Seeking game

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:26:00 +1100, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:


>Assuming you're an avid fps player, I steer clear away from turn-based games
>like Civ 3 & HOMM, as others here have suggested.

Why? Are people just one or the other? I can play games from any genre
and enjoy them all for various reasons. Just depends on the type of
game I'm in the mood for. I used to be a sim head and think FPS's were
for the riff raff of gaming but now I realise they are games for when
people just want to have fun and blow off some steam. I prefer TBS
over RTS though.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:53:27 -0000, Gerry Quinn
<gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:


>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

Yep, I recommended he get Civ3 too. I would only recommend a RTS game
if it had pause and command play, like the Kohan series.

 

[Guest]

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

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news:0qr031dktb1ofhqv9aa9u22fchcj1p03g3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:26:00 +1100, Nostromo
> <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Assuming you're an avid fps player, I steer clear away from turn-based
>>games
>>like Civ 3 & HOMM, as others here have suggested.
>
> Why? Are people just one or the other? I can play games from any genre
> and enjoy them all for various reasons. Just depends on the type of
> game I'm in the mood for. I used to be a sim head and think FPS's were
> for the riff raff of gaming but now I realise they are games for when
> people just want to have fun and blow off some steam. I prefer TBS
> over RTS though.

I enjoy all games. Mostly adventure games, but I do love a good FPS too.
You guys were very nice to me with your suggestions. Seems the strategy
players are a degree smarter & nicer than most folks in the action group. I
would expect that though.

But as a plug, some FPS games have progressed beyond simple point & destroy.
Especially with online play. If you try a large online game like Battlefild
1942, where it's 16 vs 16 players, the teamplay environment resembles a
strategy game. Most maps are based on historic battlefields. The
difference is you're actually driving the tank, or jeep, or plane, or
whatever. There's communication, planning, strategy and teamwork involved.
Squads are formed and leaders are elected. It's really a great amount of
fun. But if you're not good with hand-eye there's no point - this is still
the critical element.


GS.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:59:15 -0800, "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com>
wrote:


>I enjoy all games. Mostly adventure games, but I do love a good FPS too.
>You guys were very nice to me with your suggestions. Seems the strategy
>players are a degree smarter & nicer than most folks in the action group. I
>would expect that though.
>
>But as a plug, some FPS games have progressed beyond simple point & destroy.
>Especially with online play. If you try a large online game like Battlefild
>1942, where it's 16 vs 16 players, the teamplay environment resembles a
>strategy game. Most maps are based on historic battlefields. The
>difference is you're actually driving the tank, or jeep, or plane, or
>whatever. There's communication, planning, strategy and teamwork involved.
>Squads are formed and leaders are elected. It's really a great amount of
>fun. But if you're not good with hand-eye there's no point - this is still
>the critical element.
>
>
>GS.
>

Yea, I've got BF:1942 and BF:Vietnam but I'm more into Joint
Ops/Escalaltion (Novalogic) these days. I really enjoy games like
Chronicles of Riddick (too short though), Thief3, Hitman series, and
Splinter Cell series.

 

[alex]

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

>>>Assuming you're an avid fps player, I steer clear away from
>>>turn-based games
>>>like Civ 3 & HOMM, as others here have suggested.
>>
>> Why? Are people just one or the other? I can play games from any
>> genre
>> and enjoy them all for various reasons. Just depends on the type
>> of
>> game I'm in the mood for. I used to be a sim head and think
>> FPS's were

I agree. I play both. FPS & turn-based. Some strategy games are
real time, but you can turn the speed down to almost zero and give
orders during a pause. It's not chilsed in stone what you play.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:36:24 +1100, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>Be that as it may, RTSs with full control pause features are far easier to
>play & visualise than the turn-based throwbacks from the 80s. Real life
>events don't happen in turns (though I do appreciate that you can't pause
>them either

decisions regarding armies and tech research don't happen in a matter
of seconds either. the people making those decisions don't watch the
events play out. at the most they receive daily breifings and make
then decisons. they'll reassess the situation in another day or week
and make some more decisions. just like turn based.

