Turn Based Strategy?

[2WS-Steve]

So if you want WL5, buy Puzzle Quest. At least download the demo and try it. Most people who have played it seem to really really like it.

It looks like the demo's available for the PC, but not the game. Is that true? Seems a little odd.

 

[Vigilance]

That's because Alpha Centauri is the Best. Game. EVAR.

But Civ IV is pretty good, too. Better than 3, anyway.

Cheers, -- N

Alpha Centauri is one of my favorite games of all time. It just oozes atmosphere. I felt like Civ 4 picked up a lot of lessons from AC. I mean, I know we had little movies about wonders before, but having Leonard Nimoy there with a little saying everytime you get a new technology makes the game feel weightier somehow

 

[trancejeremy]

It looks like the demo's available for the PC, but not the game. Is that true? Seems a little odd.

For now. A PC version will come later.

Apparently, the Warlords people had been working on the game since Warlords IV. Originally it was called "Warlords: Champions". Anyway, I guess the only publisher they could find that was interested in it was the fairly obscure "D3 Publisher", which only really does console games.

They specialize in budget games in Japan (many involving maids), which Sony won't let them publish on the PS2 in the US, but they want to get into the US (and European) market. So that's why they jumped on this. But I guess they felt that it was better suited for handhelds, since the games graphics are 2D.

However, a PC version is complete. The guy who did the music for the game talked about playing it a year or so ago. But I guess it won't be released for a while. It's also probably going to be released as an XBLA title on the 360.

 

[Croesus]

Hi all,

I used to be a massive fan of the Warlords series of games (up to W4, with which Ubisoft effectively moved in and killed the franchise)...

Is there any other good turn based strategy games around nowadays, or is it a dead genre?

Cheers - T

If you liked Warlords, try Age of Wonders or Age of Wonder 2. Both use much the same model, though the heroes are more powerful than your Warlord heroes. I found the first one very addictive with a lot of replayability. The second one is better in many ways, but the campaign plays more like a series of mini-campaigns, rather than a single huge one.

Another vote for HOMM 3. Get both expansions (Armageddon's Blade and Shadow of Death). Then search the web for homebrew maps. The graphics hold up ok even today and the gameplay is outstanding. The AI isn't a complete doofus (in fact, an overconfident player will often have his head handed to him in short order). The one weakness with the AI is that it plays best on "poor" maps, with limited resources and artifacts. The richer the map, the easier it is for the human player to optimize. Still, one of the best all-time turn based strategy games.

For space 4X, Space Empires 4 is very good, with weak graphics. It has some outstanding player-designed mods. Space Empires 5 was released a few months ago and may be ready for primetime with the next patch (due next week). The graphics are better, but the AI still needs serious tweaking, and only two mods have been released so far. If you haven't tried any in this series, pick up SE4 cheap - if you like it, you'll like SE5 once the modders get going.

Lastly, if you can find it, get the original X-Com. You'll need "moslo" or some other utility to slow down the gameplay (it doesn't automatically balance game speed to processor speed, so the faster your computer, the faster the game plays - and the game was originally released when a 486 was considered fast). I still boot it up now and then just to blow up some aliens.

 

[Thurbane]

What a deplorable end of an erstwhile great strategy/RPG, reduced to a puzzle anime game, small-brains-big-eyes style.

But this is an official trend. Warlords I was groundbreaking for its genre. W2 was solid, but not flamboyant. W2Deluxe was just more of the same with better graphics. W3 was a step back in some areas, though improved in others. W4... I didn't play it, but from what I've heard, it was an abysmal failure, especially w/r to the AI.

Warlords 4 was very disappointing - it had such potential, but unfortunately Ubisoft railroaded the developers in regards to release date, not giving them enough time to institute a lot of the features they wanted...(I followed the development of W4 quite extensivley). It actually lead for me to a personal boycott of all Ubisoft titles.

I await W5 with little real enthusiasm...

For me the pinnacle of the Warlords series was W3: Dark lords Rising.

