THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CLIKC => Topic started by: Caspian on 05 May 2008, 18:26
-
I am aware that this is possibly THE nerdiest type of game that you can get, but I like it a great deal anyway; the relaxed pace, the emphasis on strategy and so on and so forth.
Personally I would say that Civ III (especcially with the expansion packs) and Master of Orion 2 are the pinnacles of this genre thus far, combining the ultra nerdy micromanagement things this genre's known for with a fair bit of entertainment and accessibility. Galactic Civilizations was also pretty cool, but mainly because the tech tree was so awesome.
ANYWAY. TURN BASED STRATEGY. DISCUSS.
-
I suck at it hard. (I have trouble beating 5 other AI players on Settler difficulty in Civ 4) But I love Civ 4 to death. I just need to get accustomed to focusing on fewer aspects of my empire. I end up getting spread far too thin for me to be any good.
-
I've always been a fan of Fire Emblem
-
I'll agree on MoO2. I prefer Civ 4 to 3, though. Lots of hidden numbers in that game. I'm sorry, but a raw spearman should never beat a veteran tank.
-
I personally enjoy Fire Emblem myself, as well as Risk and chess (though I doubt the last one fits what the author intended when he said turn based strategy, it is the epitome of said type of game). I've also become slightly addicted to a Flash MMORPG called Dofus, which I randomly found online - it's turn based to a certain degree, and is a good time waster - Overall, yes, Turnbased strategy is still amazing; it just needs to be revamped every once in a while (like Fire emblem did).
-
Risk and Chess are definately two of my favorite games of all time (not video games, yes, but still valid). Axis and Allies is also a very good game. "Risk on steroids" if you will.
-
Although calling me a good player would be the greatest exagerration since someone said that Stalin was a bit naughty, I have to say that I love turn-based strategy games, especially Civ 4 and HoMM. I believe it has something to do with the relaxed phase mentioned earlier in this thread.
On a related note, I got this fantastic mod to Civ4 a while ago. It adds myriads of new technologies, buildings and units to the game, as well as making the game much longer (and enjoyable). The only problem is that in my computer, the game starts to get incredibly slow around the time I reach Renaissance...
-
I quite like turn based strategy games.
Also, does Worms count too? Because Worms is fuckin' awesome.
-
Back in college, whenever I was bored I'd fire up worms: armageddon and play. I once managed to spend 90 minutes in the ropes challenge before I got bored.
You know, I'm sure there was a more productive way I could have spent that time.
-
I too, adore turn based strategy games.
Battle for wesnoth is one free one worth checking out, but my all time fav would have to be Age of Wonders: SM
-
Uhm...
Shogun Total War
Rome Total War
Medieval II Total War
(and coming but is going to kick ass:) Empire Total War
(I haven't played Medieval I)
-
Total war series is insanely good. Too bad I suck ass as at turn-based strategy. Everynow and then I'll boot up Medieval II only to realise I'm not getting any better.
-
You all suck. Squad level crushes all that comes before it. Terror for the Deep and, more recently, Silent Storm, are the finest turn-based strategy games I have played.
But, yeah, the OP is absolutely right, turn based is definitely the finest (nerdier is better, let's face it) sort of strategy.
-
Turn-based strategy requires a level of patience that not a lot of gamers have, which is a shame because it's also probably the easiest kind of game to just leave off at any old point and then pick up again later. I really enjoy the Civilization games in particular, though, guys.
-
I love turn-based strategy games, whether it be of the Civilization or the Fire Emblem type. I am an absolute sucker for them, probably because I have an abundance of free time so the level of investment they require doesn't bother me.
But I wouldn't exactly call Worms 'strategic'. Turn-based, certainly, but there's not a whole lot of strategy to 'blow the other team the fuck up'.
Also, I love Heroes of Might and Magic 3 on an almost unhealthy level. In fact, I think I'm going to go check and see if it's on Steam because I don't have my copy with me right now. It probably isn't, but damn if I'm not going to try anyway.
-
there's not a whole lot of strategy to 'blow the other team the fuck up'.
That's the best kind of strategy.
Ever play defcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON_(computer_game))?
But that's not really turnbased. Unless, you mean that everything happens in turns. It's a great game though.
