Printable View
I just decided to myself that i wanted a change to playing Rome: Total Realism and i wondered what you guys thought.. What strategy game should i get, i played American Conquest and Empire earth 1 but they dont satisfy, so i leave it to you! what strat game should i get?
Medieval: Total War ~D
But if you're looking for something different, you might want to specify what you are looking for a bit more.
:bow:
Yeah good point, i'm just a little bored with the total war series, and i am looking for something different
Ground Control 2 is pretty good.
Civ III, it's very cheap now (I bought it for 6.50 €) and pretty good, there's also a demo.
More info is needed.
Victoria - an empire under the sun: http://www.strategyfirst.com/en/game...r/?iGameID=104
Knights of Honor: www.knight-of-honor-net
Sacrifice of course! Best strategy game ever.
Perhaps you could try Alpha Centauri; it's an oldie, but a very good one.
please put links to the game websites.....thanks for the feedback though, i'm actually thinking of getting Stronghold 2, cos it looks soo good
yeah vicky is an awesome game, you could also get eu2 though its a little older and the graphics are a little annoying.
www.paradoxplaza.com
thanks,
dizzy
It might just be me but I bought Stronghold 2 when it first cam out and it was rubbish. The graphics (although in 3D) were appaling and the gameplay was awful aswell.Quote:
i'm actually thinking of getting Stronghold 2, cos it looks soo good
Stronghold and Stronghold Crusader were amazing games but Stronghold 2 just lets down the series in my opinion.
But thats just my opinion.
~:cheers:
Cossacks 2 may be worth a try. I used to play the original Cossacks, and I loved it. Hopefully the new one will have moved on with the times.
Think I'm going to give it a try... watch this space.
http://www.cossacks2.de/
I was thinking of trying Cossacks 2 but there were many mixed reviews and about 80% of the reviews I read said that the game was rubbish. But as I have already learnt you can't always trust the reviews. I've got the original Cossacks and that was ok for it's time. I might give Cossacks 2 a try.
@ slug for a butt, Please inform me of you opinions of Cossacks 2 if and when you get it please mate. ~:cheers:
Yeah i'm hoping eather to get Cossacks 2 or Knights of Honour, i will keep you posted on how good they are...bTW has anybody played American Conquest, by the same guys as Cossacks?
Cossacks 2's biggest problem is it's steep system requirments, 512 megs of ram and 1.5 GHz cpu as a minimum. With 768 megs of ram and 2.5 Ghz cpu recomemded. But if you put the game on lower resolution and not so good animations it will run smoothly. Just don't get it's 1.1 patch it breaks skirmish mode. Then you can enjoy the TW-esque (but not a clone of) game play style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vip3r
I have both the original American Conquest and the stand alone X-pack Fight back. And I would say get fight back. It has 1 new native tribe, the Haida. Also 4 new eruopean nations. Russia, Germany, Portugal, and the Dutch.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
yeah? well i have the original AC but i do have FB on order...so guys!! what shall it be Knights of Honour or Cossacks 2?
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but after hearing so much good stuff about Paradox games, I've decided to buy one. Which one would you guys advise-Victoria, EU II or Hearts of Iron 2?
I do like my graphics....and by no means are you hijacking the thread! this is a place to ask questions about strat games....i'm still wondering about Cossacks 2 or KOH
What about Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War.
It is:
-Fast paced.
-Has a good resource system, you capture points on the map to gain resouses and build power plants to generate power.
-good graphics.
-Lot of explosions/guns/lasers etc.
-Most units can fire and move at the same time.
-There is morale.
-Squad based.
are you planing on buying EU2? Most people thought it was better the HOI2...i think i'll just buy EU2, it's alot cheaper :greedy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
agreed. i can't get enough of this game. at it's core, it's still an RTS. however, it adds a number of innovations that provide a fairly new experience. the manner in which morale and close combat/melee operate really adds a new dimension to rts combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinus
tying resources to controlling territory is also a great idea, as it simply makes sense. the more you control, the more resources you have to work with. it also eliminates mining/gathering/etc, which is my biggest complaint about most rts's.
of course, the fact that i'm a big fan of the table top wargame probably makes me somewhat biased, but i'd highly recommend dawn of war. the only people who won't enjoy it are those who simply do not like RTS games at all.
Civilization3Conquest is much fun and all the Close Combat games are great,Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
I have a Bridge Too Far and Battle of the Bulge--- love 'em ~:cool: .
Ha, that's funny. AOE 3 is just putting in stuff that other RTS games have had for years(squads, morale, streamlined resource collection). DoW is not a traditional Starcraft-style RTS. It has all those new RTS stuff I listed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Warcraft 3
Total Annihilation
Age of Kings
All them are great, and provide a lot of fun in multiplayer
What bothers me about HOI2 is there are so many options that it starts to feel like work. For example, I loaded up a game as Germany, and there are literally like 100 generals (virtually identical) to choose from for any field command. And apparently no way to sort them (by special characteristics, skill, etc)
That's just annoying. It seems like there's a fun game underneath it all, but there's too much busywork to get to the fun.
another good paradox game, though a bit boring and mundane at times, is crusader kings, i love organising marriages and then assasinating people ruthlessly to gain more terratoiry.
thanks,
dizzy
knights of honor is rather bland
i jsut bought it for 39 bucks and have to say that i got more enjoyment out of "celts" for 19 3 years ago
See, that's the thing. A huge part of war games for me is controlling what generals control what armies.
Actually, I was wrong -- you can sort by skill and rank. What you CANNOT do is sort by skill WITHIN rank. I'm not sure what ordering system the game uses when you sort by one or the other, but it doesn't use (as a secondary ordering system) the other characteristic. And there is absolutely no way to sort by unique characteristics (What's the point of having all those leadership traits if you can't even orgaznie your generals according to them? You end up hunting and pecking through a huge list. And worst of all, you can only view around 5-6 of the generals on the list on your screen at any particular point in time!)