Seeking game

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Dear group,

I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm looking
for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is outfitted
to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I start?
I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It seems
to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller Coast/Mall/Honey
Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.

Thanks you,
GS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24 -0800, "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com>
wrote:

>Dear group,
>
>I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm looking
>for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is outfitted
>to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I start?
>I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
>Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It seems
>to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller Coast/Mall/Honey
>Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
>Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.
>
>Thanks you,
>GS.
>

I would get Civilisation III for now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24 -0800, "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com>
wrote:

>I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm looking
>for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is outfitted
>to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I start?
>I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
>Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It seems
>to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller Coast/Mall/Honey
>Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
>Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.

Cheap and a lot of fun: Heroes of Might and Magic III

Turn based strategy, alternating between a strategic "exploration" map
which is somewhat RPG'ish, and a tactical "chessboard" where your
units duke it out according to simple rules.

The graphics of the thing are a bit outdated but the gameplay is so
balanced and addictive it easily makes up for it. There is a
"complete" edition that has more scenarios and campaigns than you can
wave a stick at. You'll find it in some bargain bin.

Regards, Hartmut "with your personal copy of Daikatana" Schmider

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24 -0800, Greg Sumner wrote:

> Dear group,
>
> I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm looking
> for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is outfitted
> to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I start?
> I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
> Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It seems
> to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller Coast/Mall/Honey
> Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
> Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.
>
> Thanks you,
> GS.

Warcraft III is not that outdated. I don't know if World of Warcraft got
more players to Warcraft or got the old warcrafters hooked to net, but
it still does have a community. As it is a real-time strategy, you would
need some amount of hand-eye coordination and quick thinking, something
I am not that good at. I don't know if WIII is as bad at that as some
other games I disliked, and you might like that kind of play.

Civilization III is older, but it is also one-of-a-kind game. There are
not many turn-based strategy games the big public knows about as well as
Civilization III, and it is the big one of its genre. As a turn-based
strategy you can carefully plan out whatever you want to do, and making
it work will probably take some time as well. I haven't actually played
CivIII, but from my experiences with the earlier Civs and other TBS
games I can say that on big maps with few nations the game will slow
down to almost nothing. Atleast on the earlier games there was some kind
of a time limit or some kind of an alternate ending to "kill-em-all", so
that might not be as bad as in some other games.

I play Dominions III, but it might be too much of everything for someone
wanting to try strategy games. Still, you are free to check the demo at
www.shrapnelgames.com and visit the forums at www.shrapnelcommunity.com
if you are interested in being a god. Space Empires IV is a sci-fi game
that is just as deep, and it is also published by Shrapnel Games.

There are also war games, which require strategic or atleast tactical
thinking. Steel Panthers: World at War is free nowadays, so you can try
that to see if you would like this type of games.


I hope this help,

Janne Joensuu,
Endoperez

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> wrote in message
> Dear group,
>
> I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm
looking
> for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is
outfitted
> to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I
start?
> I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
> Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It
seems
> to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller
Coast/Mall/Honey
> Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
> Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.

download some demos and see what works for you?

dfs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>>>>> "jp" == Johan Poppe

>> Cheap and a lot of fun: Heroes of Might and Magic III

jp> That's not a bad suggestion.

jp> There's also Heroes of Might and Magic IV. I can't quite decide
jp> which of those I like best myself. IV has better graphics, a bit
jp> more complexity, and stronger RPG elements than III.

But a few near-fatal flaws. The AI is not anywhere as agressive as in
HOMM3 for starters. The "3D" tactical field is annoying and distracts from
the strategy element for the sake of eye-candy. I think III is the way
stronger game.

Regards, Hartmut "old games for old geezers" Schmider
--
Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University

We are capable of sacrificing ourselves for sentiment.
Sentimentality exacts the sacrifice of others.
Yoritomo-Tashi

 

[user]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Here's a suggestion. You are asking a question like "which is a
better car radio". You will get a million answers, many of them
correct. Just like FPS, there are 'types' of strategy games. Go to
a large store (CompUSA, Best Buy, etc.) and pick 4 games based on
the box and the advertisement. Don't buy anything. Ask here about
the games you picked. You will have then narrowed down what type of
game you like, and the better/worst of the games you picked.

