Ideal strategy game for you..?

[Serpent]

I was thinking what kind of strategy games do people like...? I founded my self playing imperian galactic other day and I founded that after four years it is still good game but easy. Then later on I get bored and I played Farao
And that is only game that I cant get bored whit. Maybe because there is no way that you could truly win. I just get small victories like finding ways improve city health.

Later on my girlfriend told me that she has founded Age of Empires again and I just hate that game. To me it is just another click and destroy games. I just cant find any challenge in that game. Then civilization games are very good but I it is just little too easy.

----------------------------

HERE IS MY IDEAL STRATEGY GAME.

First of all it should be tarted from Egypt but not as an Egypt faction. More like as an city where you can influence what it would look like. At firs there should be no choice whit factions.

Earth should be area where you play and moon should be possible playcround to later on.

Time should Like in Imperium galactic. Strategy map time can be made faster and even stopped days bast in seconds and battle field should be fight ed whit in a day... There should be change to have fights that would least weeks.But when day chanced then you would go to strategy map as time is stopped... You should also have an choice not to or run. Sit and wait could be other strategy.

Lots of micromanagement, politics ,lies ,false documents, Selling info /false info,Assassins,spy networks, warning allys ,renting soil, holy wars ect.

Other factions should be studied so you could play whit them next time. This happens during game whit one specified unit and his studies should take from one month to one year.

Communication should be slow at first and it should be in relation whit your technological level and factions positions.

Victory can only be achieved whit rulers points. These should be hard to get and and after every ruler you should start over or if ruler did past but you want continue you should get points that are kind as left overs..aaaah
NEEDED 10000 DEAD RULER HAD 12000 AND NEW RULER HAS 2000.
...domination should be made impossible whit conquering.
And if factions lost their lands they should have time like 20years or less to take they lands or some of it back.

And also it should look good... There is lot more but later...

Right now 2 best strategy cames are MTW:VI and Farao.=)
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif

[Serpent]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif Lets add something more...

Units weapons and technology

There should be 5 basic areas when thinking research

>>>civilian Research ...wheel ,spear ,axe ,bazaar ,post office Maybe not whit that name http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

>>>Chemistry... Poisons ,methods when using them, Metals etc...

>>>Philosophy... Government types, working methods ,human rights ,religion etc....

>>>Natural sciences... Animals ,plants (here you find some poisons), evolution theory ,physics ,Geography...

>>>Army Research... some mathematics ,mathematics 2...
Arrows, guns ,cannons, ships , tanks ,MIG,Shield round...

All 5 works at same time but they all share research expenses. Lets say I would have 40000 (florins) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
End I woul but 20000 to research so each would get 20% of it (4000 florins)

Religion should have effect different researches like Natural sciences... But effect would not be same whit all factions. Some things should be also boosted.

Only basic units.... but possibility make new ones during game...and specify ed weapons poisons theory's. (new Designs)

[Doug-Thompson]

My ideal strategy game: MTW with detailed naval combat.

[Serpent]

If MTW would get that I would..., would..., would not sleep ever again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif after 24 hours still http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif

[Serpent]

MTW would also need more depth to politics... There should be more politics and more interaction whit provinces.

[Tricky Lady]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ May 11 2004,17:15)]My ideal strategy game: MTW with detailed naval combat.
I know that the naval battle engine of MTW has been discussed in many many threads, but I still just want to tell that I absolutely hate this feature. I feel they would have better left that one out, seeing how terrible it is... Grr. I always lose whatever naval battle when I'm doing well in land battles. And when I'm doing bad in land battles I lose my naval battles too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I am always soooo disappointed when one little stupid worthless ship defeats a huge stacks of vessels... Aargh.

*heh heh that's said, what a relief. And now back to fighting the AI's navy*

So yes, MTW should've got a better (slightly more realistic) naval battle engine. But that's mentioned already thousand times before me...

[Serpent]

But hey We all want something and when we have it we want it to be beter and we always want something more....
Why we gant be just happy... okei please ignore that one..=) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif

[Tricky Lady]

Oh, and back to topic: an ideal strategy game for me would be something like a crossing between the battle engine of MTW, the campaign map of Crusader Kings, and the diplomacy and research options of the Civ series... That would be a nice, huge, and disgustingly detailed game...

