What type(s) of strategy game(s) do you prefer?

[Martok]

(Note: I started this thread just for fun. No chest-thumping for your particular sub-genre please!)


Obviously, most of us have played at least one Total War title at some point (if not more), but strategy games in general seem to be pretty popular here. Games like Galactic Civilizations 2, the Civilization series, Sins of a Solar Empire, and just about any Paradox title (especially EU3, HoI2, and Vicky) get a lot of love in this forum.

My question is, which kind appeals most to you? Are you primarily a Civilization/MOO2-type turn-based strategy player? Do you like mostly real-time-tactical games like Starcraft and Company of Heroes? Are you usually a sucker for real-time grand strategy titles like the Paradox games? Or do you find that "hybrid" games -- those that combine turn-based strategy with real-time battles (like the Total War series) -- are primarily your bailiwick?


EDIT: I deliberately allowed for multiple-choice voting, by the way. I realize sometimes it's too hard to pick just one! (Also, I know some games are hard to classify; i.e., a lot folks argue over whether SoaSE is real-time tactical or real-time strategy.)

[Monk]

In the last year or so i've begun gravitating more toward the RTGS sort of games, like EU and Victoria. I'm not sure where I made the jump from the hybrids like the 4x and Total war, but I have to say once I really got the hang of managing a nation in real time on a grand scale it was amazing fun. EUIII and Victoria are sort of mold breakers in that regard for me, they showed me what the Grand Strategy genre is all about and how it can be done (and done right!) but I've still got a soft spot for the hybrids.

S/MTW deserve a mention because, no matter how much time goes by, I still play those games from time to time. I recently played an XL campaign in MTW as the Russians.* United all the stepps and waged all out war upon the west! Such great fun.

The 4X category are also a beloved genre for me. Whether it is an older title like Imperium Galactica 2 that pioneered the way or a more recent game like Sins of a Solar Empire, I just love 4X games that are able to combined the two sides of strategy games. As you might've noticed, I have a special love for space 4X. :beam:



*Yes Martok. I always play as the Russians. Even in Hearts of Iron 2! :laugh4:

[pevergreen]

I can't stick with Turn Based Games. Just too slow for me.

The traditional RTS is a great love of mine, but the RTT has been growing.

However, my most beloved handheld game.

Fire Emblem: Rekka no Ken. :smitten:

[Hooahguy]

hybrid and tactical for me.

[Krauser]

I put Hybrid and RTT about the same level followed by TBS. I started with Warcraft/Starcraft at first and didn't know there was any other kind of strategy. I followed them up with Age of Empires and some Command and Conquer, but at some point they started to feel stale. The games didn't seem to be innovating much, just better graphics.

That's when I tried the Total War series. As far as overall hours, it is probably about the same as the RTT games I played. Even though I only played around 5 years of RTT, I had a ton of free time in high school to play. Hybrid seems to be much more replayable to me. I think RTT can still be fun, and plan to get Starcraft 2 if it ends up being any good.

TBS I only got into recently with Civilization 4. It is a lot slower than the other games but it seems to have a lot more depth as well. It's like Chess, where you could spend years on it getting better and better over time. Most games you get to a point and there's no way to improve. It has a good online community so you can play against other people or do team games.

[Centurion1]

I couldn't help myself i voted for like three or four categories. I really do have favorite games in all those categories. i started out as a strategy gamer and they are still my favorite types of games.

[Veho Nex]

I love them all, which ever one fulfills my fetish of domination then I am happier than a clam.

[Tratorix]

I'm one of the thoroughly boring people who actually enjoys Turn Based games. :laugh4: I like time to plan out my moves and think about strategy. I voted for Hybrid too, since I like the original Medieval Total War and Sword of the Stars.

[Crandaeolon]

I can't really put the top three types (RTT, TBS, hybrid) in order; different types suit different situations and modes of play. RTS, though, doesn't see much play, at least not in the grand strategy sense like EU.

As an aside, I've always liked the simultaneous execution (Orders phase, execution phase and so forth) type of TBS more than IGO-UGO. The Combat Mission series has an interesting way to do this; the game is divided into 60-second segments of real-time execution with a "paused" orders phase in between.

[al Roumi]

er, all. I find it hard to say one genre is better than another. Sure there are good and bad examples of each, but i'd put that down to how well the game and its interface are designed for each other.

