View Full Version : Classical Battle PC Games
Spartan198
03-23-2008, 05:49
I'm on the lookout for some PC games with good depictions of classical warfare.
I've already had AoE and RoN recommended to me,so no need to list them.
What do you guys think of 'Ancient Wars: Sparta' and the Alexander game based off the movie (throw your spears at me all you want,but I did personally like it despite its historical inaccuracies and documentary-like style)?
Anything specific to recommend?
Spartan198
03-23-2008, 06:07
EE 1.
A full title would be much appeciated,my friend. :sweatdrop:
Empire Earth I'd assume. Which isn't the greatest game but if you like AoE, you'll probably like Empire Earth. :yes:
Kekvit Irae
03-23-2008, 08:11
Empire Earth is very much like AoEII. Some (like me) would say it's a great update. However, you'll notice some changes, such as being able to buy civilization bonuses with points (and even create your own civilization bonus-set), and only 6 civilians can mine from a single resource (7 if you are Russian or customize your civ to take that bonus).
Quirinus
03-23-2008, 10:14
Not sure if Empire Earth fits the bill for "good depictions of classical warfare", but it's a decent game overall, quite fun, especially the multiplayer. If you don't mind the bad accents, EE is not too bad.
Another game that I found to be decent is Praetorians, which has the Romans, Barbarians and Egyptians. Terrain plays a very large part in that game, and there is only one resource-- people. Better units just take more time (and honour points) to recruit. You get honour points when you kill enemies.
Not sure if Empire Earth fits the bill for "good depictions of classical warfare", but it's a decent game overall, quite fun, especially the multiplayer. If you don't mind the bad accents, EE is not too bad.
Another game that I found to be decent is Praetorians, which has the Romans, Barbarians and Egyptians. Terrain plays a very large part in that game, and there is only one resource-- people. Better units just take more time (and honour points) to recruit. You get honour points when you kill enemies.
I hated Praetorians, bad graphics, bad AI, bad units, and the fact that I sucked at it all contributed to my eternal hatred of that game :wall:
About Empire Earth however, the first one was great, but I actually thought the second one was not bad either :shame:. So get EE1 and EE2 is my advice to you.
I saw some video with EE2 and I think its pure *add a flower*
Empire Earth was good. Lots of units, airplanes, nuclear bombs without any radiation damage. What abour Imperivm III : The Big Battles of Rome?
I saw some video with EE2 and I think its pure *add a flower*
Whats so bad about EE2? Sure the campaign is worse than EE, but otherwise it looks great :dizzy2:
Kekvit Irae
03-24-2008, 01:17
Whats so bad about EE2? Sure the campaign is worse than EE, but otherwise it looks great :dizzy2:
For me, it was the Heavy Infanty, Light Infantry, Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry, Heavy Missile, Light Missile troops that mattered only in a rock/paper/scissors fashion.
A stone age horseman (HC) should NOT easily defeat a WWII halftrack (LC) in one-on-one combat and yet fail to kill a single swordman (HI). I agree they should have kept the combat bonuses for different troop types, but they effectively reduced the combat effectiveness against other troops to zero.
Sorry for the shameless ads, but I'm writing a history based in the russian campaign of EE. It won't be like its in the game, but it gives an idea about EE.
Heh, not really relevant but I'll post it anyway just for laughs...
When i first read the title of this thread, I thought it was about PC war games that have become a cult classic over the years. Not about war games set in the classical era. ~:joker:
Spartan198
03-24-2008, 13:46
Heh, not really relevant but I'll post it anyway just for laughs...
When i first read the title of this thread, I thought it was about PC war games that have become a cult classic over the years. Not about war games set in the classical era. ~:joker:
Sounds like an interesting subtopic.
Why not continue on?
For me, it was the Heavy Infanty, Light Infantry, Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry, Heavy Missile, Light Missile troops that mattered only in a rock/paper/scissors fashion.
A stone age horseman (HC) should NOT easily defeat a WWII halftrack (LC) in one-on-one combat and yet fail to kill a single swordman (HI). I agree they should have kept the combat bonuses for different troop types, but they effectively reduced the combat effectiveness against other troops to zero.
