Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

what to buy?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 15, 2005 7:01:50 PM

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

hello. I'm looking for some fun strategy games to play. I have warcraft 3
and starcraft which are my favorites so far. gave warhammer 40k a try and
was not really impressed. Also not really interested in age of empires or
rise of nations.

Are there any games that arent just a huge click race? Even so I think
strategy games give you more fun and play time than any other games in
existence. here are a few games I've found and wondered what they were like.

Rome Total War
total annihilation kingdoms
empire earth 2 (coming up)
act of war (also coming up, not sure if i have the name right)
and civilization 3

I've been so hooked into sc since it came out that I never bothered with
anything else. I also enjoy any sim city type games too.

thanks

More about : buy

Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:01:51 PM

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

Stick with the regular Total Annihilation if you're going to try that.
TA: Kingdoms is pretty bad.

Civ 3 is loved by some, found so rehashed, boring and banal by others
that they wonder how the developers stayed awake during the
development.

Rome: Total War is nothing short of brilliant. The whole series is
worth trying out.

Other than Rome: Total war, Dominions 2 is on my most played list for
strategy games currently. For all time it would have to be Master of
Orion from 1993.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:19:07 AM

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

littlemute <littlemute@woodenmen.org> wrote:
> Stick with the regular Total Annihilation if you're going to try that.
> TA: Kingdoms is pretty bad.

The original Total Annihilation remains my favorite RTS. I don't
even especially *like* RTS games.

> Civ 3 is loved by some, found so rehashed, boring and banal by others
> that they wonder how the developers stayed awake during the
> development.

Galactic Civilizations is an entertaining cross between Civ and something
like MOO2.

> Other than Rome: Total war, Dominions 2 is on my most played list for
> strategy games currently. For all time it would have to be Master of
> Orion from 1993.

Jagged Alliance 2 is on my list next to MOO.

I recently played through Silent Storm: Sentinels and was very impressed --
they altered the game enough to remove the painful parts of the original.
Hard to find, except in the "gold edition".

--
Send mail to fadden@fadden.com (Andy McFadden) - http://www.fadden.com/
CD-Recordable FAQ - http://www.cdrfaq.org/
CiderPress Apple II archive utility for Windows - http://www.faddensoft.com/
Fight Internet Spam - http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ & http://spamcop.net/
Related resources
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:08:43 AM

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

I notice here on google groups that Atari has a pay-per-click
advertisment for Total Annihilation. Did they buy the rights or
something?

JA 2 is almost an RPG. That game is why computers were invented in the
first place!
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:47:46 PM

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

I have an old paperwieght running win98 for the old stuff. For Xp, try
DosBox: http://dosbox.sourceforge.net
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:10:33 PM

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

> Rome: Total War is nothing short of brilliant. The whole series is
> worth trying out.
>

Except naval warfare, which is anything but brilliant.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:51:00 PM

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

Is there any way to play MOO (the original) on a WinXP SP2 system?


"littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org> wrote in message
news:1110923550.085487.282180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Stick with the regular Total Annihilation if you're going to try that.
> TA: Kingdoms is pretty bad.
>
> Civ 3 is loved by some, found so rehashed, boring and banal by others
> that they wonder how the developers stayed awake during the
> development.
>
> Rome: Total War is nothing short of brilliant. The whole series is
> worth trying out.
>
> Other than Rome: Total war, Dominions 2 is on my most played list for
> strategy games currently. For all time it would have to be Master of
> Orion from 1993.
>
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:13:26 AM

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

On 15 Mar 2005 13:52:30 -0800, "littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org>
wrote:

>Stick with the regular Total Annihilation if you're going to try that.
>TA: Kingdoms is pretty bad.

I've played through TA:K. Most of the problems in that game are either
identical to, or a variation of the problems found in the original TA.

I have yet to see a balanced review that shows why TA:K is really bad. The
only real problem would be playing the 1.0 patch that was unoptimized and
was missing a few features, but the same can be said about the original TA
(version 1.0.)
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:52:14 AM

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

Absolutely, I'm sure they just didn't have the budget to take that to
the level of detail that they would have wanted. What a cream in the
jeans naval battles with that engine would have been.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:06:30 AM

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

"Raymond Martineau" <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:ui5i31hbb2erfd88a22h6djk57qu8fe05t@4ax.com...
> On 15 Mar 2005 13:52:30 -0800, "littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Stick with the regular Total Annihilation if you're going to try that.
> >TA: Kingdoms is pretty bad.
>
> I've played through TA:K. Most of the problems in that game are either
> identical to, or a variation of the problems found in the original TA.
>
> I have yet to see a balanced review that shows why TA:K is really bad.
The
> only real problem would be playing the 1.0 patch that was unoptimized and
> was missing a few features, but the same can be said about the original TA
> (version 1.0.)

I'll agree, I've played both ta and tak and while the third party support
isn't really there for tak it has a perfectly fine single player campaign,
better than the one in ta. I am not so sure you need the iron plague addon
for tak, it didn't do anything special for me.

If you do pick up tak then make sure you patch it fully. It speeds the game
up and removes most of that sorry cd check at the start that would take
upwards of 30 seconds to verify the cd (which is freely copiable, I run off
a backup).

