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

[Theodora]

It always seemed a bit of a nebulous genre, in part because of Paradox's domination of it by most metrics.

Don't know if I could honestly call myself a true fan of them (mostly because I suck at them ^^), but it's super interesting to me to see how various developers attempt to make abstract the 'forces of history', so to speak.

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).

More than anything they seem to inspire people to learn about history! Which is the real cool thing.

 

[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.

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.

Maybe, but the things you're naming like morale and formations are present in other RTS games. Dawn of War has morale as does Battlefleet Gothic Armada and Warlords Battlecry. Lots of RTS games have formations - Age of Empires, Supreme Commander, BFGA, I think Battle for Middle Earth but haven't played that in a while.

 

[Norfleet]

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 GSG is just a 4x where some people have been playing it badly for the however many turns before you get to choose who to take over from. In CK, Vicky, HOI, you don't decide who the players are going to be, the players have already been playing before the game started and you just decide which one you're taking over for. In Stellaris, you decide who the players are, and are playing from the beginning.

This is why GSGs tend to focus on known themes: Real world history or popular fictional works that contain extensive historical lore: Because a game played between completely unknown actors would be unrelatable, and that's why this doesn't happen in Stellaris.

By necessity, GSGs therefore tend to have more internal meat than "churn out units and aim them at the enemy", but like you said: Same Engine, so that's not the dividing line.

 

[what am i doing]

This is why GSGs tend to focus on known themes: Real world history or popular fictional works that contain extensive historical lore: Because a game played between completely unknown actors would be unrelatable, and that's why this doesn't happen in Stellaris.

I don't think this is true - Anbennar seems to have been really well received. All that matters is that the world is hand-made and not randomly generated.

 

[Conan]

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.

This is all wrong.


A 4X is simply a playstyle. A GS game can be a 4X game too.

The real difference is that GS games have macro variables under your control such as economic variables like tax rate, population growth rate or industrial power as a product.

GS games tend to but not always abstract the core gameplay as much as possible instead focusing on managing the statistics. Most other strategy games have the core games as the focus and other stuff being the "resources".

 

[Heroic Liberator]

A 4X is simply a playstyle. A GS game can be a 4X game too.

You could perhaps argue that, but then I'd make the distinction between 4X as a general playstyle that various subgenres of strategy games - including GS games - can implement and 4X as a subgenre proper which shares a core gameplay experience that goes beyond just the four pillars of gameplay that the 4X playstyle entails. 4X titles aren't just about the what (a.i. playstyle), but also about the how (a.i. core gameplay systems, something which is shared between 4X franchises like Civ, Endless, Age of Wonders etc etc). I defer to what am i doing's interpretation of things for the most part though since he articulated it much better - for me it's like that discussion about porn in some American courthouse: if it feels like 4X, then it is a 4X; and for me, GS games just don't feel like 4X.

 

[Conan]

A 4X is simply a playstyle. A GS game can be a 4X game too.

You could perhaps argue that, but then I'd make the distinction between 4X as a general playstyle that various subgenres of strategy games - including GS games - can implement and 4X as a subgenre proper which shares a core gameplay experience that goes beyond just the four pillars of gameplay that the 4X playstyle entails. 4X titles aren't just about the what (a.i. playstyle), but also about the how (a.i. core gameplay systems, something which is shared between 4X franchises like Civ, Endless, Age of Wonders etc etc). I defer to what am i doing's interpretation of things for the most part though since he articulated it much better - for me it's like that discussion about porn in some American courthouse: if it feels like 4X, then it is a 4X; and for me, GS games just don't feel like 4X.

4X is a very loose term no matter what you choose to believe. It has a central pattern no doubt and that pattern is that you have expansion and exploration (the other 2Xs are not that important because they are highly subjective). Nothing in 4X fundamentally contradicts being a GS game.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Nothing in 4X fundamentally contradicts being a GS game.

Hence Stellaris being a 4X & GS hybrid, yes.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Paradox makes cookie clicker games dressed up as historical. Absolute state of goyim, 0/10.