to fantasy settings - Endless Legend as an example. Though it did eventually get a handmade / canonical Auriga map which alleviates the problem somewhat. It would be nice to see a theoretical Endless Legend 2 go full GSG.

Crusader Kangz, Victoria and Hearts of Iron: Grand Strategy. Same game with same engine by the same developers (Stellaris), but in space, suddenly becomes 4X?

Mostly the lack of a predetermined map setup and less of a focus on exploration (stuff like colonization mechanics and partial fog of war in some grandstrat titles aside). Although I'd classify Stellaris as a grand strat & 4X hybrid since it has no conventional victory conditions unlike conventional 4X titles.

But the Total War series is Grand Strategy and it has victory conditions.

A 4X has a randomly generated world, and generally follows a paradigm where players start out small, on equal footing.

This is the wikipedo definition too, but again see Stellaris. The factions there don't start out equal. It does have the randomly generated map though, unless you use mods.

So I guess the predetermined map and factions makes it then?

No, I think they start out closer to a typical 4X than to a GSG. There's some hinting at GSG faction startouts with the "advanced" NPCs, the primitives (but Endless Legend has these too...), and the fallen empires, but the "player" and player equivalents all basically start out on the same footing. If you host a multiplayer match you all start on the same footing. There are no big pre-existing sprawling empires or anything like that. Case in point consider the UN vs Commonwealth - you'd expect the UN to have spread much further and be more developed and built-up than the Commonwealth (perhaps having already colonized neighbouring systems) since they'd have been developing and expanding while the Commonwealth was still travelling and colonizing their new homeworld, but instead they start out on the exact same footing. It doesn't make much sense, and there's no in-game explanation for it that I recall.

If you view it as a gradient of design I'd say Stellaris sits closer to the GSG end of the gradient than most 4X games, but it's still way over at the 4X end. Sort of like how Europa Universalis sits a bit closer to the 4X end due to the New World compared to most GSGs, but is still overall at the GSG end of the spectrum.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

I'd also be curious on your take pertaining to Total War being a grand strategy franchise or not, what am i doing.

 

[what am i doing]

I'd also be curious on your take pertaining to Total War being a grand strategy franchise or not, what am i doing.

I'd regard it like this. Broadly an RTS, but with GS elements. Sort of like how some RTS games (DoW DC & SS, WLBC2) add a campaign map. I think it's actually best visualized as a triangle, with RTS at one corner, GS at another, and 4X in the last one. RTT, MOBA, etc in the garbage can where they belong.

SINS on the other hand also is real-time focused (IIRC - I don't remember how involved the space battles were) but leaned more towards 4X than GS due to its campaign map being random and "start small, expand" oriented. Whereas RTS games that add a world map typically have it fully or mostly populated. I think DoW DC was sparsely populated, but it was hand-made.

EDIT: also, I think there's a case for arguing HoI should go further upwards towards RTS due to the emphasis on combat micro, at least in, say, HoI4 multiplayer.

 

[KazikluBey]

Where's That Which Sleeps on that chart?

 

[KainenMorden]

Very interesting discussion, the genre does intrigue me as a student of history as well and it does seem like a great mental exercise which is why I'd like to try one at some point.

This might be the most monocled commentary on the genre in some time.

 

[Spectacle]

A Grand Strategy game generally at least attempts to simulate the kind of concerns that "real" leaders have/had to deal with in the game's setting. Whereas a 4X may have some "realistic" flavor, but the mechanics are focussed on providing interesting gameplay.

Jump to new

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

I wouldn't know half the shit I do now about history if it wasn't for playing historical grand strategy games. It's fun to learn about foreign cultures and ancient people (right before conquering and/or blowing them up).

 

[catfood]

I like painting the map in my country's color.

 

[Norfleet]

Grand Strategy is basically just a 4X that you only get to start playing by taking over after everyone else has been playing badly since the beginning.

Where's That Which Sleeps on that chart?

It isn't on the chart, because the chart is for actual games, not vaporware.

 

[Forest Dweller]

I'd also be curious on your take pertaining to Total War being a grand strategy franchise or not, what am i doing.

I'd regard it like this. Broadly an RTS, but with GS elements. Sort of like how some RTS games (DoW DC & SS, WLBC2) add a campaign map. I think it's actually best visualized as a triangle, with RTS at one corner, GS at another, and 4X in the last one. RTT, MOBA, etc in the garbage can where they belong.

SINS on the other hand also is real-time focused (IIRC - I don't remember how involved the space battles were) but leaned more towards 4X than GS due to its campaign map being random and "start small, expand" oriented. Whereas RTS games that add a world map typically have it fully or mostly populated. I think DoW DC was sparsely populated, but it was hand-made.

View attachment 29013

EDIT: also, I think there's a case for arguing HoI should go further upwards towards RTS due to the emphasis on combat micro, at least in, say, HoI4 multiplayer.

I'd put Total War closer to the GS corner. Halfway or maybe a little more. You still spend a lot of time on the campaign map and battles only occur based on what happens on the campaign map. You can also auto-resolve them. And you can pause during the battles and they have concerns that aren't present in other RTS's (like morale, formations, etc.) It doesn't "feel" like an RTS.

 

[mondblut]

Just curious to hear what grand strategy gamers enjoy about the genre and what they look for in a grand strategy game.

In GSG, I get to play as Hitler!

Other than that, diversity of factions and starting conditions. Having to choose between a village with a scout that knows pottery and needs to research horseback riding and a village with a scout that knows horseback riding and needs to research pottery bores me to tears.