Seeking game

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.
42 answers Last reply
More about seeking game
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
    >
  7. 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.
  8. 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
    >
  9. 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
    >>
    >
    >
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 >
  13. 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.
  14. 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!
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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>
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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 >
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games Video Games