-
Also, I love Heroes of Might and Magic 3 on an almost unhealthy level. In fact, I think I'm going to go check and see if it's on Steam because I don't have my copy with me right now. It probably isn't, but damn if I'm not going to try anyway.
I wasn't thinking of HOMM III when I made this thread but it is freaking epic. There's something indefinably awesome about it that no other HOMM game has had. It really captures that epic fantasy thing brilliantly, which is rather good because I love my cliched epic fantasy.
-
I love me some TBS.
Civilization's all well and good but I prefer me some Alpha Centauri. Tis awesome and I'm constantly wishing they'd get around to a sequel.
I also like Silent Storm and though I'd only played Apocalypse, I like X-com also.
Shame i can't be arsed figuring out DOSbox so I can continue playing. I must've bought the game just as we were switching to XP, got to play it a little bit and BAM - XP gets installed and all that jazz and suddenly no X-com.
-
my friend's brother has something a little bit like Axis and Allies on the computer. I have NO idea what it's called but a single game can take over 200 hours to play and beat. EVERY country in the world was included (from 1940's) You control EVERYTHING and it's just freaking insane....points in history are put in, wars are put in....so WW2 your countries enemies will start attacking you. I have no idea how large (sizewise) the game is...but it's hardcore.
-
HOMMII & III were both just plain awesome. HOMMIII may have been more polished and refined, but then again, HOMMII had the edge balls out cheesiness. The cutscenes where Roland's Advisors have their "accidents," the pseudo-operatic city scores, the vampires that say "blah!" as they attack... Good times.
-
I like a lot of the games that have been mentioned, but Final Fantasy Tactics holds a special place in my heart for the sheer amount of time it sucked from my life when it came out.
-
Heroes of Might and Magic is my favourite. I've been playing them since I was 7 and I spend most of my time playing Heroes V.
BTW Heroes IV sucked like a bucket of ticks.
-
I love Heroes II. It's just so good.
-
Heroes 3 is better. Yeah, I said it.
-
I agree with what others here have said about HoMM 4. I did like it how the hero´s class could be changed by the skills you choose, but the rest of the game just wasn´t all that good.
-
Fuck all your guyses teams: GalCiv2.
Fucking top it. Come on. No. No, you can't.
-
That's just begging for a "your mom", and you know it, Ozy.
-
Turn based games' reputation for being lame seems quite bizzare when I know that Civilisation 3 is the only game most people I know play on a regular basis, and please bear in mind these people are not people who play games at all. Personally I loved Medieval II but the AI was totally fucked and I had to mod it to stop it from doing crazy, suicidal things which killed it off and inconvenienced me. Personally I much prefer Civ 4 to 3, I just think its better in every way, especially with the new government choices giving you much more flexibility and better tile management, but whatever its just down to personal preference and Civ 3 is damn good. Also chess is great.
-
Sure I do. I have played a bit of CIV, and a bit of Heroes. But right now I'm playing FreeCol and it's frigging awesome. And Sid Meyer knows his stuff.
I used to play some weird game that looked a bit like Heroes, but wasn't. It's too long since I played it for me to remember. And I played FF tactics too. Weeee!
-
I loved Civ 3 and love Civ 4 even more.
Heroes4 was incomplete when they released it, so of course it sucked. You need a mod like equilibrus to make it fun.
Heroes 3 is still better though.
-
my friend's brother has something a little bit like Axis and Allies on the computer. I have NO idea what it's called but a single game can take over 200 hours to play and beat. EVERY country in the world was included (from 1940's) You control EVERYTHING and it's just freaking insane....points in history are put in, wars are put in....so WW2 your countries enemies will start attacking you. I have no idea how large (sizewise) the game is...but it's hardcore.
This game sounds lot like Hearts of Iron (or its sequel). It's turn based, technically, but every turn is only a day long or something like that, so it plays like realtime. It's from a Swedish company called Paradox Interactive, who make a range of similar games, covering history from 1100 right up to 1950. Incredibly complex, absorbing games. The older games they released are also all available for download at really low prices, well worth checking out.
-
I've tried to get into the genre repeatedly, but I just wind up getting annoyed/bored with it, even when it's in very small doses, like flash games online. I really wish I had the tolerance for it, because they're the only games that incorporate really any history prior to WW2 into games, and I'm supremely interested in all kinds of history.