We can always hope that such a game will be released five or ten years from now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Serpent]

I have on my mind also something like that...
And we can always hope for the best. I just hope that Rome total war has mor politics than basic ally neutral enemy.
...... Well more than we have seen in total war series.

I most also say that in my oppinion it is just wrong when I see strategy games evolve on whit their grafics. Too meny good loking games have no debth what so ever.

I hate this... Because I dont care so much about grafics I care about games it self... there must be somethin that makes it feel realistic and there just has to be something that gives you real options and makes it be strategy game.

[Tricky Lady]

Quote[/b] (Serpent @ May 11 2004,18:25)]I most also say that in my oppinion it is just wrong when I see strategy games evolve on whit their grafics.
Hmm... I don't really agree... When you have a look at the Rome TW screen shots, don't you think that they're looking so much better than the MTW style? IMO they've made a huge progress, and we can only hope that CA will have implemented the same improvements on gameplay level (actually, this is a stupid remark from me, because it is clear that they did).

[Satyr]

Hmmmmm, I think Shogun:Total War version 5 would be about my perfect game. Not too complicated, great war engine. Magnificent graphics about 5 years from now. Lots of emphasis on getting the feel for the era with movies and clips and the throne room, etc. I would want to entirely disappear into the mystique of the period. And I would want to be able to view the conflict from the perspective of anyone on the battle field. And every character would look different with different costumes, ..............

Now all I have to do is wait a few years and hope that CA gets that samarai feeling again.

[Navaros]

i find that Total War games are very boring and shallow as strategy games. that is because you the player has very little control over what happens during actual combat engagements

i like strategy games where the player is in control during combat engagements, and where micro determines the Winner (most RTS games) rather than automatic AI calculations (Total War games)

[Graphic]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ May 11 2004,05:15)]
My ideal strategy game is a Total War game, with the entire planet available for conquer, the timeframe being Copper Age to the Colonial period, and detailed naval warfare.

If done correctly (and CA likely would), this game could be godlike.

Imagine...

- Doing the colonial thing, and fighting over the rights to the Americas.
- Sieging London as the Mongols
- Bringing the wrath of the Samurai spirit to the French.

The posibilities are endless.

[Graphic]

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ May 11 2004,07:26)]i find that Total War games are very boring and shallow as strategy games. that is because you the player has very little control over what happens during actual combat engagements

i like strategy games where the player is in control during combat engagements, and where micro determines the Winner (most RTS games) rather than automatic AI calculations (Total War games)
Umm...you do know that you can select Command assault/defence personally to fight a real-time battle...?

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Serpent @ May 11 2004,10:44)]MTW would also need more depth to politics... There should be more politics and more interaction whit provinces.
That's true. I'd like the simple ability to give tribute, for instance. If my enemy's enemy is on the ropes, I'd like to donate a bunch of florins.

I'd like to be able to add troops to an ally's Crusade, to give and get provinces, etc.

Civilization III wasn't one of my favorite games, but the diplomacy portion was pretty good.

[Navaros]

Quote[/b] (Graphic @ May 11 2004,14:19)]
Quote[/b] (Navaros @ May 11 2004,07:26)]i find that Total War games are very boring and shallow as strategy games. that is because you the player has very little control over what happens during actual combat engagements

i like strategy games where the player is in control during combat engagements, and where micro determines the Winner (most RTS games) rather than automatic AI calculations (Total War games)
Umm...you do know that you can select Command assault/defence personally to fight a real-time battle...?
yeah i know that but the fact is you still have very little control over your units in an actual combat engagement when compared to any good RTS

[katank]

@ navaros

I think MTW battle fields are far better than AOK or even RON combat systems.

the concept of men within units is pretty good and various factors all contribute to a pretty deep tactical game not to mention strategic

@ doug,

you can already drop troops into any crusade in your province.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ May 11 2004,16:00)]yeah i know that but the fact is you still have very little control over your units in an actual combat engagement when compared to any good RTS
At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, that's not true.

