Strategy to Go

[n0wak]

"Stratego" if you will.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like all the interesting strategy games that I want to play seem to exist for portable systems (aka. mostly the DS). Perhaps it's something about the format. The portable, quick-play nature of such devices precludes anything too complex, and as such the games and strategies and tactics are broken down to their barest minimums.

Take Advance Wars DS for example. I'm playing it now (more of the same, but eh) and enjoying the hell out of it. Because there isn't any kind of micro management -- you can see everything you need to know by looking at the map -- you can easily stop, save, and resume this game at will. This works well.

By comparison, the last PC strategy game I played (Nexus) was such that if you didn't play for a few days, you'd be so lost coming back into a battle.

It seems as though many (I am generalizing here, I'm sure there are plenty of simpler niche games out there) of the PC games have been over-designed and have fallen prey to their own complexity, pushing away people that want something light and quick and tactical. You can have a good strategy game without having to worry about leveling your character up to 9999, micromanaging items and weapons, city planning, technology trees, and so on.

That's why something like Advance Wars on the DS, with its limited input options (no massive keyboard and only so much room for UI), feels so fresh and why I am looking forward to picking up Rebelstar Tactical Command and Age of Kings and, hell, maybe even Battles of Prince of Persia.

Why has it been the DS, of all platforms, that has renewed my interest in strategy games?

[Chris]

I assume you heard Blizzard is contemplating putting StarCraft on the DS? Also, Age of Empires is coming to DS.

[SiN]

My thoughts exactly!

The last RTS I played and really enjoyed would be Red Alert 1 & 2. I absolutely loved Westwood's RTSs because of their simplicity. I even thougth Warcraft 3 was rubbish. I've tried a couple of more modern RTSs, but they just don't do it for me. The only relatively complex RTS that I've enjoyed was Shogun: Total War ... but even that wasn't overly complex, and it was really the atmosphere that I enjoyed about it. Can't stand Medival or Rome. I'm definitly going to pick up Advance Wars DS when I get the chance.

Also, I'm glad you brought this up, because I've actually been concepting a strategy game that goes "back-to-the-basics" but does so in a rather innovative way. I'm currently finishing up work on a puzzle game, but I'm really itching to start coding this RTS I've got in mind. I'll be sure to keep you guys updated.

SiN

[Trithemius]

Micromanagement tends to be involved with logistics, which are the essential basis of all strategic plans. As a war nerd, I find the logistical complexity of most "strategy" games to be lacking.

To be honest, you seem to be looking for something tactical (you said this) not something that is grandly strategic.

I tend to agree that grandly strategic games are probably not so good for the portable format and are not easily accessible. However, I don't think they are supposed to be. There is, afterall, a reason why you get talk of "just one more turn" amongst most Civ (etc) players and why Firaxis can make an ad campaign out of Civ-Anon; these kinds of games are life-destroying, if you let them. Is that bad (in gaming terms) I don't think so, just different.

[Trithemius]

The only relatively complex RTS that I've enjoyed was Shogun: Total War ... but even that wasn't overly complex, and it was really the atmosphere that I enjoyed about it. Can't stand Medival or Rome. I'm definitly going to pick up Advance Wars DS when I get the chance.

Is the Total War series a real time strategy? The strategic level is turn based, but the battles happen in real time...

I find it a pretty appealing blend of turn-based-strategy and real-time-tactics.

Have you tried Medieval and Rome on "arcade" mode? Or is it the strategic map part that you dont like? (I am not wild about it myself, although having strategic movement being a factor is kinda neat instead of the old Risk-like map).

(Anyone else find Shogun: Total War really reminiscent of the old MB boardgame Shogun?)

[SoccerDude28]

Yeah advanced wars was a wonderful game, a huge surprise for me. But I wouldn't hale the DS as the best strategy platform yet, because that is the only really awesome strategy game we have seen on it so far.

As far as PC strategy games, Civ 4 is coming in the end of the year. It is complex, but it is the most addictive strategy game ever. Starwars: Empire at war is coming out in Feb 2006, and this is a game by ex-westwood guys + Starwars= hopefully good things will happen. Rise of nations is getting a wonderful sequel as well in a mystic setting. We have Age of Empires 3, and we have company of heroes, a game by the same people who did Warhammer 40K. Oh and if you like Total Annihilation, you've got supreme commander coming up. How's that for a strategy lineup.

[miffy495]

Man, howcome everyone knows relic for Dawn of War, but noone seems to remember the infinitely superior Homeworld. *sigh*

Yeah, Advance wars kicks ass, which is odd for me as its the only turn-based strategy I've ever been able to enjoy. Now I'm trying to track down the GBA originals, which is a lot harder than I thought it would be. Stupid used games rack at my EB being full of nothing but games that I own or games that suck. Now that I'm hooked, what can be reccommended that's in a similar vein? Any ideas?

[Oath]

Man, howcome everyone knows relic for Dawn of War, but noone seems to remember the infinitely superior Homeworld. *sigh*

Yes! Homeworld is godly, even if I never did finish the second one (I'll do it some time soon, honest)

The new Warhammer strategy game (for PC) seems like it could turn in to something nice, but that might just be me liking the setting way too much. Hopefully it won't rip it's core gameplay straight out of some other game (usually Blizzard's).

[n0wak]

I was never hailing the DS as a saviour of the strategy genre, but it does seem to be a very good platform for simple, accessible strategy (and simple as in rules, not easiness). Yes, I am basing this on only a handful of games.

