what to buy?

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
14 answers Last reply
More about what
  1. 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.
  2. 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/
  3. 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!
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
    >
  7. 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.)
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. 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
    >
  13. 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
  14. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games Warcraft IBM Favorites Starcraft Video Games