Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (
More info?)
I can play a RTS game, if it's good. Starcraft, Age of Empires etc. But
they are all similar, with the hunt this, gather that so you can build the
other. They can be fun, but for me, I hit the "wall" very early. The wall
for me is this: Can I play at a harder level and win. I can play at a
harder level and win with Civ 3, but I don't usually do as well. I'm not
good at it by any means. I always win at warlord. I can win at then next
one up. I get to a point in RTS where if I move up a level, I never win.
If I stay at the previous level, I always win. Where's the fun in that? If
a new RTS comes out that "everyone" says is good, I'll try it. Same with a
Strategy game. But the strategy game would have to be better than Civ, or I
won't buy it. Why waste the money? The Civ games are the only ones that
stay on my HD all the time. I deleted Civ II for Civ III, but I haven't
replaced Civ III with anything. Well, I upgraded to Conquests, but that
doesn't count. I played the above mentioned RTS games, and the original
Command and Conquer Red Alert, and the Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds
version of AoE II, but they all sort of run together after a while.
"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvQhPVDNZsrBFwH1@activist.demon.co.uk...
> Do you guys like real-time strategy games as well as turn-based ones?
>
> Personally I much prefer the latter, as I like time to plan my moves -
> I've never been able to get into real-time ones (with the possible
> exception of Populous, if that one counts).
> --
> Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram