Recommend a good, simple multiplayer RTS or similar strategy game?
Rin Stowleigh
I qualified the subject with "RTS or similar" because I would consider
turn-based suggestions, but I first would like to describe what I'm
after.
I recently started playing Plants vs Zombies, which is by no means a
"deep" strategy game, but the simplicity of jumping into it made me
realize something I missed about graphically simplistic old school
strategy games, and alerted me to what bothers me about most of the
the RTS games I've played over the last 10 years. Examples of what I
hate are the emphasis on 3D eye candy over actual gameplay.. to the
point where the isometric view can cause units to get hidden behind
trees and so forth. Or, and this is going to sound extremely picky,
but the zooming is too limited (I couldn't zoom out far enough in
AOE3) or too free (in Supreme Commander, I felt I had to zoom so far
out to be able to compete, that the units were little dots). I would
prefer the zoom level is fixed, chosen and "optimized" by the game. I
also prefer a non-space age theme. I'd like something like the
original Warcraft, original Dune II, original C&C, RA 1 or 2, etc.
Note that several of those have a sci-fi theme but not
over-the-top-starship like something such as Starcraft. I have been
keeping an eye on these games as they come out, and just haven't seen
anything to my liking recently. I enjoyed C&C3 when it came out a few
years ago reasonably well. The last one I remember being really
enthralled with was Red Alert 2. I see screenshots of Red Alert 3 and
it just doesn't appeal to me, it looks too busy. I cannot stand the
"busy" feel. The great thing about Red Alert 2 for example was there
was this feeling that you could go the brute force route, building up
massive armies, or you could pull a covert slick move to surprise the
enemy and eat up their base from the inside out. The game I'm looking
for must support multiplayer / internet play and have relative ease of
matchmaking (I dont want to wait for 20 mins to start a game). The
kind of game that's simple to jump into, but potentially complex to
master.
I know this is a tall order and the game I'd like probably doesn't
exist, but I needed to check just the same. I'm hoping maybe there's
a freeware game or something I've missed.
Thanks for any tips.
Rin
Cronos
> I qualified the subject with "RTS or similar" because I would consider
> turn-based suggestions, but I first would like to describe what I'm
> after.
You would probably like 'Dawn of War II' but it is not free. Steam has
it fairly cheap though.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/15620/
$19.99
Gandalf Parker
news:pputj512s8erovqn6...@4ax.com:
> but the simplicity of jumping into it made me
> realize something I missed about graphically simplistic old school
> strategy games, and alerted me to what bothers me about most of the
> the RTS games I've played over the last 10 years. Examples of what I
> hate are the emphasis on 3D eye candy over actual gameplay.
Total agreement.
I already listed my favorites list. Im sorry but none are RTS. I have had
many favorite games that tried to update into 3D or fancier sound or more
animation etc etc but lost the game part of the game. They probably sold
more which is too bad since it tends to increase the cycle.
Not sure if any of mine would suit but the games I keep loading to every
new computer include:
Master of Magic
Stars!
VGA Planets 3 (VGAP4 is ok but has a STEEP learning curve)
Space Empires IV (SEV went the 3D and shelfware route :(
and my absolute favorite on almost all scales is Dominions 3
http://www.dom3minions.com/aboutDom3.htm
Gandalf Parker
--
DOMINIONS 3
A Windows, Linux, Mac OS-X, Multi-Player strategy game of
Domination and Godhood. (this is NOT your daddy's Chess game)
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
I might check out Dawn of War II at some point. Today I just picked
up World In Conflict including the Soviet Assault expansion for $10 on
Steam, and initial impressions are very good although I haven't played
much yet. For ten bucks I figured couldn't go too wrong, and this was
a title I had forgotten about.. I was eyeballing it a while back when
it came out, but for whatever reason I never got it.. it might have
been that I was worried my previous machine wouldn't handle it well?
It seems to have something about it that is already reminding me of
Red Alert which is a good thing.
Rin Stowleigh
<gan...@the.dead.ISP.of.Community.net> wrote:
>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> contributed wisdom to
>news:pputj512s8erovqn6...@4ax.com:
>
>> but the simplicity of jumping into it made me
>> realize something I missed about graphically simplistic old school
>> strategy games, and alerted me to what bothers me about most of the
>> the RTS games I've played over the last 10 years. Examples of what I
>> hate are the emphasis on 3D eye candy over actual gameplay.
>
>Total agreement.
>
>I already listed my favorites list. Im sorry but none are RTS. I have had
>many favorite games that tried to update into 3D or fancier sound or more
>animation etc etc but lost the game part of the game. They probably sold
>more which is too bad since it tends to increase the cycle.
>
>Not sure if any of mine would suit but the games I keep loading to every
>new computer include:
>Master of Magic
>Stars!
>VGA Planets 3 (VGAP4 is ok but has a STEEP learning curve)
>Space Empires IV (SEV went the 3D and shelfware route :(
>and my absolute favorite on almost all scales is Dominions 3
>http://www.dom3minions.com/aboutDom3.htm
>
>
>Gandalf Parker
Thanks for the suggestions. I remember buying MoM, and I don't quite
remember why it did not appeal to me, only that it didn't. The others
might be a bit "spacey" for my tastes but I will look into them after
I've seen how World In Conflict pans out.
Cronos
> I might check out Dawn of War II at some point. Today I just picked
> up World In Conflict including the Soviet Assault expansion for $10 on
> Steam, and initial impressions are very good although I haven't played
> much yet. For ten bucks I figured couldn't go too wrong, and this was
> a title I had forgotten about.. I was eyeballing it a while back when
> it came out, but for whatever reason I never got it.. it might have
> been that I was worried my previous machine wouldn't handle it well?
> It seems to have something about it that is already reminding me of
> Red Alert which is a good thing.
You should check out the two 'Men of War' games. Tactical WWII RTS on a
smaller scale than WiC but more detailed with greater control of units.
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
Thanks for the info, went to the website to take a look, and it does
look interesting. For an RTS game I might be able to forget about the
fact that WWII has been done too many times, as long as the game play
is good.
The one thing I noticed as I was playing WIC today, is that zooming in
you can go to what is basically a first person perspective and look
around the map.. I picked some Xmas map and zoomed in and looked at a
modern subdivision and panned around... it was impressive, each house
had a distinctly separate set of xmas lights, and for the most part a
unique design for each house while keeping with architectural
consistency you'd find in most US subdivisions. Zoomed into the max,
the graphics looked better than many FPS games did a few years ago.
That aspect was very neat, but had little to do with what I would be
looking for in an RTS game. I'd like to see the developers focusing
on strategy development instead of eyecandy in this genre. No doubt
they wanted to flex their rendering muscle a little but I would rather
the zoom be fixed higher up, and all development dollars spent on
gameplay.
The reason I bring this up is when I went to the Men of War website,
most of the screenshots they are showcasing are also zoomed in,
irrelevant to RTS-style gameplay screenshots. Good graphics are nice
but there is an optimal distance to be realized when playing
commander, and since good graphics take money and resources to
develop, resources that are better spent on gameplay, that is the part
of modern RTS games I'm really missing. I'd actually rather not be
able to zoom in close and pan all around, it takes focus away from
resource management and troop direction.
Cronos
> The reason I bring this up is when I went to the Men of War website,
> most of the screenshots they are showcasing are also zoomed in,
> irrelevant to RTS-style gameplay screenshots. Good graphics are nice
> but there is an optimal distance to be realized when playing
> commander, and since good graphics take money and resources to
> develop, resources that are better spent on gameplay, that is the part
> of modern RTS games I'm really missing. I'd actually rather not be
> able to zoom in close and pan all around, it takes focus away from
> resource management and troop direction.
That's because it is on a smaller scale and far less units to contend
with so the view is right for Men of War. You can even manually control
tank aim etc. so is far more tactical than WiC. One website picked Men
of War a s one of the top 10 games of 2009. THere is a second Men of War
game called Red Tide and you can get both bundled together for $26.24
right now. But today is last day of holiday sale at Steam so after today
it will cost you more. Look up 'Men of War Gold' at Steam.
Loren Pechtel
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the suggestions. I remember buying MoM, and I don't quite
>remember why it did not appeal to me, only that it didn't. The others
>might be a bit "spacey" for my tastes but I will look into them after
>I've seen how World In Conflict pans out.
Nothing remotely space-like about Dominions.
Neil Cerutti
> Thanks for the suggestions. I remember buying MoM, and I don't
> quite remember why it did not appeal to me, only that it
> didn't.
My personal criticisms of MoM, one of my favorite games of all
time:
1. The Pacing
Unless you play one of the pathetically primitive races (Gnolls,
Klackons, Lizardmen), or opt for a cheez-victory with a 13-book
strategy, building up the handful of productive cities you'll
need and acquiring key units and spells takes a long time. The
process of founding new cities is slow and expensive. Except for
the choicest of locations, it seems like more trouble than it's
worth to found cities. Peaceful expansion is not easy with low
resources and crappy units.
As soon as you have a good gold or mana income, the middle-game
shifts into high-gear. This is the most fun part of the game. In
my games, I generally get to the point that I can't reasonably
spend my resources fast enough, and run a very inefficient and
wasteful magocracy. I wish some of those resources were available
sooner, instead of just building up pointlessly later in the game
when you can't spend them fast enough.
The end-game returns to the slow pace of the beginning of the
game. Researching and casting the Spell of Mastery takes a long,
long time, even if you try to do it quickly. Winning by banishing
your opponents is usually extremely easy long before this point,
but doesn't feel very satisfying to me. You get the highest
scores for taking over nearly every city, researching every
spell, letting a few of your opponents exist, and winning with
the Spell of Mastery.
2. Anything less than perfect performance in most battles is too
costly.
The AI, XP, Hero and Artifact systems combine to make it vital
that you win nearly all your battles without losing units. This
leads to the practice of maintaining only a few, focused,
invincible armies. The Heroes of Might and Magic games had
similar AI: it doesn't try to beat you, it tries to wear you down
by picking off your most vulnerable and expensive units.
Since taking risks is so severely punished, eventually you learn
to never take them. When virtually no battle is risky, the battle
system is sort of wasted.
3. Balance Shmalance.
I have mixed emotions about this one. On the whole, I think I'd
rather have the current game than a perfectly balanced one.
Certain combinations are game-breaking, but I don't mind. You can
avoid them, or just laugh about them. But there are a couple of
nagging balance problems that annoy me.
Paladins. Permanent Magic immunity is just a dumb-ass idea in the
first place in a game called Master of Magic. On such a good
all-around unit it's even more ridiculous. I think they are by
far the easiest and most obvious "I WIN" button to press in the
game.
Life Magic. It rules. Its only weakness is a lack of direct
damage spells. However, except for heavy Chaos magic and one
super-charged Sorcery spell, *nobody* gets good direct damage
spells. So who cares? It's supposed to be weak in summoned
creatures, but in practice this is irrelevent, too (see below).
Death Magic. It sucks. Taking even one book of Death Magic can be
a crippling mistake. The exception is the 13-book strategy, which
is probably the easiest to pull off with Death books. The only
way to save it would be to combine it with Life books--but you
can't.
Nature Magic. It sucks, too. But not quite as much. A few of the
best spells in the game are buried in this steaming pile. So it
can be worth it to take three or four books and to hope for good
luck in spell selection.
Summoned Creatures. They mostly suck, especially for Nature
Magic, who's supposed to be able to focus on them. War Bears and
Sprites are Nature's only good early units, but they cost so much
that only the computer gets to use them very much, and only in
lairs. Summoned units inability to gain XP, exhorbitant upkeep
costs, and mediocre performance make them a disappointment. Chaos
(Red) Magic gets the only permanent early summoned unit you
should care about, the Hell Hound. Sadly, they're also the *only*
good unit Chaos gets. Eventually, you can get some awesome and
ridiculously powerful creatures, but in order to afford them
you'll have to be winning already without 'em.
Alchemy, Warlord and Myrran. If you want a challenge, don't take
them. And don't combine them with Life Magic. ;)
--
Neil Cerutti
Gandalf Parker
news:Wjb0n.2062$Sk4....@newsfe10.iad:
True. Its more like Fantasy Warcraft.
But for those that dont know, Dominions is a God-Builder game. Or
actually it calls them pretenders, beings who have progressed to the
point that they feel they deserve to be gods fighting it out with their
nations.
Its an independent game created by one programmer, and one teacher of
religio-mythology.
To quote Wikipedia:
"Nations
The nations in the game are based upon world history and mythology,
rather than standard high fantasy races such as elves and orcs. Amongst
others, the mythologies of ancient Greece (Arcoscephale), Rome Republic
(Ermor), East Rome (Pythium), Sarmatians (Sauromatia), Egypt (C'tis),
Medieval France & Spain (Marignon), Medieval England (Man), Ireland
(Eriu, Tir na n'Og), Scandinavia (Vanheim, Helheim, Jotunheim, Midgard,
Utgard, Nieflheim), Germany (Ulm), China (Tien Chi), Africa (Machaka),
Japan (Jomon), Aztecs (Mictlan), Rus' (Bogarus), and India (Kailasa,
Lanka, Bandar Log, Patala, Agartha) are represented. Other nations are
based on the work of recent writers, particularly H. P. Lovecraft
(R'lyeh), or Abysia, that looks loosely based on Yezidi faith, as it
contains Melek Taus in its list of random general names and is mostly
associated with holy flames, beings of flame, fire worship and magma, or
Hinnom, which is based on Jewish mythology, featuring Nephilim."
Now I feel I should add:
DISCLAIMER: This is NOT your usual game in MANY ways. It is not for
people who in love with eye-candy, ear-candy, walk-thrus and cheat codes.
While I will quite happily recommend it to anyone who wants a strategy
game they can love for more than a month I also highly recommend that NO
ONE BUY THIS GAME unless you have tried the demo first. The demo is quite
out of date (the developers continually added new things for the first
couple years) but it will give you an idea of whether or not you can get
hooked on this game.