 

[nostromo]

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

Thus spake Connected <connected@somewhere.here>, Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:11:50
-0800, Anno Domini:

>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:53:27 -0000, Gerry Quinn
><gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>
>Yep, I recommended he get Civ3 too. I would only recommend a RTS game
>if it had pause and command play, like the Kohan series.

What did I say? <boggle>

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:37:01 +1100, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:


>What did I say? <boggle>

Yea, so? Can't I reinforce your opinion? <boggle back>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <n62dnQaIY-G3_a3fRVn-hg@comcast.com>, See@Signature.com
says...

> 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!

Well there's the thing: B&W wasn't a strategy game at all. I'm not sure
it even qualifies as a proper RTS, though it is kind of one.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ier031tmkv2ul2l2g0nukbfllpvu2nbl0k@4ax.com>,
connected@somewhere.here says...
> 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.
>
> 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

Whether or not there is 'real artificial intelligence' as you define it,
there is more to AI than scripting.

The problem with the AI in HOMM4 is that it repeatedly acts in a stupid
fashion. And the tactical screen is a mess. They went to a small grid
and it just didn't work well. The hex grid in HOMM3 is clean and
affords scope for enjoyable and transparent tactical action. Mobile
wandering monsters break the AI and can't be switched off.

As for the graphics, let me just say: burning chicken. And the town
battles are completely horrible. (The landscape is pretty enough,
though.)

- Gerry Quinn

 

[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. Any
> guidance is appreciated.
>
> Thanks you,
> GS.

Heroes of Might and Magic 3
Civilization 3
Alpha Centauri
Age of wonders: Shadow Magic

All good games

 

[Guest]

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

In article <woOdnU8sYpBB4a3fRVn-sg@comcast.com>, See@Signature.com
says...
>
> I enjoy all games. Mostly adventure games, but I do love a good FPS too.
> You guys were very nice to me with your suggestions. Seems the strategy
> players are a degree smarter & nicer than most folks in the action group. I
> would expect that though.
>

One game that is/was glaringly absent in the recommendations here is
SMAC (Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri) and/or SMACX (Alien Crossfire, the
sequel/expansion).
Basically the Civilizaton engine, placed between CivII and CivII, in a
SF setting, with most of the strengths of both and few of the weaknesses
of either (i.m.o.) - I think this would be a great one to start off with
if you can manage to find it somewhere.
Much as I would also recommend Heroes of Might and Magic in the TBS and
Rise of Nations in the RTS genre.
Totally different flavours, and all fantastic games that stay on my
quicklaunch bar permanently: Imperialism I or II, Tropico Gold, Trade
Empires. Master of Orion 2. I also like Galactic Civilizations, but that
one is maybe not a perfect starter-off-with.

-Peter

 

[Guest]

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

In article <MPG.1c9bb300d63f9ed498973d@news.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz>,
no.one@this.address says...

> One game that is/was glaringly absent in the recommendations here is
> SMAC (Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri) and/or SMACX (Alien Crossfire, the
> sequel/expansion).
> Basically the Civilizaton engine, placed between CivII and CivII, in a
> SF setting, with most of the strengths of both and few of the weaknesses
> of either (i.m.o.) - I think this would be a great one to start off with
> if you can manage to find it somewhere.

As a game it's really good. But Civ has the advantage of being set on
Earth, and the technologies and units have historical connections.

Like space games, SMAC lacks atmosphere ;-)

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

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

Gerry Quinn skrev:

>In article <MPG.1c9bb300d63f9ed498973d@news.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz>,
>no.one@this.address says...
>
>> One game that is/was glaringly absent in the recommendations here is
>> SMAC (Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri) and/or SMACX (Alien Crossfire, the
>> sequel/expansion).

I have mentioned it already . It's IMO a way better game than
CivIII.
....
>As a game it's really good. But Civ has the advantage of being set on
>Earth, and the technologies and units have historical connections.
>
>Like space games, SMAC lacks atmosphere ;-)

I disagree.