Personally, I dislike any game that takes place in the future or
you have to play on-line. I don't like fog of war. I like a 4X type
of game but am very fussy. There are MANY good games I pass on,
that are excellent, but not for me. So I only buy about 2-3 games a
year. But I may play one or two of them for years.

Get my 'drift'? You're asking 'what's the best motherboard',
without saying what it is going to be used for. Go to a store and
see what you like first.


"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> wrote in message
news:COmdnW2ZfZZA07PfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Dear group,
>
> I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one.
> I'm looking for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any
> year. My rig is outfitted to play the latest FPS action games so
> no worries there. Where do I start? I figure why not start with
> a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the Rings game looks
> attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It seems to
> have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller
> Coast/Mall/Honey Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard
> about Warcraft and Age of Empires but maybe they're dated now.
> Any guidance is appreciated.
>
> Thanks you,
> GS.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:32:26 -0500, Hartmut Schmider
<hs7@post.queensu.ca> wrote:


>But a few near-fatal flaws. The AI is not anywhere as agressive as in
>HOMM3 for starters.

Only in the early stages of the game. In HOMM3 they are more
aggressive from out of the gate. In HOMM4 they let you build up your
forces do more explorration then all of a sudden they will unleash the
dogs-of-war on you. That's been my experience anyway.

>The "3D" tactical field is annoying and distracts from
>the strategy element for the sake of eye-candy.

I agree with this part. I like to let the AI play the battles in both
3 and 4 anyway.

>I think III is the way
>stronger game.

I'm still undecided on this. HOMM4 fully patched is still a good game.
And there are lots of patches.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Is Heroes III still out there? I'd love to find it again. I played that
game for hours. I think it's better then IV,. Anyone have a link?

Civilization III is good too, it's deep and fun. But you might want to
give Rise of Nations a try. It's real-time, but you can pause and slow it
down to a crawl, which helps when you're learning the game. The game
combines elements of turnbased games with real-time. I d/loaded the demo
and played as above with the AI on easy . Give it a try..
Zee


"Hartmut Schmider" <h.schmider@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:7ept21tbue30urgir4440mhqcd708vu7nl@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24 -0800, "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm
>>looking
>>for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is
>>outfitted
>>to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I
>>start?
>>I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
>>Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It
>>seems
>>to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller
>>Coast/Mall/Honey
>>Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
>>Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.
>
> Cheap and a lot of fun: Heroes of Might and Magic III
>
> Turn based strategy, alternating between a strategic "exploration" map
> which is somewhat RPG'ish, and a tactical "chessboard" where your
> units duke it out according to simple rules.
>
> The graphics of the thing are a bit outdated but the gameplay is so
> balanced and addictive it easily makes up for it. There is a
> "complete" edition that has more scenarios and campaigns than you can
> wave a stick at. You'll find it in some bargain bin.
>
> Regards, Hartmut "with your personal copy of Daikatana" Schmider
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Never mind. I found it on ebay for $16 w/ shipping. Woohooo!!


"Mr. Zee" <noone@nohow.net> wrote in message
news:0yEXd.6283$CW2.5760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Is Heroes III still out there? I'd love to find it again. I played
> that game for hours. I think it's better then IV,. Anyone have a link?
>
> Civilization III is good too, it's deep and fun. But you might want
> to give Rise of Nations a try. It's real-time, but you can pause and slow
> it down to a crawl, which helps when you're learning the game. The game
> combines elements of turnbased games with real-time. I d/loaded the demo
> and played as above with the AI on easy . Give it a try..
> Zee
>
>
> "Hartmut Schmider" <h.schmider@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:7ept21tbue30urgir4440mhqcd708vu7nl@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24 -0800, "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm
>>>looking
>>>for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is
>>>outfitted
>>>to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I
>>>start?
>>>I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
>>>Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It
>>>seems
>>>to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller
>>>Coast/Mall/Honey
>>>Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
>>>Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.
>>
>> Cheap and a lot of fun: Heroes of Might and Magic III
>>
>> Turn based strategy, alternating between a strategic "exploration" map
>> which is somewhat RPG'ish, and a tactical "chessboard" where your
>> units duke it out according to simple rules.
>>
>> The graphics of the thing are a bit outdated but the gameplay is so
>> balanced and addictive it easily makes up for it. There is a
>> "complete" edition that has more scenarios and campaigns than you can
>> wave a stick at. You'll find it in some bargain bin.
>>
>> Regards, Hartmut "with your personal copy of Daikatana" Schmider
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:23:40 GMT, "Mr. Zee" <noone@nohow.net> wrote:

>Is Heroes III still out there? I'd love to find it again. I played that
>game for hours. I think it's better then IV,. Anyone have a link?