-
What is the appeal of turn-based strategy over real-time strategy?
-
Turn based strategy allows for a lot more detail to economy, politics, technology, instead of just focusing on war.The reason that they're not both employed often is that it's probably too much for a person to handle both aspects in minute detail.
-
Add me to the list of lovers of Turn-Based games.
Civ III and IV, GalCivII, and HOMM are amongst my favorite. I also loved the old X-Com even though I never finished it.
I'd add the various Combat Mission games; Beyond Overlord, Barbarossa to Berlin, and Afrika Korps. Both sides plot their turns and then the computer runs the turns simultaneously. As a matter of fact I think I'll load Afrika Korps on the new computer now.
-
Turn based strategy allows for a lot more detail to economy, politics, technology, instead of just focusing on war.The reason that they're not both employed often is that it's probably too much for a person to handle both aspects in minute detail.
Also theres more a lot more strategy in the battles. Unless your playing a Total War battle, combat in RTS is simplistic and boring.
-
I wouldn't say it's boring. In fact I'd argue that combat in SC and RA2 is a good deal more entertaining then in any turn based you care to name. Also, it's not THAT simplistic, there's certainly a lot of strategy in RTS. Perhaps you're just crap at them :-P
I liken it to playing chess vs sparring/fighthing with someone. Chess is more strategic but there isn't any sort of the visceral thrill you get from having a fight. Whereas Chess has plenty of "Oh man, this coutergambit is going to own him, ohhhhh yeah", it's not as satisfying as doing a reverse hip throw on someone. I guess it depends on what kind of person you are, though.
-
I'm talking about the actual combat - you just mass units and click on the other units and let them fight to the death. There's nothing to it. There's little to no flanking, manoeuvring etc. in RTS battles.
-
It really depends on how much effort you put into it. Sure you can just point and click, but there's also other ways of doing things, usually more effective. However, the point and click is the same for most games. It'll get you through things, you could just do a lot better.
-
Exactly. There's the rush marine/zerg/conscript/base unit attach which is pretty brainless, but when you get things like artillery, units with special abilities, taking into account their defences etc there's a fair bit of strategy.
Thinking about it, my attacking style in TBS relies solely on getting numbers in quickly, whereas my RTS one is a lot more thought out.
-
I played Civilisation 2 a lot, but Civ 3 wouldn't work. Grr. DEFCON is great, but I suck at it.
Also, really liked UFO: Enemy Unknown and XCOM: Terror From The Deep.
-
I have to admit something. When I first bought Heroes V and played it, it was so awesome I nearly creamed my boxors. The Necropois has style but their stuff is brittle.
-
It's not for everyone though. Because of the fast-pace it can be insanely frustrating.
Game speed: slow
That was the only way I was able to do the harder levels. Some on Frozen Throne is impossible at hard without a hundred saves and reloads if you don't use that.
But you have a point, there's a lot of strategy in RTS games, but definitely not as much as in TBS. The maximum number of resources in RTS is four, I have never seen any more than that. A TBS can have tens of them, all with different uses and prices (I play freecol with 11 of them). You have more micromanagement and strategic thinking in Medieval2s building and moving part than in Warcraft3, but you never get as stressed and thrilled and pumped up by wondering wheter to build levy pikeman or longbowmen as by zerging the undead with gunners.
-
Don't rape me, but i hate turn based games -_-.
It takes a lot of the fun out of it in my eyes.
Unless it's worms
-
I quite like turn based strategy games.
Also, does Worms count too? Because Worms is fuckin' awesome.
unless its worms turn based strategy is the prime example of what not to have in a game
-
It's not for everyone though. Because of the fast-pace it can be insanely frustrating.
Game speed: slow
That was the only way I was able to do the harder levels. Some on Frozen Throne is impossible at hard without a hundred saves and reloads if you don't use that.
But you have a point, there's a lot of strategy in RTS games, but definitely not as much as in TBS. The maximum number of resources in RTS is four, I have never seen any more than that. A TBS can have tens of them, all with different uses and prices (I play freecol with 11 of them). You have more micromanagement and strategic thinking in Medieval2s building and moving part than in Warcraft3, but you never get as stressed and thrilled and pumped up by wondering wheter to build levy pikeman or longbowmen as by zerging the undead with gunners.