Civ, by beeing set on earth, has the disadvantage that I keep
muttering "that's not realistic" every time thing doesn't fit quite
with the real world. With SMAC, though, I just say "OK" when the
datafiles says that some tech means this or that.

Or to put it another way: Civ isn't set on earth. It's set in space,
but with technology names picked sort of randomly from earth history.
With SMAC they have at least taken the consequence of this, and made a
space game all the way trough.

--
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?)

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in
> In article <MPG.1c9bb300d63f9ed498973d@news.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz>,
>
> > One game that is/was glaringly absent in the recommendations here is
> > SMAC (Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri) and/or SMACX (Alien Crossfire, the
> > sequel/expansion).
> > Basically the Civilizaton engine, placed between CivII and CivII, in a
> > SF setting, with most of the strengths of both and few of the weaknesses
> > of either (i.m.o.) - I think this would be a great one to start off with
> > if you can manage to find it somewhere.
>
> As a game it's really good. But Civ has the advantage of being set on
> Earth, and the technologies and units have historical connections.
>
> Like space games, SMAC lacks atmosphere ;-)

Actually I would go the other way around, SMAC has atmosphere in spades. The
voiceover quotes give the leaders the personalities that none of the civ
series has. Customizable units allow you to play to your strength. Within
the game you can rebuild the map in ways that civ never even dreams of. The
fine multimedia trumps the wonder movies from civ2. Add in the "story" of
planet, and you've got the best atmoshpere of any 4x game.

On the other hand the shear number of options insure the computer players
can't play the game well and the interface is right click happy. It's a FUN
diversion, but it's not for new players looking to learn or for experienced
players looking for a challenge.

dfs

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:15:36 -0000, Gerry Quinn
<gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:


>Whether or not there is 'real artificial intelligence' as you define it,
>there is more to AI than scripting.
>
>The problem with the AI in HOMM4 is that it repeatedly acts in a stupid
>fashion. And the tactical screen is a mess. They went to a small grid
>and it just didn't work well. The hex grid in HOMM3 is clean and
>affords scope for enjoyable and transparent tactical action. Mobile
>wandering monsters break the AI and can't be switched off.
>
>As for the graphics, let me just say: burning chicken. And the town
>battles are completely horrible. (The landscape is pretty enough,
>though.)
>
>- Gerry Quinn

Well, I played them back to back as a test and I fail to see your
complaints. The tactical battles in both games is dumb anyway and I
let the AI duke it out for me.

 

[Guest]

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

"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> once tried to test me with:

> 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.

I would recommend trying these (which aren't that hard for a beginner to
get into):

Heroes of Might & Magic (any, but especially 3 is considered the best, but
for a beginner 4 might be pretty good too since you probably won't care
about having a killer AI, and it does have sweeter graphics).

Warcraft III (good story, pretty good graphics, not too steep of a learning
curve)

Warlords Battlecry II (strategy meets RPG)

Starcraft (dated graphically but a kick ass game play)

Kohan (expect to be challenged. Might save this for after you've mastered
something like HOMM).



--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.

 

[Guest]

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

Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> once tried to test me with:

> "Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> once tried to test me with:
>
>> 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.
>
> I would recommend trying these (which aren't that hard for a beginner
> to get into):
>
> Heroes of Might & Magic (any, but especially 3 is considered the best,
> but for a beginner 4 might be pretty good too since you probably won't
> care about having a killer AI, and it does have sweeter graphics).
>
> Warcraft III (good story, pretty good graphics, not too steep of a
> learning curve)
>
> Warlords Battlecry II (strategy meets RPG)
>
> Starcraft (dated graphically but a kick ass game play)
>
> Kohan (expect to be challenged. Might save this for after you've
> mastered something like HOMM).
>

Missed also Master of Orion 2. That game is awesome.

Everyone will say Civilization or Civ 3 or whatever but personally I like
killing aliens better, so MOO2 is my choice for a "4x" style strategy game.


--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.