It was reissued by Ubisoft Publishing in a 2 CD Jewel Case version as
"Heroes IIII Complete" under 'Hits Ubisoft' and includes all the
add-ons. Works fine on XP SP2 and requires no patches. Ask your local
store to order it in for you. That's what I did.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:02:12 -0500, "Mr. Zee" <noone@nohow.net> wrote:

>Never mind. I found it on ebay for $16 w/ shipping. Woohooo!!

Is it "HOMM III Complete"? Don't buy it if it isn't. See my previous
post.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Hartmut Schmider skrev:

>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24 -0800, "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one.
....
>Cheap and a lot of fun: Heroes of Might and Magic III

That's not a bad suggestion.

There's also Heroes of Might and Magic IV. I can't quite decide which
of those I like best myself. IV has better graphics, a bit more
complexity, and stronger RPG elements than III.

Among games in the Civilization genre, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is
the one I liked best.

All of these games are old enough to be found in bargain bins, if
anywhere.


If you're a FPS fan you might like real-time strategy better then
turn-based strategy. I'm not enough into that myself to know what's
best.

--
Riktig sitering gjør meldingene dine lettere å lese:
< url: http://home.online.no/~vidaandr/news/OBSquoting.html >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:18:33 -0800, "1411" <poopoo@poop.com> wrote:
>Here's a suggestion. You are asking a question like "which is a
>better car radio". You will get a million answers, many of them
>correct. Just like FPS, there are 'types' of strategy games.

this is good advice. if you give us some more info it will make it
easier for us to give recommendations.

do you want to run a business, railroad, create a city, fight a
battles, lead a nation?
do you like fantasy, history, sci-fi?
do you like tactical (controlling individual soldiers, squads)?
do you like grand strategic (control whole armies, nations)?

>Go to a large store (CompUSA, Best Buy, etc.) and pick 4 games based on
>the box and the advertisement. Don't buy anything. Ask here about

>"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> wrote in message
>news:COmdnW2ZfZZA07PfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> no worries there. Where do I start? I figure why not start with
>> a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the Rings game looks
>>
>> about Warcraft and Age of Empires but maybe they're dated now.

if they're classic they're going to be dated.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Looks like not many Rome:TW fans here.
One of the things I like about that game is that it combines turn
based play on the campaign map with 3D action on the battle map.
And it looks good.


Remove nospam_ to reply by email

Jeff H........


Lies, All lies. Don't believe a word Difool/sayNO says.
He fears the truth!

 

[user]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Jeff Holinski" <Holinski@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bmdv219ughu7a9gv3fbk95alurc67m8812@4ax.com...
> Looks like not many Rome:TW fans here.
> One of the things I like about that game is that it combines turn
> based play on the campaign map with 3D action on the battle map.
> And it looks good.

I have it, and like it. But I just moved and am still living out of
boxes. Got to get ready to sue for my last deposit. Just got HOI2.
But RTW is a good game, IMHO

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"J.M. Joensuu" <spam_wanted_here@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:11ln14pjqughp.1j6a5rot0zi0o.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24 -0800, Greg Sumner wrote:
>
>><snip>
> Civilization III is older, but it is also one-of-a-kind game. There are
> not many turn-based strategy games the big public knows about as well
> as Civilization III, and it is the big one of its genre. As a
> turn-based strategy you can carefully plan out whatever you want to do,
> and making it work will probably take some time as well. I haven't
> actually played CivIII, but from my experiences with the earlier Civs
> and other TBS games I can say that on big maps with few nations the
> game will slow down to almost nothing. Atleast on the earlier games
> there was some kind of a time limit or some kind of an alternate ending
> to "kill-em-all", so that might not be as bad as in some other games.
For the person who hasn't played strategy games before Civ III is probably
the first choice. Original Civilization has defined a genre and for many
people it was the game that hooked them to strategic gaming. Civ III is an
evolution of the original and it's probably the only strategy game that has
managed to attract both novices and hardcore players. Performance-wise the
modern rig should do ok (video is not a big issue, but fast CPU is a must).