The only time I've ever have any trouble getting my troops somewhere I wanted them to go was when they were routing or wavering. Take that out of the game, and you don't have a game that's remotely realistic.

It's closer to the truth to say that MTW gives the player far more control than any medieval commander ever had.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm thinking Shogun: 2 with a MP campaign http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Navaros]

not sure if any of you guys ever played it, but the RTS i love the most is Emperor: Battle for Dune because in that game you have to use actual tactics and strategy to win, but you have to use them FAST and you have use them during actual combat engagements whereas in Total War once your units are engaged, you can't do anything to help them. you are stuck watching your army as a spectator

if any of you played Emperor: Battle for Dune, then you'd have a lot better understanding of what i'm getting at. it's hard to explain in words to people who don't have any frame of reference for what i'm speaking about

[Vincenzo]

My ideal strategy game would be:

- Diplomatics like EUII
- Battles like MTW
- Colonization like EUII
- Research like HoI
- Naval battles like HoI
- Goverment configuration like EUII
- Units like MTW

I don´t ask for too much, do I? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Serpent]

I just read article (2weeks or so)about chemical warfare and its history. During ancient times people used poison arrows ,flaming arrows ,naphtha , Bea's and other insects,scorpions , Flaming bigs, predators like tiger shit,
boiling water and honey whit Bea's, dead people usually whit somekind of disease....

.... Point is that using thees (and there is even more fun stuff)would be great. Or just arrow whit 70 different poisons that you could chose from. And different animals and you could but them to pot and trow it whit catapult.

[Leo]

I would like an AI that doesn't attack when it can't win, that makes peace when it's beaten, that has just a tiny bit of common sense.

[Serpent]

Tricky Lady:
So you didn't agree well there is always much improvements and whit most games you see it as graphic development.
RTW will be great game... I'm not sure yet will I buy it.
Same was whit MTW and I did buy it... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Still I really want to see chances and I really need to have more depth in politics. It doesn't need anything totally new,but it should be closer Civilization 3 game.

But my point was that it is sad to see good looking strategy games where just ain't any new options when thinking actual strategy.

Mostly I just see new games whit basic concept and improved cover.

[Navaros]

noticed that i haven't yet posted the formula for the ideal strat game, so here goes:

Emperor: Battle for Dune - EA as a Publisher + all the patches/support typically given to Blizzard game after going Retail + the community the size of a BNET community + the Campaign map-style of Total War + easy-to-use SDK + a few minor balance tweaks + BNET-sized Ladders + correction of all path-finding bugs = the perfect strategy game

[Ellesthyan]

Well Navaros, could you explain what you mean by an actual combat engagement? Is it that you fight with the unit itself? meh?

I think the Medieval Total War engine is very good for playing the commander of an army, in a quite realistic way. You've got much more power than a general in the old days had, but there's also the possibility to turn it of. You've got cavalry, grunts, elite troops and artillery; with some historical accuracy as well. What can you expect more? (besides some descent graphics; the MTW unit graphics are poor)
Anything extra could tip the weigth over to unrealism, or it would just impossible to play with. The game is already barely managable without the pauze button (if you want to micro everything).

Im sorry, Ive never played Emperor: Battle for Dune before, but if I'm not wrong it was the first C&C like game. But I do have played a few C&C games. There you control every unit, and can order them to attack, fall back, make manouvres, etc. Every unit is distinct, and the weapons have many different effects. However, this is not that realistic. First of all you'll be using armies of about 20 units, whereas in MTW it's more like a thousand. Second, there is no morale/fatigue part. Third, flank/rear attacks do not matter at all; just pound your enemy until he's out of hp.
-- It's a different game, the war engine has a different purpose. MTW is like Warhammer and other table top wargames, while games like C&C focus mostly on who has his base ready and can chunk out the best troops the fastest... They aren't really comparable.

[Gregoshi]

I really like that all the patches/support typically given to Blizzard game after going Retail bit you added to your ideal game Navaros. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

I'm not so sure about the BNET size community though. A community larger than the current TW one is okay, but BNET is way, way too large for my tastes.