Seriously, in my experience, a huge epic duel between you and a friend on HOMM V Hotseat mode is the most awesome thing, and I'm talking armies so huge there's lvl 5 units (black dragons, angels, titans, skeledragons, devils, emerald dragons) in the hundreds! Small units with numbers so large they appear as ex: "11k" then the magic. I had a bunch of redundant magic mirror and magic resistance during the duel between me and my cousin. And I also had an Armageddon spell with too many bonuses that could cause tens of thousands of damage. I clicked it. My smaller units that were fire weak were slightly damaged, my larger stuff relatively unharmed. His skeletal army on the other hand, half gone. Then the fight went rough, ending between my golems and his zombies. Luckily my golems had a bunch of bonuses and even though their turn came seldomly, they owned whenever they could. Their prowess in combat in a tight finish earned me eternal bragging rights over him, including permission to say that the HOMM necromancers suck.
-
There's a stupid amount of strategy involved in RTS games if you're any good, and a lot of it is on the tactical engagement level. High level Starcraft play does indeed have flanking and, believe it or not, manipulation of individual units. Flanking, focus fire, targeting your own units in order to utilize splash damage to harm units you cannot detect... there's a lot of thinking on your feet. When it comes right down to it, the most valuable "resource" in a good RTS like Starcraft is attention. I'd go so far as to say what often seperates above average players from great players is the ability to quickly determine if an engagement requires micromanagement or if your time is better spent elsewhere.
Admittedly though, most players never get to that level, since most RTS games do end when a player falls victim to a stumbling block like the classic zerg rush, fall behind in tech or otherwise put themselves in a situation where micromanagement and tactical play can't cover for their mistakes in strategic play. Most battles are indeed won or lost well before battle is joined. Sun Tzu would have loved it.
-
Please explain to me how flanking has any effect whatsoever in Age of Empires or Warcraft. I cannot comprehend it.
-
Man, the amount of battles I have won that I should have lost in RTS because I used 'tactics' is intense.
Basically in Age of Empires, I have beaten the game using just scouts in my military units on numerous occassions. They're fast, and if you do hit and run, they'll rip apart pikemen.
-
Please explain to me how flanking has any effect whatsoever in Age of Empires or Warcraft. I cannot comprehend it.
Well, I have a Starcraft example: Zerglings own Dragoons. Dragoons suffer a weapon type disadvantage vs. small targets and their relatively large unit size just means you can crowd a ridiculous number of zerglings around them and tear them to shreds. So if you can manage to cut the dragoons from the herd for even a short period of time by ensnaring the zealots or ambushing with burrow or by simply abusing the terrain you can easily pop a few goons with minimal losses, which is pretty nasty considering the huge cost discrepancy between a couple dragoons and a humble zergling pack.
-
Please explain to me how flanking has any effect whatsoever in Age of Empires or Warcraft. I cannot comprehend it.
Age of empires two for me was just a game of hit and run with heavy cav. archers. If you had 30 of them you were unbeatable.
-
British longbowmen were pretty great. Pack of fifty in the middle of the enemy, with one monk, no one could touch them.
-
I guess I was thinking of multiplayer in AoE1, which was pretty much deathmatch. It was a game of sending 200 Babyloninan horse archers at each other as quick as possible.
-
Erm, Age of Empires 2 is pretty fucking tactical, what with the formation controls, attack stances and the hotkeying. I'll normally have maybe four or five groups on the go at any one time during a big attack (a large central unit in square formation, normally set to stand still, generally consisting of pikemen surrounding a core of arbalests, hand cannoneers and elite skirmishers protecting a couple of trebuchets, a couple of skirmishing units of horse archers, knights, berserkers, samurai, whatever, a big group of villagers and maybe a unit of monks, especially if I'm after some relics). The villagers are to facilitate my favourite tactic of castle-hopping, to wit: you plough straight into your enemies base with a huge assault, and then, whilst he's desperately defending his town centre, castle, maybe king, monument, whatever, you build a fucking castle in the middle of his base. Then the twenty villagers all get in, and they can fire arrows from inside the castle!