> I play Dominions III, but it might be too much of everything for
> someone wanting to try strategy games. Still, you are free to check the
> demo at www.shrapnelgames.com and visit the forums at
> www.shrapnelcommunity.com if you are interested in being a god. Space
> Empires IV is a sci-fi game that is just as deep, and it is also
> published by Shrapnel Games.
I guess you mean Dominions II, which I agree is probably too complicated
for the novice.

Alex

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> wrote in message
news:COmdnW2ZfZZA07PfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Dear group,
>
> I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm
looking
> for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is
outfitted
> to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I
start?
> I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
> Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It
seems
> to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller
Coast/Mall/Honey
> Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
> Empires but maybe they're dated now.

Age of Empires II/Conquerors. Or wait for Age of Empires III.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Thanks. Will do...
"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news:ebqu2112tb13tj2idd1t0bt4g9fmmvn16t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:23:40 GMT, "Mr. Zee" <noone@nohow.net> wrote:
>
>>Is Heroes III still out there? I'd love to find it again. I played
>>that
>>game for hours. I think it's better then IV,. Anyone have a link?
>
> It was reissued by Ubisoft Publishing in a 2 CD Jewel Case version as
> "Heroes IIII Complete" under 'Hits Ubisoft' and includes all the
> add-ons. Works fine on XP SP2 and requires no patches. Ask your local
> store to order it in for you. That's what I did.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Art Weingardner wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:18:33 -0800, "1411" <poopoo@poop.com> wrote:
>> Here's a suggestion. You are asking a question like "which is a
>> better car radio". You will get a million answers, many of them
>> correct. Just like FPS, there are 'types' of strategy games.
>
> this is good advice. if you give us some more info it will make it
> easier for us to give recommendations.
>
> do you want to run a business, railroad, create a city, fight a
> battles, lead a nation?
> do you like fantasy, history, sci-fi?
> do you like tactical (controlling individual soldiers, squads)?
> do you like grand strategic (control whole armies, nations)?

Two things appeal to me. Running armies, and running cities or some other
large-scale environment. So based on the recommendations of many I got Civ
III. The price was right, so if I don't like it no harm done. It should
come in the mail in the next day or so. To paraphrase Jack Handy, I
wouldn't mind seeing the rest of the world fall under control my ruthless
domination.

I think I've shied away from strategy games because I once bought Black &
White based on some very good reviews, and I was sorely disappointed. It
turns out I wasn't alone in that sentiment, so it probably was incorrect to
base my whole opinion of strategy games on B&W. Hopefully I'll like
Civilization. If I don't I'll probably give a battle game a try, probably
Rome: TW, based again on numerous suggestions. Thanks all!

GS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <h1qu21tc1gcjeqso0ac5qgtp3rhiueaa7h@4ax.com>,
connected@somewhere.here says...
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:32:26 -0500, Hartmut Schmider
> <hs7@post.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> >But a few near-fatal flaws. The AI is not anywhere as agressive as in
> >HOMM3 for starters.
>
> Only in the early stages of the game. In HOMM3 they are more
> aggressive from out of the gate. In HOMM4 they let you build up your
> forces do more explorration then all of a sudden they will unleash the
> dogs-of-war on you. That's been my experience anyway.

I think that's scripting not AI. I agree with Hartmut - go for HOMM3,
where both strategic and tactical AI are good (not blindingly brilliant,
but good). Balance is better too. And IMO even the graphics are
better, even if they are cartoony.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:49:17 -0000, Gerry Quinn
<gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:


>I think that's scripting not AI. I agree with Hartmut - go for HOMM3,
>where both strategic and tactical AI are good (not blindingly brilliant,
>but good). Balance is better too. And IMO even the graphics are
>better, even if they are cartoony.
>
>- Gerry Quinn

I have HOMMIII Complete and IMO some of you give HOMMIV a bad rap. It
is not a bad game and HOMMIII doesn't blow it away. The AI is
aggressive in HOMMIV but not until later in the game. All AI is
scripting. No game contains real artificial intelligence. if/and/or

 

[user]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> wrote in message
news:n62dnQaIY-G3_a3fRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> Two things appeal to me. Running armies, and running cities or
> some other large-scale environment. So based on the
> recommendations of many I got Civ III. The price was right, so
> if I don't like it no harm done. It should come in the mail in
> the next day or so. To paraphrase Jack Handy, I wouldn't mind
> seeing the rest of the world fall under control my ruthless
> domination.