I also like the improved naval battles and diplomacy mentioned before. I'll add improved trade, population effects to income and unit production, some form of simple logistics and army desertions (especially after a defeat).

[Pellinor]

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ May 12 2004,06:35)]...in Total War once your units are engaged, you can't do anything to help them. you are stuck watching your army as a spectator
It is at this point that you use your reserves to swing the battle your way.

What's that boxing/wrestling quote? The point is to get both your opponent's hands occupied with one of yours, then pound him with your free hand. Something like that.

[Navaros]

Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ May 12 2004,16:50)]Well Navaros, could you explain what you mean by an actual combat engagement? Is it that you fight with the unit itself? meh?

I think the Medieval Total War engine is very good for playing the commander of an army, in a quite realistic way. You've got much more power than a general in the old days had, but there's also the possibility to turn it of. You've got cavalry, grunts, elite troops and artillery; with some historical accuracy as well. What can you expect more? (besides some descent graphics; the MTW unit graphics are poor)
Anything extra could tip the weigth over to unrealism, or it would just impossible to play with. The game is already barely managable without the pauze button (if you want to micro everything).

Im sorry, Ive never played Emperor: Battle for Dune before, but if I'm not wrong it was the first C&C like game. But I do have played a few C&C games. There you control every unit, and can order them to attack, fall back, make manouvres, etc. Every unit is distinct, and the weapons have many different effects. However, this is not that realistic. First of all you'll be using armies of about 20 units, whereas in MTW it's more like a thousand. Second, there is no morale/fatigue part. Third, flank/rear attacks do not matter at all; just pound your enemy until he's out of hp.
-- It's a different game, the war engine has a different purpose. MTW is like Warhammer and other table top wargames, while games like C&C focus mostly on who has his base ready and can chunk out the best troops the fastest... They aren't really comparable.
you're right that the two types of games aren't comparable.

yes Emperor was following in the C&C type of game - but that is only cuz C&C was following after Dune 2 - Dune 2 of course being the game that pretty much invented RTS as a genre. Emperor is basically a 3D, glorified version of Dune 2.

what i mean by having the power to act during actual combat engagements is: whilst your army is firing at the enemy army and vice versa, you the player need to be giving orders to your engaged army that will affect the outcome of that battle. you may tell all your units to focus-fire on the most threatening enemy unit. you may find that your units are firing sloppily so you need to use the STOP button to re-calibrate their targeting computers to spread their fire better. you may see that the enemy is brining forth a unit to backup his army that is already engaged, at which point you'd better be real quick in bringing forth your own counter-unit to that one. you may find that the enemy is about to fire with large tanks that have ridiculous splash damage - enough to wipe out huge clusters of your own infantry with just one volley unless you move them the heck out of the way mighty quickly. all these things and much, much more (i've just given you a thimble-full from a selection of examples that could fill a well) happen whilst your forces are engaged with each other. it might not be realistic, but i don't care. i play a game to have fun, not because i expect it to be realistic. IMO the type of gameplay i've described in this paragraph is far, far more involving, deep, strategical, and fun than the gameplay of Total War

Total War is mostly just a matter of setting up your men in a good formation and not letting that formation get broken. that is about the whole extent of tactics involved, aside from flanking etc. but even flanking in Total War does not have much to it, simply a matter of leftclicking once/twice on the appropriate enemy unit, and then watching what happens. once units are engaged in Total War, you the player are thrust into the role of spectator rather than active particpant. in the type of RTS i've described - you are an active particpant during 100% of the gameplay.

[Ellesthyan]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Okidokey, then we understand eachother. I agree, the C&C like games are really fun; but I happen to like strategy over tactics, and I absolutely love history and of course making it myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

Still, I think that the total war engine is not that boring as you make it sound. Mostly, I think, because you are using missile only units as your example, while in TW hand to hand is the usual way to fight. If in C&C hand to hand battles would have been fought, they'd be as boring as in TW. I challenge you to take a army of only Jannisary infantry, for example, or only horse archers, etc. It's a lot more challenging, more difficult, and certainly more involving. Good luck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Doug-Thompson]

What we have here is a basic conflict between fun and realistic. The type of C3 (command, control, communication) being talked about here simply didn't exist in the Middle Ages for most armies. Commanders did line their troops up as best they could and send them crashing into each other.