Often if the opponent isn't very good, it just becomes a case of building forty of whatever my elite unit is, sending them out to kill, and going off and building another castle. Of course, trebuchets make things far more interesting, as does the garrisoned rams in Age of Conquerors. Setting up proper defenses with clearly defined killing fields and protective mazes of palisade fence becomes very important.
As for turn based strategy, I am all about Paradox games and Alpha Centauri. Europa Universalis 2 and Hearts of Iron have stolen incalculable portions of my life. My favourite Hearts of Iron Game? I played as the USA, and just sat out completely till 1942, pouring my whole economy into research until I was at a 1950's level. Then I started declaring war on South American countries one by one until the Presidents approval rating dipped so low that there was a communist revolution. America became a Stalinist state, I joined the Comintern, then I took over the Comintern, and then we declared war on the Allies and the Axis at the same time, who put aside their differences in order to combat the threat of global communism.
Unfortunately for them I already had sub-launched nukes at this point. After reducing Berlin, London, Manchester, Koln, Paris, Rome and Dusseldorf to radioactive slag, they surrendered. Japan I took out in the approved historical way.
US battlefield and civilian deaths? ZERO.
-
That post was so fantastic I'm downloading Hearts of Iron II right now.
-
same here! man that game looks hot!
-
Goddamnit I suck at it. How in the hells are you supposed to ever do well?
-
A lot of patience, practice, micro managing skills and a literal hard-on for Turn Based strategy.
-
It's not even turn based.
edit: I'm doing quite well now! I'm playing as Communist China and kicking Nationalist China's butt. I have just managed to capture an airbase that they were using to bomb my troops! Woo!
The only problem is for some reason I can't figure out, I have to keep reloading because I get a message saying Nationalist China has accepted my peace offer, but I never made one! It's very annoying, since it means I keep losing all the provinces that I've captured off them.
edit 2: I found out the peace was the result of an inevitable in-game event. Oh well. I have expanded my empire north-east and am currently allied with Nationalist China and a few others trying to keep the Japanese at bay. It isn't going so well!
-
The world could possibly be a much better place if the nation's fate was decided via Turn Based Strategy
-
Uhm... Age of Wonders anyone?
-
The world could possibly be a much better place if the nation's fate was decided via Turn Based Strategy
SHUT UP FOOL, DO YOU WANT BUSH TO GET ANY MORE IDEAS?
-
If real-world disputes were settled via computer gaming then we'd all need to learn to speak Korean.
If you're sucking at Hearts of Iron, it's probably because you're not managing your research and social options well enough. It's not good enough just to pick something and go with it: you need to constantly adjust to changing factors.
Also, it doesn't hurt to pick a nation that sucks slightly less than Communist China. The only real problem with the level of historical accuracy in Hearts of Iron is it's very hard to secure convincing wins with anyone except Britain, USA, Germany or Russia. I managed as Brazil once, but it was a slog. Europa Universalis, with its longer scope, gives you more play, though it's still damned near impossible as a non-european state. My best EU2 games were with Scotland (controlling the whole of the UK, Iceland, northern France and large portions of Africa), and Denmark (controlling the entire Scandinavian peninsula, most of European Russia (a real bitch holding on to all those Orthodox states) large parts of Germany and colonies in America.
-
Diplomacy....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
http://theairfreshenerman.co.uk/blog/uploaded_images/DSC00974-750422.JPG
best evar? you betcha...where I learned all my lies and corruption.
-
So the other day I was playing a demo for Civilisation Revolution for the 360. It's really fun, and it seems that it is not next to God damn impossible like every other game in the series which is nice. Presumably though the harder difficulty settings will bring it back to the way it was for any die hard Civ players out there. Seriously though Civ 3 is fucking ridiculous. The game is also a lot more light hearted with fun sound effects and animation which I really think is a step in the right direction, plus it looks likely that it'll cater to a more casual market than your average 360 game.
The xbox live multiplayer seems quite well done too, but I've only seen it in action and not played it. Any thoughts?
-
Personally I think Revolution is gonna be great, but I am gonna be missing a lot of the customization from the PC version. Of course, I'm hoping that if it does well, they'll try to integrate a bit more fo the PC experience into the console versions and force the industry to realize consoles can do Strategy games properly.