Rise of Nations is the next Civ (sort of). If you like Civ3 you
will play RON for a year or so. VERY addictive.

>
> I think I've shied away from strategy games because I once bought
> Black & White based on some very good reviews, and I was sorely
> disappointed. It

Don't feel bad. Almost everyone fell for the advertisements. I did
too. Peter Monahan(?) was the creator. I'll take a very long look
at any of his future work, if he has any. 'Enemy Nations' also
falls into that league. Now I wait until a game is out and I get my
review HERE instead of some fanboy web site. A review here usually
happens within 4-5 days and is _brutally_ honest. Also, it takes
the stores about 2 weeks to get the item advertised, so you would
save 10 bucks.

> turns out I wasn't alone in that sentiment, so it probably was
> incorrect to base my whole opinion of strategy games on B&W.
> Hopefully I'll like Civilization. If I don't I'll probably give
> a battle game a try, probably Rome: TW, based again on numerous
> suggestions. Thanks all!

I liked RTW. A lot of people didn't, but the RTW advertisement is
truthful. Look at the ads or on the box cover. I hope 'they' don't
screw up Silent Hunter 3, but I'll find out here.

 

[nostromo]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Thus spake "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com>, Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:18:24
-0800, Anno Domini:

>Dear group,
>
>I have never played a strategy game but would like to try one. I'm looking
>for something that's fun and enjoyable, from any year. My rig is outfitted
>to play the latest FPS action games so no worries there. Where do I start?
>I figure why not start with a tried n' true classic. The new Lord of the
>Rings game looks attractive but maybe not the best place to start? It seems
>to have so-so reviews. Civilization 1-3 look neat. Roller Coast/Mall/Honey
>Buckit Tycoon all seem dull. I've always heard about Warcraft and Age of
>Empires but maybe they're dated now. Any guidance is appreciated.
>
>Thanks you,
>GS.

Assuming you're an avid fps player, I steer clear away from turn-based games
like Civ 3 & HOMM, as others here have suggested. You might like them,
chances are you'll hate them. Same for Age of Wonders, Hearts of Iron &
other turn-based strategy games.
Having said that, I highly recommend an action 'heavier' RTS like Rise of
Nations (including Thrones & Patriots expansions - should be able to get
them cheap) if you like real historical settings, from ancient times to the
information age, if you think you'd prefer base-building; or the more recent
Rome: Total War if you prefer to concentrate on the frenzy of battle (though
you can pause either game at any time to give orders). Kohan is also great,
though not a typical RTS (much more tactical).

--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <9r0031l57mu3485lqq0jnhl38dcojrkd6g@4ax.com>,
nostromo@spamfree.net.au says...
>
> Assuming you're an avid fps player, I steer clear away from turn-based games
> like Civ 3 & HOMM, as others here have suggested. You might like them,
> chances are you'll hate them. Same for Age of Wonders, Hearts of Iron &
> other turn-based strategy games.
> Having said that, I highly recommend an action 'heavier' RTS like Rise of
> Nations (including Thrones & Patriots expansions - should be able to get
> them cheap) if you like real historical settings, from ancient times to the
> information age, if you think you'd prefer base-building; or the more recent
> Rome: Total War if you prefer to concentrate on the frenzy of battle (though
> you can pause either game at any time to give orders). Kohan is also great,
> though not a typical RTS (much more tactical).

If it's really strategy he's interested in, turn-based is probably the
way to go. Lack of strategic as distinct from tactical content is not
an intrinsic feature of RTS, but sadly it is the norm.

I would say Civ 3 is the game almost everyone can agree on. If you
don't like *that*, 4X strategy games are not your meat.

- Gerry Quinn