However, there is a solution.

Play with missile cavalry -- especially Szekely, Mameluke Horse Archers, Faris and Byz cavalry. It's quite difficult to do well. However, good, disciplined missile cavalry will give you exactly what you're looking for --
Quote[/b] ] what i mean by having the power to act during actual combat engagements is: whilst your army is firing at the enemy army and vice versa, you the player need to be giving orders to your engaged army that will affect the outcome of that battle.

[gaijinalways]

I wonder what level he is playing on if the tactics are not so good in MTW. I find them still challenging, that is until you get much larger and start to overwhelm the AI factions with far superior numbers and technology. Even then, the game throws in some curves with reemerging factions who sometimes bring in some pretty advanced and higher valor troops.

Flanking, engaging, even using peasants as distractors (even when they are fleeing) are all useful and different strategies, sometimes all within the same battle. Bait ansd switch is another one.

I personally would like to see more interaction on the economics part of the game, with mining and farming and with trading. Of course one has to control aspects with keeping sea lanes open, but as to other decisions, like where things are sold, it would be interesting if you had different risk and profit levels depending on the volume you wished to move and the prices you wished to charge.

Also, they could have more happiness adjustment factors like when you play Tropico. That way you could see things on a more personal level when spies visit town, and pick up rumors, real facts, steal documents, etc.

[Navaros]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ May 13 2004,09:43)]However, there is a solution.

Play with missile cavalry -- especially Szekely, Mameluke Horse Archers, Faris and Byz cavalry. It's quite difficult to do well. However, good, disciplined missile cavalry will give you exactly what you're looking for --
Quote[/b] ] what i mean by having the power to act during actual combat engagements is: whilst your army is firing at the enemy army and vice versa, you the player need to be giving orders to your engaged army that will affect the outcome of that battle.
even that does not satisfy me cuz after you bait the enemy 3-5 times with any particular unit you get the message that the unit is Disenheartened by constant retreat and it runs right off the map. the first time this happened to me i wanted to break all my Total War discs. i was microing, NOT retreating. i have since been told by members here that giving a click to run away is actually an order to retreat. that may be realistic, but it sure as heck ain't fun.

i think realism needs to take a backseat to FUN in situations like this but unfortunately in Total War it does not

[Oleander Ardens]

@Navaros: Engaging for a a second might help you, at least it works fine for me...

In every case the Teach me how to use HA in the Main Hall is rather informative.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Navaros @ May 13 2004,11:15)]even that does not satisfy me cuz after you bait the enemy 3-5 times with any particular unit you get the message that the unit is Disenheartened by constant retreat and it runs right off the map. the first time this happened to me i wanted to break all my Total War discs. i was microing, NOT retreating. i have since been told by members here that giving a click to run away is actually an order to retreat. that may be realistic, but it sure as heck ain't fun.

i think realism needs to take a backseat to FUN in situations like this but unfortunately in Total War it does not
Please take note of the part of my post which says:


Quote[/b] ]However, good, disciplined missile cavalry will give you exactly what you're looking for

Good, disciplined missile cavalry don't get disheartened by maneuvering, unless the swings are so wild that they are spending more time running around than shooting, and become exhausted.

You don't have to wait forever before getting these units, either. Szekely are great and available quite early. Even Turcomon horse do well if they have the morale boost from a ribat, for instance, or the unit has a good leader.

[ShadesWolf]

Civ's ability to place a city anywhere on the map
civs / EU (other paradox) diplomacy / economic/ research etc..
Total war battle engine

Now that would be some game...........

[SpencerH]

A cross between Civ and TW with the complexities of both in one package and the ability to allow the AI to autoplay the parts you dont like.

[gaijinalways]

Sounds good, that cross between civ and MTW.