What other RTS?

[Crian]

What other RTS games with somewhat realistic battlefield maneuvers like RTW/MTW are worth taking a look at?

Alexander looked interesting but reviews said it sucked.

LOL The discussion has somewhat deviated from the original question but I suppose that's a good sign . Allow me to join in!

To answer the question, Total War stands PROUD and APART, hands down. For some reason, nobody else (AND that really means nobody) has gotten the formula right, even if it's so logical. Traditional RTS games have been around for quite some time, but none (until Shogun) have truly captured what many players have been clamoring for.

Comparing Total War with the Traditional RTS:
- Battles weren't fought by a handful of troops, they were epic, massive affairs.
- Soldiers didn't stand/walk around then start shooting/hitting each other when they met. They did maneuvers, they flanked their opponents, archers didn't shoot their arrows in melee, cavalry didn't run up to their opponents and started wacking them - they charged! ... (you get the point...)
- Soldiers never got lost because of poor pathfinding, they marched together in formations, side-by-side, in a line facing the enemy.
- Battles weren't decided by how fast your reflexes are to tell that mage to cast his healing spell or those peasants to start building, but by your skill in the battlefield, the skill of your troops, you luck, etc... but really not your reflexes.
- Plus a lot of other things I can't remember right now...

All of the above apply in particular to games with ancient settings, or settings loosely based on ancient times like fantasy. Total War somehow captured it right, and everyone agreed, and it was all good from then on . I've played so many RTS games until I got Shogun, and I never got another RTS after that (except Homeworld 2 but that's different )

[professorspatula]

Worth a brief look is 'Fields of Glory', a strategy game made way back in about '92-94. It was probably the first attempt a developer made to create an accessible strategy game. It's set in the Napoleanic wars era and was actually quite a blast at the time. There's no campaign strategy, just a series of battles to fight. Worth tracking down at some abandonware site. So it looks and sounds poor against todays games, but there's something satisfying about seeing a unit of riflemen take up defensive positions in a farmhouse and single-handily hold off the enemy advance whilst waiting for reinforcements arrive.

[BelgradeWar]

Worth a brief look is 'Fields of Glory', a strategy game made way back in about '92-94. It was probably the first attempt a developer made to create an accessible strategy game. It's set in the Napoleanic wars era and was actually quite a blast at the time. There's no campaign strategy, just a series of battles to fight. Worth tracking down at some abandonware site. So it looks and sounds poor against todays games, but there's something satisfying about seeing a unit of riflemen take up defensive positions in a farmhouse and single-handily hold off the enemy advance whilst waiting for reinforcements arrive.

Played it, sure agree - battles are pretty well done. Just one thing - game will inevitably be to fast on today's computers, and there's no way to slow it.
Another pro - game has excellent unit encyclopaedia - giving info on practically every French, British, Prussian regiment that took part in battles around Waterloo.

You can find it on Underdogs abandonware site (I'm not familiar with talking about other sites - if it's not allowed, mods please remove this) - actually I'm the game host for this game there, so feel free to visit and read the review.

[professorspatula]

Well there is that. Although Dos emulators like Dosbox tend to run old games pretty slow, well on my PC anyway. People using Win98 can stick their PC into Dos mode, then use a slow-down program like Moslo to slow things down. Some old games are a lost cause trying to play on modern machines though.

[LorDBulA]

(can't bear traditional RTSs)

Hehe i feel the same. I just hate this whole build your army from the scratch every time concept. Build your cities/civilization from the scratch every time ( i wonder what happened with settlements i builded in earlier battle).
Build as many man as you can and send them against enemy with no plan or cohesion. And ofcourse the silly concept that you have to win each and every battle to achieve victory (thats so silly). And last thing, no campainge element.
Its terrible.

I like only two games with RTS elements.
Total Ware series is the best by far. Second great game series was Close Combat.
This was great WWII battlefield combat simulation. Unfortunately part IV was awful (it was destroyed by much to small battlemaps). Part V was better but still didnt hold me to long, it was a bit easy and it missed most important element.
It didnt recreate massive allied air superiority. Witch was so unrealistic and made the game to easy (afther playing it i can say that without this massive air superiority allies invasion would not suceed).

