Real-times strategy games minus the bean counting

[Pedro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.wargames (More info?)

Hello all,

I have for long hoped for a real-time strategy game where I don't have
to spend most of the time worrying about whether I have enough trees
planted or what I should be building next. Frankly I'd like something
where I can concentrate on the war bit, which unfortunately seems to
be a rarity (guess there are more accountants than soldiers playing
these games... no ofense intended, I'm an accountant!).

The last drop was the new warhammer 40,000 game that promised just
that and it turns it was all lies. Ok you don't have to plant trees to
get points but there are points and you can always patch stupid
playing with and endless stream of new units, which is really, I
think, the core of the problem with these games ever since Dune2
(actually I'd argue there hasn't been a original RTS since then).

I'd appreciate if anyone could put me in the right direction. Thanks.

P

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.wargames (More info?)

pedro_t@yifan.net (Pedro) wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I have for long hoped for a real-time strategy game where I don't have
>to spend most of the time worrying about whether I have enough trees
>planted or what I should be building next. Frankly I'd like something
>where I can concentrate on the war bit, which unfortunately seems to
>be a rarity (guess there are more accountants than soldiers playing
>these games... no ofense intended, I'm an accountant!).
>
>The last drop was the new warhammer 40,000 game that promised just
>that and it turns it was all lies. Ok you don't have to plant trees to
>get points but there are points and you can always patch stupid
>playing with and endless stream of new units, which is really, I
>think, the core of the problem with these games ever since Dune2
>(actually I'd argue there hasn't been a original RTS since then).
>
>I'd appreciate if anyone could put me in the right direction. Thanks.
>
>P

Have you played any of the Close Combat series? The earlier Microsoft
installments have a little "bean counting" in the form of points used to build
your combat group but the last two installments put out by Atomic games don't
have any. You basically play a campaign of scenarios in which you are in
command of company sized units. In each scenario your company is matched
against an enemy company and you maneuver and fight your way across a
relatively small scenario map designed for company sized combat. You win the
campaign by fighting your way across all the scenario maps to reach the victory
objectives. It's a neat concept, one which I wish Atomic would continue with.
They did a really good job with their versions of the Close Combat series,
Battle of the Bulge and Normandy.

Gary

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.wargames (More info?)

TacOps.....the official armored warfare training simulation for the US Army
US Marine Corps, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops4/tacops4.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.wargames (More info?)

Greetings,

I would recommend the Total War series, especially Rome: Total War. The
strategy portion does require some resource management, but I find it far
less tedious than the standard RTS fare. And the combat portion cannot be
beat!

Condemned to the Games,
S.D. Tortorice
=======================================================
"The birth of the baby Jesus stands as the most significant event in all
history, because it has meant the pouring into a sick world the
healing medicine of love which has transformed all manner of hearts
for almost two thousand years....Underneath all the bulging bundles
is this beating Christmas heart." ----George Mathew Adams

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.wargames (More info?)

I would agree CC series are the best, I prefer CC2 A bridge too Far my self,
but they are all good. On the other side there is a large internet
community where you can play on line too or get unofficial MODs as well.


"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20041226235051.12369.00002492@mb-m28.aol.com...
> pedro_t@yifan.net (Pedro) wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I have for long hoped for a real-time strategy game where I don't have
>>to spend most of the time worrying about whether I have enough trees
>>planted or what I should be building next. Frankly I'd like something
>>where I can concentrate on the war bit, which unfortunately seems to
>>be a rarity (guess there are more accountants than soldiers playing
>>these games... no ofense intended, I'm an accountant!).
>>
>>The last drop was the new warhammer 40,000 game that promised just
>>that and it turns it was all lies. Ok you don't have to plant trees to
>>get points but there are points and you can always patch stupid
>>playing with and endless stream of new units, which is really, I
>>think, the core of the problem with these games ever since Dune2
>>(actually I'd argue there hasn't been a original RTS since then).
>>
>>I'd appreciate if anyone could put me in the right direction. Thanks.
>>
>>P
>
> Have you played any of the Close Combat series? The earlier Microsoft
> installments have a little "bean counting" in the form of points used to
> build
> your combat group but the last two installments put out by Atomic games
> don't
> have any. You basically play a campaign of scenarios in which you are in
> command of company sized units. In each scenario your company is matched
> against an enemy company and you maneuver and fight your way across a
> relatively small scenario map designed for company sized combat. You win
> the
> campaign by fighting your way across all the scenario maps to reach the
> victory
> objectives. It's a neat concept, one which I wish Atomic would continue
> with.
> They did a really good job with their versions of the Close Combat series,
> Battle of the Bulge and Normandy.
>
> Gary