SECOND DISCLAIMER (just kidding this time):
WARNING: this game is NOT suitable for students, interns, apprentices,
or anyone else who is expected to pass tests on a regular basis. Do not
think about Dominions strategys while operating heavy machinery. The
demo has built-in protections which should not be bypassed. They are for
your health as much as for monetary reasons. Do not begin on the full
version without first making arrangments for someone to check on you
daily. If you find that your game has continued for more than 36 hours
straight then you should consult a physician immeadiately (Do NOT show
him the game!)
Gandalf Parker
--
In Dominions, if it looks like a killer strategy
then look at it again carefully.
In Dominions, if it looks like a total waste
then look at it again carefully.
Gandalf Parker
@mid.individual.net:
> On 2010-01-02, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the suggestions. I remember buying MoM, and I don't
>> quite remember why it did not appeal to me, only that it
>> didn't.
>
> My personal criticisms of MoM, one of my favorite games of all
> time:
Heehee. Quite a list for one of your favorite games of all time.
Id hate to see a breakdown on a game you DIDNT like. :)
Are you a beta-tester? Thats a nice complete list. Are you over 18? Im not
kidding. You should register to beta-test games.
Gandalf Parker
Neil Cerutti
I know the game from playing it for years (I'll soon be 39), and
reading the Official Prima Strategy Guide several times. It
deserves its reputation as one of the best strategy guides ever
published. In the general case, I'm a pretty crappy beta-tester
because I don't have enough time to devote to it.
As far as ranting about a game I hate, I could do it but it
wouldn't be a long or thorough rant, 'cause I'd stop playing
before I saw everything that sucked. I remember hating MoO3, but
I can't remember why any more. All I know is that it was two
hours and $50.00 I'll never get back. I know only one person who
was able to pretend it was a fun game for a while.
DosBox, the internet, and fast, cheap computers have made it
easier to get MoM running than at ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY. I
hope everybody has at least tried it by now. The concept: Use a
game engine similar to Civilizations, change the setting to
generic fantasy, replace the tech tree with spells to research,
and dump the dull combat system in favor of a basic tactical
simulation to give you somewhere fun to cast your spells. The
concept is already have a winner. But they also threw in completely
new things that Civilizations lacked: heroes, artifacts, lairs,
nodes, a mirror world, profound customization of your wizard
(this is the part of the design that's most impressive, and in my
experience, has not yet been topped), and throw in a
death-worshipping Nubian princess (she has not yet been topped,
either).
--
Neil Cerutti
Matt v3.3
> You should check out the two 'Men of War' games. Tactical WWII RTS on
> a smaller scale than WiC but more detailed with greater control of
> units.
Which is actually the 3rd (4th?) game by these developers only they keep
changing the name. (First it was "Soldiers: Heroes of WWII", then it was
"Faces of War", now "Men of War")
Given they're all WWII setting I'm wondering what the differences are
between each? (not played them yet, but I have Soldiers in the queue)
Also I'd think after 3 similar games they'd have the formula perfected
by now, but lots of meta scores rank the first game best. In any case,
they're on my list.
--
};> Matt v3.3 <:{
Gandalf Parker
@mid.individual.net:
> profound customization of your wizard
> (this is the part of the design that's most impressive, and in my
> experience, has not yet been topped),
In the list of games that I gave earlier in the thread I have decided that
is strong component to why those games are on my "never totally disappear
from my computers" list. It gives me a feel of playing MY game and not just
playing the developers concept of me playing THEIR game. Its one of the
reasons that Dominions 3 is top of my playlist.
The new glut of online worlds WOULD grab my attention more except for the
lack of random maps. Diablo II and Ultima Online still live on my machines
also altho Diablo II could benefit from more randoms in maps and such at
least in local play. And UO only lives because of over 300 player-run
servers providing variations.
Im presently involved in the creation level and betas for some new games.
One of the things I provide is a concept for being able to create huge maps
with being able to revisit over 50,000 unique planets or provinces or shops
with almost zero size added to the games distribution size or ram
footprint.
Im also big on increasing events, tips, appearances, AI actions, AI
conversations in ways that do not increase game size.
Gandalf Parker
Im a real G.I.V.E.R.
Generator of Ideas in Virtually Endless Randoms
Cronos
> Which is actually the 3rd (4th?) game by these developers only they keep
> changing the name. (First it was "Soldiers: Heroes of WWII", then it was
> "Faces of War", now "Men of War")
>
> Given they're all WWII setting I'm wondering what the differences are
> between each? (not played them yet, but I have Soldiers in the queue)
> Also I'd think after 3 similar games they'd have the formula perfected
> by now, but lots of meta scores rank the first game best. In any case,
> they're on my list.
>
>
I have Soldiers version and Men of War but not Faces of War. The
differences are not major and are more further refinement of the game
engine. I don't think Soldiers is better than MoW and MoW gets very good
reviews. Let's just say, I like both better than the CoH games and
actually gave my CoH away before I even finished it.