[TinCow]

I voted only for turn-based, but that's no reflection on the other catagories. Strategy is easily my favorite genre of gaming, followed closely by RPG. I love pretty much all strategy sub-genres, and enjoy every system listed above. I find it difficult to pick between them because each one is good in a different manner. I see them as all complementary to each other, and I play all of them.

I picked turn-based for my vote because that particular genre seems to me to have a slight edge in one of the aspects I find most important in strategy games: AI. In my experience, on average, turn-based strat games have a better AI than any method that uses real-time. There are, of course, exceptions to this. However, if I had to pick a single one of the above to play exclusively for the rest of my life, I would pick turn-based simply because I feel like the average turn based game gives a greater challenge.

[FactionHeir]

You shoulda enabled public voting too :grin:

I chose all except real time strategy based on the examples given, though aren't the RTT ones you mentioned normally classed as RTS instead?

[TinCow]

though aren't the RTT ones you mentioned normally classed as RTS instead?

Yes, that's the term generally applied to them, but it's an incorrect classification. Those games are most certainly tactical, not strategic. Most people don't understand the difference though. It's almost as bad as the RPG categorization, which is now used for any game which allows you to customize a character. Bioshock is actually listed as a RPG on Steam. :wall:

[CBR]

Yes, that's the term generally applied to them, but it's an incorrect classification. Those games are most certainly tactical, not strategic. Most people don't understand the difference though. It's almost as bad as the RPG categorization, which is now used for any game which allows you to customize a character. Bioshock is actually listed as a RPG on Steam. :wall:
Well the classic RTS is a game that puts elements of production and resource gathering along with the tactical part. The RTT, which is not a term used often( I have seen several Total War reviewers call the battle element RTS) focuses purely on the units and the actual combat.

A game like World in Conflict could be called a RTT but the combat is still built like a classic RTS with hitpoints, silly special abilities and the standard short range radar as an abstract way of handling fog of war.

There is some more info on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics.

I prefer the "Hybrids" (TBS/RTT) like Total War or Sword of the Stars or just RTT for MP like Total War and hopefully Les Grognards in the near future.


CBR

[TinCow]

Well the classic RTS is a game that puts elements of production and resource gathering along with the tactical part. The RTT, which is not a term used often( I have seen several Total War reviewers call the battle element RTS) focuses purely on the units and the actual combat.

Yes, that's true. For a pure RTT, I guess we'd have to look towards things like Close Combat and Commandos.

[Crandaeolon]

Yes, that's the term generally applied to them, but it's an incorrect classification. Those games are most certainly tactical, not strategic. Most people don't understand the difference though. It's almost as bad as the RPG categorization, which is now used for any game which allows you to customize a character. Bioshock is actually listed as a RPG on Steam. :wall:

In military parlance, tactic refers to how engagements are conducted, while strategy refers to how engagements are linked. Keeping this in mind, it's not incorrect to call, say, Starcraft or Sins games of real-time strategy - they have limited (tactical) engagements that link under a strategic overarch of base and resource management.

Of course the terms are a bit unclear - for example, what classification would Rise of Nations fall into? It's certainly more "strategic" than, for example, World in Conflict or CoH, but it still has tactical-scale engagements. Would chess be turn-based strategy or turn-based tactics? Or, does simply abstracting away the tactical engagements make a game an RTS?

Perhaps a term such as "grand strategy" or something similar would be more appropriate to describe games like EU.

[CBR]

Yes, that's true. For a pure RTT, I guess we'd have to look towards things like Close Combat and Commandos.
Yeah and other examples would be Sid Meier's Gettysburg(and the other games using that engine) or the Age of Sail games. Of course it does not have to be historical and Tom Clancy's Endwar is one example I guess (although still very RTS like in its combat AFAIK)


Perhaps a term such as "grand strategy" or something similar would be more appropriate to describe games like EU.
Yeah I think thats a good term for games like that.


CBR

[frogbeastegg]

I love all types except the Age of Empires clone. AoE 1 and 2 did that brilliantly and I played them to death, and many of the better clones. There came a point many years ago where I suddenly realised that I was sick to death of this type of game and I haven't managed to go back since. I know I never will.

