4 Strategy Games to play before you die.

[Polycrates]

UFO: Enemy Unknown - And not just as "an important part of strategy gaming history" or whatever. It's amazing that a game this old is still so playable, and still hasn't been equalled (though no disrespect to Jagged Alliance 2).

Master of Orion 2 - I could go on about the cool races, the fun mechanics, the really interesting tech tree approach...but really it's all about designing and building your own death star and obliterating planets, isnt it?

Civilization V (yes, V) - Civ games are a no-brainer here, and for my money Civ V's excellent innovations and lack of micromanagement bloat make it the superior version. Alpha Centauri would be the other candidate, and I love it to bits, but it really hasn't aged well.

Europa Universalis III - the quintessential Paradox game, and certainly the most complete, polished and accessible. Crusader Kings II could have a very good claim to the throne as well...

 

[GoodSarmatian]

What do you mean 'hasn't aged well' ?
The gameplay is still solid, and better than Civ 5 (though not better than Civ 4+BtS).
The graphics haven't age at all. SMAC was already pretty ugly for 1999.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Company of Heroes
Advanced Wars
Combat Mission
Civilization

 

[W|M]

-Civilization I
-Civilization II
-Civilization III
-Civilization IV

 

[Polycrates]

What do you mean 'hasn't aged well' ?
The gameplay is still solid, and better than Civ 5 (though not better than Civ 4+BtS).
The graphics haven't age at all. SMAC was already pretty ugly for 1999.

Don't get me wrong, there's probably not a single game I've played more than SMAC. I love it to bits, and it hurts me to say these things. And I couldn't give a damn about the graphics. But the balancing is terrible, the game is all but over as soon as you reach Doctrine: Air Power, the second half of the tech tree might as well not even be there for all you see of it, it heavily favours ICS, there's a whole bunch of rather painfully outdated mechanics, and the AI is pretty much non-existent.
All the stuff you expect from a rough-around-the-edges newly-released grand strategy game, especially one as complex and groundbreaking as SMAC; but these days most of that would all get patched/modded into a better state, which wasn't really the case back then. And time has really just thrown those problems into stark relief.

 

[Maniacal]

None of those problems are an age related issue. There are plenty of games still made with bad AI and balance issues (Civ5 for one) and there are still lots of issues with not enough problems fixed in patches and lack of modding support. Plus there are plenty of old games with community pathces/mods for them (Deus Ex, Acanum, Baldur's Gate, Gothich 3, and so on).

 

[Polycrates]

My point was merely that some old games have aged well, others haven't. X-Com is a game that has aged exceptionally well, Alpha Centauri unfortunately isn't so much, to my mind. Doesn't mean it's not a classic, and I'd still put it in my top ten games of all time in a heartbeat. And to be honest a fix of the dreadful AI (especially the tile improvement AI, which utterly cripples the computer players) and a solid rebalancing (air power, mid-to-late-game tech speed, etc) would go most of the way towards making it still perfectly playable, though perhaps still a little clunky.

 

[PhroX]

No mention of Total War yet ?
Rome and Shogun 2 are among the best strategy games I've ever played.

Thing is, the strategic side of the game - the campaign map - is so simplistic and crippled by an abortion of an AI , that I can't really think of it as a strategy game. (the battles are great though...)

EU3
CK2
Vicky2
Civ 4

I think I'll have to second this...

 

[Antilogic]

Master of Orion 2 - I could go on about the cool races, the fun mechanics, the really interesting tech tree approach...but really it's all about designing and building your own death star and obliterating planets, isnt it?

Civilization V (yes, V) - Civ games are a no-brainer here, and for my money Civ V's excellent innovations and lack of micromanagement bloat make it the superior version. Alpha Centauri would be the other candidate, and I love it to bits, but it really hasn't aged well.

I picked the original Master of Orion (and no, I'm not counting Star Lords or whatever that pre-release version was called) for my list, but I can respect the selection of MoO2.

But seeing Civ5 in this list made me do this:

Thing is, the strategic side of the game - the campaign map - is so simplistic and crippled by an abortion of an AI , that I can't really think of it as a strategy game. (the battles are great though...)

This. The Total War games strike me more as a tactics-focused game and not a strategy game. And that's only if you are playing when you can pause and issue orders correctly, when in multiplayer it's just typical RTS stuff.

