[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/games/ - Video Games

Video Games
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]



General thread for anything relate to strategy and wargames. Real time and turn-based. Historic and fantasy.


The last strat game I got super into was Civ2 gold.
Must have put over 1000 hours into that game and don't regret a minute of it.

Never really got into later civ games though because I didn't have the same time and mindset to get into it.

Also loved front mission 4. Tactic turn based mech combat is pretty fun.


I also liked Civ 2 especially all the scenarios online. Each scenario was like its own historic game.

I was sad that Civ 2 got ranked the worst here. He didn't have much bad to say about it, just that it didn't do anything that the others didn't do better.



>Implying anyone with two brain cells to rub together cares what kotaku has to say about games


File: 1608584103958.png (670.75 KB, 800x800, 1:1, bg.png) ImgOps iqdb

For the last two years I'm playin TW: Warhammer II almost every day. Recently I replayed Homeworld dilogy and enjoyed it a lot.


I was thinking of getting into TW WH. I have all the TW historic games. I know theres some debate in the TW community that WH kinda killed off historic TW. It reminds me a tad of how MOBA ended up taking over RTS. With things like hero units and the fantasy setting etc.

I used to play Warhammer Dark Omen and Shadow of the Horned Rat.

I think I might try WH1 1st. The only faction I'm into in WH2 is the dinosaurs. idk if its worth getting just for that. And if I get both 1 and 2 right away then WH1 just becomes a glorified DLC to WH2. So I figure might as well take some time to enjoy WH1 on its own 1st. I was a bit concerned about the denuvo, but it seems like maybe people exaggerate how bad it is to make propaganda. Everyone legally playing WH learns to live with it, so I guess I can too.


Please do not overthink all this. It is a very interesting and truly epic (in a genuine meaning of this word) game. Replayability is infinite, campaign is often very unpredictable, especially on high difficulty. Yes, there are imperfections and certain balance issues but they are not tragic enough to ignore the battles, sieges, defends, legendary lords and voice acting, magic spells, variety of factions and units, the world map in general. I can not nitpick small things and be upset all the time when such grand fantasy universe is unfolding on my monitor. I can not disagree more that it "killed" anything. In fact, I am very grateful that such game exists in the modern industry.
I recommend getting full pack WH2 if possible. If you won't like it I will take the responsibility and go explore the chaos wastes which are just outside of my window.


Good, because 3 is blasphemy and subsequent 'Civs' and clones, are nothing but garbage.

Civilization 2 both the original and freeciv are still the best.

Unfortunately, I find myself still wasting great many hours on HoI2 or rather Arsenal of Democracy. I should never have tried or played HoI, because their endgame is so unrewarding always end the same.
When compared to civ-type games that is.


Do any of you Civ 2 fans have favorite historic scenarios?


Roman Empire


I've been reading up on Civ 5 vs 6. And it seems to be a real paradox of form vs content.

Civ 5 looks like a realistic wargame, but is simple, easy to learn and you can win with just a few or even 1 city without expanding.

Civ 6 looks like a cartoony Sim City, but has a steeper learning curve, micromanagement and encourages aggressive expansion and war.


Civ 4 and Civ 1 4ever


well Civ 4 and Civ 6 seem to be cousins in a way. I was googling the cartoony graphics of Civ 6, and found old threads of the same complaints about Civ 4 back in 2005.

And someone made an interesting thread about how Civ 6, skips 5, and is a spiritual successor sequel to Civ 4


I like Civilization V more than any other, although I haven't tried Civ 6 or the space game yet.
It's ridiculous how in some of them you can stack a bunch of military units onto a single tile.
It seems like in Civ V, having multiple cities is a detriment to growth of social policies obtained through culture.
Plus any occupied/conquered cities end up having extremely low productivity while being very unhappy, lowering the average happiness across the nation so there's fewer golden ages.
So I prefer to have only 1 city, max 2 or 3, and I just end up razing all the towns I conquer. It's better to just make roads leading up to your enemy's empire and just walk them over rather than build a new city right beside an enemy.
Anything less than King difficulty is too easy if you know what you're doing and if you reload for optimal outcomes. I try to challenge myself by not allowing constant perfection save/loads unless I actually exit the game to do something else.


I went to a civ community, to just ask if Civ 5 was simpler, easier, less complex for a noob, and I got all these insulting replies "yeah civ 5 is better if you have a room temperature iq".

Its ironic the civ community was so militantly pro-5, anti-6 a few years ago, and now its so opposite. I mean Im not even denying if 6 is a better game, just asking if 5 would be better for my special needs.

yeah I want the easier, less hard, less micromanaging, less work game.

Civ 5 and 6 were both universally praised by reviewers. But even the positives for 6 did talk about all the complexity. I liked how inviting this review made 5 sound for noobs.


File: 1609288562563.jpg (196.43 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, carpetofdoom.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Consider there is lots of tactical micromanagement in combat with one-unit-per-tile. You have to watch movement cost and how terrain is going to affect ranged combat and worry about getting everyone there at the same time, not getting in each other's way, and in optimal siege positions. It's easier to move stacks because you only worry about getting one mass to a single optimal tile.

Anyway you should pick which game you could tolerate watching or reading other people play, 'cause you will get used to the complexities that way and make it automatic. None of them are too complex.


Units of the same type should be able to stack.


Do you have any suggestions for a real time tactics or turn based battle game that can be skirmished in multiplayer in a relatively short time, under 30 min?

I guess SC2 is an obvious choice in the RTS, but the frantic clicking from base-building to micro combat is stressing.

Warhammer 2 seems by far to be the most popular RTT at the moment.

I guess what I'm thinking of is almost like a chess match, but with more realistic warfare and nicer graphics. I just want to match my strategic wits against a human brain not just AI


Red Alert 2 and AoE2 ('obviously').


Well, for tactics, SPWaW, of which you probably want to play the new version, unless you use CRT monitor (max res in original SPWaW is SVGA).


File: 1610123369024.png (196.86 KB, 256x363, 256:363, Commandos_3_-_Destination_….png) ImgOps iqdb

Do Commandos games count as strategy? I always thought of them more as stealth games, I'm about to start 3, hope it's as good as 2.


You will be disappointed. 3 is halfassed piece of shit.


I tried Desperados 3, the latest in the genre, and I like the cowboy setting


Yeah I've been told it's pretty mediocre, I only hope it's not a cakewalk
Never played the Desperados games despite having the first one when I was young. Maybe I'll try those after I'm done with this.

[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]