I did vote Gah! as well because there's a category I like which isn't listed. SRPG or strategy role playing games. Titles like the Disgaea series. One part JRPG to one part turn based grid tactical combat.

Were I asked to choose one type of strategy game above the others then I would choose turn based. So many of my favourite strategy games have been turn based, and I like the way they play out. Time is perfectly under your control, everything moves at your pace, you can spend as long - or as little -as you like perusing the detail and tweaking, and the AI tends to do better than in real time games.

[Tratorix]

I did vote Gah! as well because there's a category I like which isn't listed. SRPG or strategy role playing games. Titles like the Disgaea series. One part JRPG to one part turn based grid tactical combat.

Oh, yeah forgot about that. The problem is, the SRPG genre is very hard to define. Disgaea, for instance, is more about grinding levels for a couple of characters, rather than any sort of strategy. The Fire Emblem series is more tactical and less RPG, but could still fit under the same category.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I don't like C&C kind of games. :shrug:

But I do play other types though.

[drone]

Some RTS, but mainly turn-based or hybrid strategy games. I've spent lots of hours playing RTS's on LAN play with friends, but alone I prefer turn-based Civ-type games like MoM/MoO2, MTW, BotF, and GalCivII.

This is probably because click-fest RT(T/S)'s give me lots of trouble. I can't mentally keep track of several units, farm, and buildings, especially when I can't see all of them on the screen at once. I can never navigate quickly, and can only keep a few hotkeys in my head at any given time. I suppose I could do it, but it would require a lot of practice and time that I just don't have. If I want lots of APMs, I'll just play a FPS.

[Azathoth]

All of them.

[frogbeastegg]

Oh, yeah forgot about that. The problem is, the SRPG genre is very hard to define. Disgaea, for instance, is more about grinding levels for a couple of characters, rather than any sort of strategy. The Fire Emblem series is more tactical and less RPG, but could still fit under the same category.
Disgaea is a game of two halves and that's one of the things I appreciate most about it. Not many games leave such choice of depth in the player's hands. You can play it as a 30 hour campaign without grinding; that playstyle is quite tactical because your characters grow in proportion with the challenge level. Alternately you can go for the 300 hour "Help I'm an addict!" uber grindfest to end all grindfests, in which you basically make a demi-god with ultimate maxed out equipment.

Both halves are enjoyable and it's perfectly possible to play one without the other. When I got the Disgaea PSP port I started messing around in the item world and reincarnating as soon as the options opened up. In my original PS2 playthrough I didn't do any of that until far later.

[Martok]

For the record, by the way, I myself primarily play turn-based and hybrid strategy games; titles like MTW and GalCiv2 take up probably around 90% of the time I spend playing strategy games. I just really like being able to go at my own pace, especially in the empire-management portion(s). Real-time battles -- when in combination with a turn-based strategic element -- can be very enjoyable as well, so long as they're done right.


I do play RTT games like Red Alert 2 and Earth 2150 from time to time as the occasional guilty pleasure (sometimes you just want to blow stuff up!). Every now and then I feel "shallow" where I want a little less depth and a little more eye candy, and these are good for that.


Rarest of all for me are true real-time strategy games. Indeed, aside from Star Wars: Empire at War -- and it's arguable as to whether or not that even qualifies as one -- I don't think I even own any RTS titles at the moment. (I sold Star Wars Rebellion years ago, and to this day I don't know what happened to my copy of Imperium Galactica 2.)

I've been eying EU3 -- and to a lesser extent, HoI 3 -- for a while now, but have not yet actually taken the plunge. I'm quite certain I'm going to end up purchasing at least one of them eventually, but I find myself stuck in a "wait and see" mode right now: HoI 3 appears to be too buggy (and the AI too wonky) for me to want to pick up yet; best to wait til it's more thoroughly patched, I think. As for EU3, I've been on the verge of getting it several different times, but something keeps stopping me (intimidation, perhaps?). Of course, now I also want to hold off until the new expansion hits....and if I'm lucky, perhaps a new EU3 "Ultimate" edition as well. :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

Turnbased all the way, I thank the gods for the DS on daily bases, well not that but I love that thing. Sacrifice and Homeworld are among the best games I ever played though.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

What type(s) of strategy game(s) do you prefer?
The good types... :surrender:
.