A stone age horseman can kill a halftrack? Sweet, that means there will no point in advancing through all the ages! :laugh4:
Anyway, I've never seen that happen :no:
macsen rufus
03-27-2008, 18:33
Another game that I found to be decent is Praetorians, which has the Romans, Barbarians and Egyptians. Terrain plays a very large part in that game, and there is only one resource-- people. Better units just take more time (and honour points) to recruit. You get honour points when you kill enemies.
I also played Praetorians for a while before I discovered TW. I'd say its battles were somewhere between the original Warcraft and MTW, still clearly grid based maps, with very linear objectives, yet terrain did play a part, as did scouting. The "hawk scout" was fun, as you could see wherever the hawk flew. The Egyptians were rather anachronistic, more akin to the New Kingdom than Ptolemaic Egypt as it should have been, but it did have some novel ideas that I'd love to be able to do with TW battles -- burnable corn fields, which your archers could ignite with fire arrows, very useful given that the enemy can hide in there for ambushes; Roman auxilia could build bridges and towers on the battle map; sieges with walls, ladders and siege towers, breakable and repairable gates, defenders able to deploy in towers and battlements, and not least, legionaries could form a testudo.
I did enjoy it at the time, and some of the missions were hellishly difficult, though once you worked out "how" then you could refight it exactly the same everytime. I think after MTW experience it might be difficult to go back to, though.
frogbeastegg
03-27-2008, 22:56
Any discussion of Praetorians needs to include one fact: due to a deliberately archaic design decision you could not issue commands on pause. IIRC you couldn't so much as scroll the screen. Made it unplayable for me; I prefer to think then click, not click-click-click-click.
Mek Simmur al Ragaski
03-30-2008, 12:57
Empire Earth is pretty much like AOE, apart from the graphics are better and the AI seem much smarter
Anyone played Rise&Fall? The first person parts were fun but some levels in the campaign were stupidly hard.
Kamakazi
04-03-2008, 16:09
I would recommend AoE 2 like u said has been recommended to u but DO NOT get AoE3 its pretty bad i think
Empire Earth is very much like AoEII. Some (like me) would say it's a great update. However, you'll notice some changes, such as being able to buy civilization bonuses with points (and even create your own civilization bonus-set), and only 6 civilians can mine from a single resource (7 if you are Russian or customize your civ to take that bonus).
You forget that every mine has 3000000 of resources, not 800 or 200 like AoE
The Foolish Horseman
04-04-2008, 18:01
Whatever you do, dont get Ancient Wars!! It seems like IOns ago since i wrote my review for it, but it is such a poor game that it was the first game which made me dissapointed to be a pc gamer.
Whatever you do, dont get Ancient Wars!! It seems like IOns ago since i wrote my review for it, but it is such a poor game that it was the first game which made me dissapointed to be a pc gamer.
I dunno... screenshots look pretty good. :yes:
The Foolish Horseman
04-05-2008, 13:11
I dunno... screenshots look pretty good. :yes:
yeah they didi, but the gameplay is sluggish, its system reqiurements are a bit high, and its gameplay is boring
Sounds like Stronghold 2 to me... :laugh4:
The Foolish Horseman
04-05-2008, 13:51
Sounds like Stronghold 2 to me... :laugh4:
another disapointing game
CIvilization 4, if its not being mentioned, is good
CountArach
04-06-2008, 11:19
another disapointing game
CIvilization 4, if its not being mentioned, is good
That isn't a classical battle game...
The Foolish Horseman
04-06-2008, 17:58
That isn't a classical battle game...
well techically until 1900 (in game time) it is, but poin taken CountArach
Ill retreat to my corner
Kekvit Irae
04-06-2008, 18:47
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned DBA Online (http://www.dbaol.com/) yet.
Bah, tabletop strategy games do not count! :rolleyes:
Kekvit Irae
04-07-2008, 11:19
They do when you can play them on a computer.
Well if that's a legit suggestion, then this will be too:
I recommend Hoplites if you're into the turn based strategy part of this. It's a card game that is really something amazing and is entirely free. Here's a link and I really do recommend you try it! :2thumbsup:
http://digilander.libero.it/zak965/main.htm
Try it and see if you can post something that you really hate about it. Oh, did I mention you play it on your PC? :laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.