-
I think Revolution is simplified in the right places for easy console play, and it still keeps the overall spirit of the gameplay. Some UI elements in the demo seemed a little clunky, but I'm sure I'd adapt to them. Not sure if I'll buy it, since I have Civ 4 and Beyond the Sword on my laptop, but I think it's an accurate port of Civilization for consoles and it's about as good as can be hoped for. I'm intrigued to see the DS version, because portable Civilization means I'd probably never get anything done ever again.
Also, I really like in Revolution how each civ has a specific perk for each age. I hope that they implement that in the next PC game, because that's a great idea.
-
I found it weird that no one has typed about Stars!
I'm not that old (28 atm) and I remember watching the sun rise during university promising to myself: "one more turn" while I conquered the universe...
Phrut | Real Priests Have Wings
-
at least once a day i tell myself "i don't need Civ. Rev. i really really don't."
but i have a feeling it's not working.
-
I just found my old copy of AoEII, installing now. pity I don't have the exp.
Also, they've got most of the older Civ games and HoMM on Gametap, as well as quite a few RTS as well. Heroes of Might and Magic though, my god, that was my favorite childhood game, one of the first games I ever truly played to where I began to identify as a gamer. Bought it in a mac games ten pack when I was like 10 myself with a bunch of other computer games, the original one. Spent so many freakin horus on the campaign, and the extra maps, and when I found out that not only had they already came out with a sequel but a third one it was more or less the game that got me started in keeping up with the industry. This is when i found gamefaqs, gamespot, IGN and all the others for the first time, started reading up on other games and yeah. Fond fuckin' memories. A lot of people I know didn't like the fourth one, but I absolutely loved having a hero as an actual character on the map, leveling up to the point where he could take down stacks of dragons, etc. I think a big part of why I never bought 5 is because they decided to take they away, and I just didn't want to go back, actual 3D graphics be damned. That saying i still love playing 3.
-
I suck at it, but I enjoy playing Civ 4 all night with two other people, valiantly losing.
Also, Heroes of Might and Magic. Specifically 3.
-
I love Civilization 4, Galactic Civilizations, Final Fantasy Tactics. A Nippon Ichii (Developer) game is also to die for.
-
I agree with the vote for Moo 2. It was one of my favorite games for years and is still in my top 5 best of all time.
Another I have not seen mentioned yet is Imperialism 2. This game is very complicated and hard to learn,
but once you get into it can be tons of fun. It is the game that started my group of friends saying "notice the abruptness of my turn".
-
I used to have the Mac version of that. My parents bought it for me when I was 10. My only goal at the time was to survive to the end of the game.
-
Man, I remember MoO2. I had it for the mac, too. It was awesome.
MoO3 was not so awesome.
-
I used to love Turn-Based Strategy. I still have a special place in my heart for it. Anymore, thoug, I just do not have the patience at all. It's like I move my units to where I want 'em to be set up for next turn, and the dude on the other end is either a) taking forever trying to figure out how to get out of the deathtrap I have set up, or b) finding an exploit and using it relentlessly to screw up all my planning. Either way, I can't do jack until next turn.
Also, a webcomic about turn-based strategy: Erfworld (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html).
-
Has anyone played Chaos Overlords? I got the demo from a MacAddict CD a decade or more ago and LOVED it.
-
Closest thing I ever got to a TBS is Shining Force 1 and 2 for the Sega Genesis, and I loved them to pieces. Though I guess Id qualify them more as a Turn Based RPG if such a ghoul exists.
-
Civilization's all well and good but I prefer me some Alpha Centauri. Tis awesome and I'm constantly wishing they'd get around to a sequel.
There is a sequel. Sort of. I guess it's really an expansion pack. By all accounts, though, it is awesome, but I have not been able to play it yet since it's ridiculously hard to get hold of.
Alien Crossfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Alien_Crossfire)
Anyways, turn based strategy will always mean Alpha Centauri to me. I love that game to death (literally. I've purchased it 3 separate times).
-
I'll just say again what I said in the Fallout 3 thread. The best TB Civ game (turn-based strategy, I know nothing ) was Alpha Centauri. Everything that Firaxis has made after that has been dreadful in comparison.
-
Advance Wars is my favorite for TBS games. Especially Dual Strike, and unespecially the most recent one.