 

[ddd123]

many ppl loved the innovation of civ, the end of stupid nonsense stacks of doom, the superior combat strategic elements introduced in civ 5 and so on
ofc its clear there are some flaws in civ 5 (vanilla, so basically same as in civ4 vanilla) but really the superior combat system and few other innovation are enough to make it superior to its predecessors, whats a point of a strategic game if then all ends in battles who are unfun, unfair, and totally disappointing?

 

[Antilogic]

That's not what "strategic" means. The kind of field-positioning Civ5 uses, turning flanks, etc. is purely tactics.

They've basically put an arbitrary low limit on the number of units that can be in one place at any given time without any reference or even lip service to the logistics or frontage of the units in question. It also doesn't make sense from a historic/realism perspective until at least the Napoleonic Wars if not later 19th century wars, when corps systems were adopted and flanking/breakthrough tactics were adopted on the grand scale.

A true strategic game would have tackled the problem by eliminating one-on-one combat and introducing united-stack movement and combat, with indecisive results being possible and even likely (both units survive combat). The limit on your army size would be subject to supply and logistical issues--go over your supply limit, and your men starve to death. That way, the focus is away from the field tactics and more towards the organization of your forces.

 

[Rub'Rum]

So, really, sounds like the only games that qualify for this "strategy" thread are Paradox games.

 

[Antilogic]

So, really, sounds like the only games that qualify for this "strategy" thread are Paradox games.

I was thinking of games produced by their French cousins, but they are closer to the mark than Civ5.

Civilization's strategic elements are in the empire and city management arena--how do you allot your resources towards military, expansion, buildings, wonders, etc.? Which state religion do you pick, given the diplomatic atmosphere? You set some long-term goal (acquiring tons of culture for a victory, an excess of high-quality military units for a conquest/domination victory, etc.) and then allocate your resources to achieve it. That's strategy.

 

[duckstab]

That's not what "strategic" means. The kind of field-positioning Civ5 uses, turning flanks, etc. is purely tactics.

A true strategic game would have tackled the problem by eliminating one-on-one combat and introducing united-stack movement and combat, with indecisive results being possible and even likely (both units survive combat). The limit on your army size would be subject to supply and logistical issues--go over your supply limit, and your men starve to death. That way, the focus is away from the field tactics and more towards the organization of your forces.

I wouldn't mind the emphasis on tactics, where Civ5 fails for me is that tactics are conducted on a strategic level map. I just can't get over how goofy it feels to have archers firing over what are supposed to be enormous lakes. Totally breaks immersion for me. To say nothing of the carpet of doom issue.

Best of both worlds for me would be to allow, at the human player's option, either a quick stack-on-stack combat with partial losses, or move the battle to a randomly-generated tactical map based on surrounding terrain.

 

[Antilogic]

I wouldn't mind the emphasis on tactics, where Civ5 fails for me is that tactics are conducted on a strategic level map. I just can't get over how goofy it feels to have archers firing over what are supposed to be enormous lakes. Totally breaks immersion for me. To say nothing of the carpet of doom issue.

Best of both worlds for me would be to allow, at the human player's option, either a quick stack-on-stack combat with partial losses, or move the battle to a randomly-generated tactical map based on surrounding terrain.

While this kind of über-game always sounds great on paper, I think the tactical battles would always be too simplified to satisfy anyone but the munchkin RTS-type gamers, and the diversion of resources would probably mean sacrificing other game features on the strategic level.

 

[sophie]

While this kind of über-game always sounds great on paper, I think the tactical battles would always be too simplified to satisfy anyone but the munchkin RTS-type gamers, and the diversion of resources would probably mean sacrificing other game features on the strategic level.

They already have this. It's called Lords of the Realm 2, and it works out exactly as you described. It's also [copulation as adjective] awesome.

 

[Rub'Rum]

They already have this. It's called Lords of the Realm 2, and it works out exactly as you described. It's also [copulation as adjective] awesome.

I called it on my list. Awesome game.

 

[Vylinius]

Antilogic you know that there is a civ 4 mod project for exactly what he's suggesting right with the random generated terrain+tactical map.

My list.

1. Civ4
2. Crusader Kings 2
3. EUIII
4. Alpha Centauri

I would probably have Victoria 2 on there if I owned it.

 

[Antilogic]

I was unaware of this project, and I'll gladly try it once it's done. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Heathcliff]

I'm going with four mods.
In my mind commercialgames pale in compersion to what modders can do.

1. Dota - a wc3 mod
2. Magna Mundi - a EU3 mod
3. Fall From Heaven 2 - a Civ 4 mod
4. Rhyes and Fall of Civilizations - a Civ 4 mod