(I also spewed this because I thought it was about time there was something a bit more optimistic than "games suck")

And as for Civ 4... the previews I've seen don't leave me all that enraptured. The 3D engine looks to add nothing -- The units look and feel even more disproportionate to their environment. Knowing how slow the end game always tends to go, I am reluctant to see how slow the end game will go IN 3D! Everything else, the removal of fixed-eras and retweaking of almost everything and religion, seem to be minor additions.

[miffy495]

yeah, Civ 4 really doesn't seem like too much. As someone who could never get into the original games in the series, there isn't a whole lot there to entice me to pick this new one up. Same boring gameplay (no offence, rabid Civ fans) new boring graphics. Whoopee.

[Marek]

N0wak, it's been a huge trend in PC strategy gaming to streamline the crap out of everything so that it's more accessible and fun for everyone. Developers seem nearly obsessed with it. I wonder what your frame of reference is. Maybe you need to catch up on some of the more recent PC titles?

I agree with you on the DS having awesome strategy games though.

Also I agree that Civ 4 is not that sexy. I don't know what they've done, but graphically it looks a lot more like any RTS out there. Some of the new gameplay sounds interesting (civics and religion), and as a Civ addict I will almost certainly give it a try, but I am a bit scared that they're actually taking the streamlining thing too far with Civ 4. The approach may have worked to produce a very accessible family-friendly game with Sid Meier's Pirates!, but I'm not sure Civ is the kind of game that needs to be further distilled or broken down at this point. Well, who knows what I'm talking about.

For the record, I thought Civ 3 was totally awesome and well-balanced, even though it seems to be the least popular Civ with everyone else.

[SoccerDude28]

Also I agree that Civ 4 is not that sexy. I don't know what they've done, but graphically it looks a lot more like any RTS out there. Some of the new gameplay sounds interesting (civics and religion), and as a Civ addict I will almost certainly give it a try, but I am a bit scared that they're actually taking the streamlining thing too far with Civ 4. The approach may have worked to produce a very accessible family-friendly game with Sid Meier's Pirates!, but I'm not sure Civ is the kind of game that needs to be further distilled or broken down at this point. Well, who knows what I'm talking about.

For the record, I thought Civ 3 was totally awesome and well-balanced, even though it seems to be the least popular Civ with everyone else.

I also loved civ 3 and am pumped about Civ 4. They really have done so many things to improve the gameplay. I don't think you should worry about them dumbing it down to be more accessible, because it still is definitely not for everyone. But the additions get rid off the tedious tasks that you had to do like building a road on every single tile, and then upgrading that to a railroad, or having to worry about pollution and cleaning that crap up at the end of the game. That part definitely took a large portion of the time and was not fun. Also it's cool to know that a Phalanx can't destroy a tank anymore. Add to that the civics and religion and I'm totally sold.

[jokemaster]

Also it's cool to know that a Phalanx can't destroy a tank anymore. .

I'm gonna miss those days

*reminices*

[Trithemius]

Also I agree that Civ 4 is not that sexy. I don't know what they've done, but graphically it looks a lot more like any RTS out there. Some of the new gameplay sounds interesting (civics and religion), and as a Civ addict I will almost certainly give it a try, but I am a bit scared that they're actually taking the streamlining thing too far with Civ 4. The approach may have worked to produce a very accessible family-friendly game with Sid Meier's Pirates!, but I'm not sure Civ is the kind of game that needs to be further distilled or broken down at this point. Well, who knows what I'm talking about.

I must I don't much like the look of it either. I am really interested in how they did the religions and governments this time around; hopefully it'll be something interesting like Master of Orion 3 was originally going to have (the "ethos" system) rather than a rehash of the functional, but aged, "social engineering" of SMAC/X.

For the record, I thought Civ 3 was totally awesome and well-balanced, even though it seems to be the least popular Civ with everyone else.

The combat mechanic is a bit iffy at times, but I mostly use a mod that sorts out that, and many other, quibbles I had with Civ 3.

Civ 3 fans might want to check out this, if they haven't already.

[PixelPete]

I also greatly enjoyed Civ3, and wouldn't be too disappointed if they just made Civ4 exactly like Civ3 but in 3D.

Civ is more of a game where I have to use thought and be a little more zoned in. Where it would be nice to have a strategy game where you just sit down for 5 - 30 Minutes and just play, thats it just play. I find with most strategy games I play I have to put in at least an hour to get anything back, which is okay, but not when I'm exhausted from work and need a quick fix.

And all this talk about cool strategy games coming to the DS is another nail in the coffin for my PSP . I haven't given up yet (theres still some cool homebrew I haven't tried yet) but probably after I play PSP's GTA I'll be trading it in for a DS.

[loonyboi]

And as for Civ 4... the previews I've seen don't leave me all that enraptured. The 3D engine looks to add nothing -- The units look and feel even more disproportionate to their environment. Knowing how slow the end game always tends to go, I am reluctant to see how slow the end game will go IN 3D! Everything else, the removal of fixed-eras and retweaking of almost everything and religion, seem to be minor additions.

Yeah, they didn't reinvent the wheel with Civ IV, but all the changes, believe it or not, are overwhelmingly positive. Once you've played IV, there's no way you're going back to 3 (trust me, I've tried...it's really hard). If nothing else (and leaving out all the changes, including a multiplayer mode that actually *works* for once), the new interface is leaps and bounds over any previous game in the series. Civ never made sense compared to other strategy games. It does now, and that's huge.

[Kolzig]

http://www.civanon.com