Its getting even worse now. Now i find it hard to play games that have decent campagne element (but none is such complex as RTW) but lacks battlefield element. I just hate seeing my beautiful army being misused by computer in autocalc.

I hope that in future we will see more TW like games.
Imperial Glory was a nice try. Its not good and i didnt like the demo but at least it uses TW concept.
Hopefully other companies will try the same.

[BelgradeWar]

Hehe i feel the same. I just hate this whole build your army from the scratch every time concept. Build your cities/civilization from the scratch every time ( i wonder what happened with settlements i builded in earlier battle).
Build as many man as you can and send them against enemy with no plan or cohesion. And ofcourse the silly concept that you have to win each and every battle to achieve victory (thats so silly). And last thing, no campainge element.
Its terrible.

I like only two games with RTS elements.
Total Ware series is the best by far. Second great game series was Close Combat.This was great WWII battlefield combat simulation. Unfortunately part IV was awful (it was destroyed by much to small battlemaps). Part V was better but still didnt hold me to long, it was a bit easy and it missed most important element.
It didnt recreate massive allied air superiority. Witch was so unrealistic and made the game to easy (afther playing it i can say that without this massive air superiority allies invasion would not suceed).

Its getting even worse now. Now i find it hard to play games that have decent campagne element (but none is such complex as RTW) but lacks battlefield element. I just hate seeing my beautiful army being misused by computer in autocalc.

I hope that in future we will see more TW like games.
Imperial Glory was a nice try. Its not good and i didnt like the demo but at least it uses TW concept.
Hopefully other companies will try the same.

It is THE most realistic WWII strategy, and if there are two games I wanted most to be continued it were Close Combat and Fallout (3). CC is history. Hope that Fallout makes something worthwhile.

Couldn't agree more about IV and V. Have you played the second part? Seems it's okay, but I never got it to work on new computer. Still the Russian front is undoubtedly the best.

[econ21]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg had real time battles that were rather like Total War. Arguably even more historically accurate with morale (cohesion?) being central. The engine was later used for Austerlitz and Waterloo, by Breakaway Games, IIRC.

However, I could not get into them. Firstly, there was no strategic campaign of TW style to hook you in to playing the battles. Second, the graphics seemed rather ropey to me and the whole thing just lacked the excitement and wow factor of TW battles. The games felt too sedate and the controls too clunky and overly complex (the commands for TW become remarkably intuitive after a while).

[O'ETAIPOS]

Its getting even worse now. Now i find it hard to play games that have decent campagne element (but none is such complex as RTW) but lacks battlefield element. I just hate seeing my beautiful army being misused by computer in autocalc.

The best possible combination - Paradox Crusader Kings(or EU2) campainmap + TW battlemap

[LorDBulA]

Paradox Crusader Kings(or EU2) campainmap

I think that RTW map is much superior. Dropping province concept for army movements was a great step forward. Your armies now have total freedom and i love this. You can choose easier/safer rote, protect passes, build forts to restrict enemy movements, lay ambushes, make raids on enemy settlements (like my gatai raid on Athens, on the way i had to pass through Epirhotes lands and Makedon lands, actually it was raid on Epirhotes but since they agreed to pay ransom when i threaten to attack they city i shifted my attention to Athens).
Its incredible.
The only problem is that this new map is so good and complex that AI have troubles to keep up.

[Crian]

As great as it is however, I think Total War has a lot to improve on on the strategic aspect of gameplay (diplomacy and the way you interact with other factions in general). I've had a lot of TW games where I feel like I'm playing a slower version of a Free-For-All multiplayer FPS, wherein you just run around and shoot people. Here, I was simply amassing armies and sending them out en masse, without even moving a single diplomat.
Heck, Total War could learn a few things from Civilization, Crusader Kings, even Galactic Civlizations! (Which, IMO, has one of the best AI in the turn-based strategy genre).