 

[Matchstick]

Indeed. Get H3 + expansions + WOG for almost twice the units than in the first release (almost 200 - more are unlikely to be added since there is a limit of 255 units).

And Master of Magic? It may be old (1993 IIRC) but still has no rival in the field of fantasy themed 4Xs. The closest was Age of Wonders (1, 2 and 2.5 as the Shadowsomething expansion was called, but it was a separate game), but it did not cut with me - too complicated, although it did have some nice features like three separate world layers (H4 also has this).

I still play Master of Magic. I have the books from when I bought it, but I got the program from http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=687. What an AWESOME game. The computer players' moves go to beat all heck on newer machines, and sometimes it can be difficult to move (moving with the keyboard makes it easier), but it pretty much plays great even on new machines.

I wish someone would figure out what they had there and update it, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

That was a great thought!

 

[Grog]

Master of Orion 2 is of course a classic, if you can find a copy.

The original Master of Orion, in my opinion, is vastly superior to Master of Orion 2. MoO2 had the tremendous disadvantage that, in order for the game to be enjoyable, you pretty much either had to play the Psilons or else build a custom race with the Creative advantage.

Otherwise, you could only research about one-third of the available technology in the game. That made absolutely no sense to me. Sure, you could trade for other techs, but that was annoying, since you'd have to offer the CPU opponents a more valuable tech than the one you were asking for in order to get them to agree to the trade.

I just don't understand why they made it so that researching one piece of technology cut you off from researching anything else in that particular tech group. It was a terrible design decision in my opinion, and the biggest flaw in an otherwise great game.

 

[Rackhir]

The original Master of Orion, in my opinion, is vastly superior to Master of Orion 2. MoO2 had the tremendous disadvantage that, in order for the game to be enjoyable, you pretty much either had to play the Psilons or else build a custom race with the Creative advantage.

Otherwise, you could only research about one-third of the available technology in the game. That made absolutely no sense to me. Sure, you could trade for other techs, but that was annoying, since you'd have to offer the CPU opponents a more valuable tech than the one you were asking for in order to get them to agree to the trade.

I just don't understand why they made it so that researching one piece of technology cut you off from researching anything else in that particular tech group. It was a terrible design decision in my opinion, and the biggest flaw in an otherwise great game.

Yep it's your opinion alright. Given it's sales and enduring popularity it's obviously not one most people agree with.

However, your claims about how limited options are for obtaining techs you didn't research are way off. You can capture techs from enemies through espionage, obtaining them through capturing colonies and dismantling captured enemy ships. You can also threaten weaker powers to obtain them and offer techs that they don't have which you have surpassed.

Personally, I found it too easy playing races with the Creative advantage. While I would agree that it was kind of silly how it restricted you, it was not a bad game balancing factor and never detracted from my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Pyrex]

One of the most entertaining races I played in MOO2 actually had the Uncreative flaw.

The hardest game I ever played was with a mod that let you design a custom race for the Computer to play against you and played against the Borg (Unified government, Telepatic, Cybernetic, Ground-Combat bonus, Uncreative and -Farming & -Commerce penalties). They got assault shuttles early on and started sweeping the map...

 

[Grog]

Yep it's your opinion alright. Given it's sales and enduring popularity it's obviously not one most people agree with.

Why the snotty tone? We're just talking about a PC game here.

And in the context of a discussion like this, nothing is "obvious."

However, your claims about how limited options are for obtaining techs you didn't research are way off. You can capture techs from enemies through espionage, obtaining them through capturing colonies and dismantling captured enemy ships. You can also threaten weaker powers to obtain them and offer techs that they don't have which you have surpassed.

True, spying was an alternate method for getting tech from enemies, but it wasn't a terribly effective one unless you were playing the Darloks or a custom race specifically built for spying. As for capturing colonies and scrapping ships, that could work too, but more often than not, you'd have to save and reload a few times to make it work. And those methods simply gave you tech at random, so there was no guarantee you'd be able to get what you were after. Like I said, it was annoying to me.