As of the last time I checked, Cavedog still had their servers up so you
could get patches and the added units and maps that they came out with.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:45:23 PM

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:06:30 -0600, "john graesser" <graesser@tca.net>
wrote:

>
>"Raymond Martineau" <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote in message
>news:ui5i31hbb2erfd88a22h6djk57qu8fe05t@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Mar 2005 13:52:30 -0800, "littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Stick with the regular Total Annihilation if you're going to try that.
>> >TA: Kingdoms is pretty bad.
>>
>> I've played through TA:K. Most of the problems in that game are either
>> identical to, or a variation of the problems found in the original TA.
>>
>> I have yet to see a balanced review that shows why TA:K is really bad.
>The
>> only real problem would be playing the 1.0 patch that was unoptimized and
>> was missing a few features, but the same can be said about the original TA
>> (version 1.0.)
>
>I'll agree, I've played both ta and tak and while the third party support
>isn't really there for tak it has a perfectly fine single player campaign,
>better than the one in ta. I am not so sure you need the iron plague addon
>for tak, it didn't do anything special for me.

Iron Plague isn't required. Most of the new units that appear in the
expansion were includede with the standard 3.0 patch, and most people
consider Creon unbalancingly powerful anyway.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:39:45 PM

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

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:01:50 GMT, "Spork" <asdf@ewr.com> wrote:

>hello. I'm looking for some fun strategy games to play. I have warcraft 3
>and starcraft which are my favorites so far. gave warhammer 40k a try and
>was not really impressed. Also not really interested in age of empires or
>rise of nations.
>
>Are there any games that arent just a huge click race? Even so I think
>strategy games give you more fun and play time than any other games in
>existence. here are a few games I've found and wondered what they were like.
>
>Rome Total War
>total annihilation kingdoms
>empire earth 2 (coming up)
>act of war (also coming up, not sure if i have the name right)
>and civilization 3
>
>I've been so hooked into sc since it came out that I never bothered with
>anything else. I also enjoy any sim city type games too.
>
>thanks
>

I haven't played most of them since I don't really like most strategy
games. I have played Rome: Total War and though it was great. There's
a demo that will let you try out the combat in a couple of missons.

The full game consists of a turn based strategy game on the campaign
map and a pausable RTS on the battle map. You build and move your
armies and upgrade your cities on the campaign map. When one of your
armies encounters another or you attack an enemy city, the game loads
the battle map. At this point you're limited to whatever troops you
have in that army and fight it out as an RTS that you can pause to
give orders.

Unlike a lot of other RTS games, each unit is a group of soldiers
rather than a single one. This gives you large cinimatic battles that
can have thousands of soldiers involved. Each side is limited to 20
units but sometimes there will be reinforcments controlled by the
computer. (depends how close they were on the campaign map)
As the soldiers in a unit get depleted you can merge them on the
campain map (same type only) or retrain them in cities to replenish
their ranks. (provided the city could produce that type of unit)

Unit's range from infantry and cavalry to heavy onagers. (what most
people would think of as a catapult)
When attacking cities you can use onagers to break down the walls and
gates or build seige equipment. (ladders, battering rams, seige
towers, ect) Carrying heavy weapons slows down the movement of you
army while building seige equipment onsite takes a turn. (and your
enemy might use the time to bring in additional troops)
Once you capture a city it becomes part of your empire and you can
upgrade it as you see fit, set the tax rate, and produce new troops
there.

If you get tired of fighting a lot of small battles to take territory,
the campain map gives you the option of auto-resolving battles based
on the number and type of troops in each army. You may take a few more
casualties, but it saves you from having to deal with every small
skirmish and lets you worry about your overall conquest of the map.
:) 

On a fast computer with the details maxed the graphics are VERY good.
You can zoom down and watch individual soldiers fight. Fields often
have grass. If you're fighting near a farm you can hide troops in
cornfields for an ambush. Roads and cities from the campain map are
visible on the battle map. Sometimes it rains or snows depending on
the season. Lot's of cool stuff. :) 
I'd avise you to try the demo and if you like the combat, get the full
game.


Remove nospam_ to reply by email

Jeff H........


Lies, All lies. Don't believe a word Difool/sayNO says.
He fears the truth!
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:27:06 AM

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

Thank you!!!

"littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org> wrote in message
news:1111013266.100833.27960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I have an old paperwieght running win98 for the old stuff. For Xp, try
> DosBox: http://dosbox.sourceforge.net
>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:14:27 AM

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

This will definitely sound lunatic to someone, but I think SC fans
should want to take a look at the Command & Conquer series. I think
it's the series that comes closer to Blizzard in style. I would
especially recommend Red Alert 2 (quite old) and Generals (in Deluxe
version, it comes with the expansion).

The analogy to SC is both in the "cartoonish" looks as well as in the
bizarre and imaginative units, technologies, and buildings. C&C games
also tend to have opposing factions that are quite different from each
other yet well balanced.

MC
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 1:08:37 PM

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

On 23 Mar 2005 05:14:27 -0800, "moongate" <moongateclimber@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>This will definitely sound lunatic to someone, but I think SC fans
>should want to take a look at the Command & Conquer series. I think
>it's the series that comes closer to Blizzard in style. I would
>especially recommend Red Alert 2 (quite old) and Generals (in Deluxe
>version, it comes with the expansion).

StarCraft to C&C series isn't a good transition. In the Singleplayer
aspect, the AI in all games is substandard. The reasoning varies in the
different editions of the games.

In C&C, RA, and TS, there are some units that are a bit too powerful for
their tasks. (e.g. Mammoth Tanks, Heavy Tanks, and Bomber units,
respectivly in the three games.) While there are counters to these units,
they don't work as well as they should.

Generals can be good if you play online, but the interface is a downgrade
from the previous C&C installment. There are also reports about the GLA
being too powerful on large maps, since they have an extremely rapid
expansion capabilities.

>
>The analogy to SC is both in the "cartoonish" looks as well as in the
>bizarre and imaginative units, technologies, and buildings. C&C games
>also tend to have opposing factions that are quite different from each
>other yet well balanced.
>

I feel that Starcraft and Warcraft III have done these a lot better than
the C&C series. There may be game balance issues, but they don't appear to
be as strong as in C&C.
!