In-depth stratergery;

[Megrim]

Would you folks be so kind as to recommend me some games which involve empire-building, diplomacy and the like. I'm thinking along the lines of turn-based stuff ala Europa Universalis/Galactic Civilizations/Civ: games which are deep in gameplay mechanics and require a bit of time to play out.

I'm not too fussed by graphics, so i am more than interested in older games, but if there is anything current that worthwhile i'd glad to hear of it.

[Big Gulp]

Rome Total War or Medieval Total War.

[Sky]

You have Civ 4? Get Fall from Heaven 2.

[eldaec]

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=8701.0

Your original post failed to mention Medieval II, anyone who doesn't play Medieval II sucks at life.

[Sky]

Unless you have a widescreen monitor. Med II shits the bed on my monitor, I'd love to play it. Scrolling up and down the screen to get to the top and bottom of the UI? Fucking lamer than lame.

[MrHat]

SMAC gets fond responses here doesn't it?

[Merusk]

SMAC gets fond responses here doesn't it?

Very.

[KyanMehwulfe]

Romance of the Three Kingdoms (PS1 or PS2)

IX or XI for more emphasis on warring, and likely VIII or perhaps VII for a bit more of a rpgesque social management emphasis. If you enjoy the core style of game though, any in the series would likely be entertaining. I typically play one for 2-3 focused weeks once every year or so. Now and again I'll play it regularly, too; one [game] year a day. It can be a hard game to get into since it's slow, and menu and stat driven, but after about 30 minutes and you start getting immersed in all the politics, stats, and officers, it's a pretty entralling game.

[Sky]

Oh hell yes, SMAC is great...if you can find it.

[Montague]

Europa Universalis III came out not too long ago, and was one of the few games that could rip me away from WoW for any length of time. The most recent patch fixed some glaring bugs and balance issues so if you haven't played it I'd give it a try. I have MTW2 but it makes the baby hamsters in my old-skool computer box cry. Rome: Total War is excellent too and I still play it on occasion.

I used to play nothing but those type of long, drawn out engrossing god-games but since I've been sucked in to the instant-gratification world of MMORPG's I don't seem to have patience for these types of games anymore. 

[Ironwood]

SMAC gets fond responses here doesn't it?

Nope.  It sucks nuts.

No Green.

[Nebu]

Europa Universalis III came out not too long ago, and was one of the few games that could rip me away from WoW for any length of time. The most recent patch fixed some glaring bugs and balance issues so if you haven't played it I'd give it a try. I have MTW2 but it makes the baby hamsters in my old-skool computer box cry. Rome: Total War is excellent too and I still play it on occasion.

This is the conquest/diplomacy game I've been playing lately as well.  I'm not sure what I think about it.  I tend to prefer more squad-level games, but this is a pretty engrossing strategy title without turning into an RTS clickfest.

[Lum]

Nope.  It sucks nuts.

No Green.

"Clearly, the Scotsmen of my ancestral home cannot recognize the forests of Gaia for what they are."

--- Lady Deirdre Skye
    "An Inconsistent Truth: How Morgan Industries Is Ruining Planet"

[Ironwood]

Heh.  I just never, ever managed to get into SMAC.  I'm fairly sure that there's a game in there somewhere, but for all my deep and fond love for turn based conquerment, I had a mental disconnect with it.

I am willing, if you'd like, to take full responsibility for it and admit the possibility that there may be differing views.

But, to repeat, nuts and sucking thereof.

[Morat20]

Heh.  I just never, ever managed to get into SMAC.  I'm fairly sure that there's a game in there somewhere, but for all my deep and fond love for turn based conquerment, I had a mental disconnect with it.

I am willing, if you'd like, to take full responsibility for it and admit the possibility that there may be differing views.

But, to repeat, nuts and sucking thereof.

Normally, I am of the mind that "tastes differ". However, disliking SMAC would be classified more of a "mental illness". :)

I had a seriously great time with that game, and am drooling for Sid Meiers to republish it. Part of it was the future tech -- gave it a different feel from the Civ games. Most of it was the factions -- 6 very different approaches to the game, fitting six very different playstyles and making them all competitive.

SMAC is to 4x games as Starcraft was to RTS -- it was just done right, pretty much across the board. It felt like Sid Meiers had worked out what he was after using the Civ games, then put it all together for SMAC. After that, it's all variations on a theme.

[Simond]

This thread needs more Master of Orion 2.
Eat stellar converter, Antaran scum!

[Merusk]

Heh.  I just never, ever managed to get into SMAC.  I'm fairly sure that there's a game in there somewhere, but for all my deep and fond love for turn based conquerment, I had a mental disconnect with it.

I am willing, if you'd like, to take full responsibility for it and admit the possibility that there may be differing views.

But, to repeat, nuts and sucking thereof.

I felt the same way until I learned about how obsoleting old units worked... and that the computer can't build basic units for shit.  Always build your own.

The funny thing is, the game has a lot in common with civ3 on the city side, and people seem to have hated that one.

This thread needs more Master of Orion 2.
Eat stellar converter, Antaran scum!

Oooh, yeah.  And MoM.. tho FFH2 is almost (but not quite) scratching that itch nicely for now.  I want strategic, non-rts combat screens, damnit! - which is why I can't get into the TW series.

[Big Gulp]

Normally, I am of the mind that "tastes differ". However, disliking SMAC would be classified more of a "mental illness". :)

Even though he's Scottish, and hence has no real "taste" (Exhibit A: haggis), I agree with him.  I didn't like the setting first of all, and secondly, while mixing/matching units should have been cool I just never felt like there was quite enough difference in the units.  Sure, more powerful tech may have a different name, but it's essentially just the same effect.

[Merusk]

SMAC did have the best Wonder vids out of all the 4x games. At least give it that much.

[Ironwood]

MoO2, however, was fucking genius.

[Sky]

SMAC is to 4x games as Starcraft was to RTS -- it was just done right, pretty much across the board. It felt like Brian Reynolds had worked out what he was after using the Civ games, then put it all together for SMAC. After that, it's all variations on a theme.

FIFY. Seriously. The best "Sid Meier" games were Colonization (interactions with natives, training citizens for specific jobs, processing raw resources), Civ 2 (still the best Civ overall), and SMAC.

Sid then unceremoniously dropped all the cool improvements to the formula and made a bland and shitty game. Civ 3 had a few improvements over Civ3, sure, but it dropped most of the goodness of Col and SMAC. Took me over a year to warm up to Civ3 after the powerhouses of Col/Civ2/SMAC.

It took the FfH team to make Civ4 into a good game. My copy of Civ4 was sitting unplayed.

It's a crime Reynolds went into goddamned RTS and Sid gets all the credit for the TBS stuff. I'm actually pretty skeptical of the SMAC remake, because Reynolds won't be involved. It'll be the Firaxis 3d engine remake and utterly lukewarm imo.

[Sky]

I did like SimGolf. It's my favorite 'pure Sid' Sid game...though there's some Will Wright in there, soo....

[Montague]

MoO2, however, was fucking genius.

Hellz yeah. My original MOO2 disc is held together with spit and duct tape. Every so often I'll pop it in and then oh yeah, it's 4 hours later...

MOO3 however, was a classic example of mismanagement and bad design. Thank God for the old Infogrames forum, because seeing that debacle firsthand saved me from wasting $50 on that pile of rubbish. Then I bought Civ3 and literally threw the disc against the wall in frustration. I vowed never to buy another Atari product after that.

[GenVec]

Your original post failed to mention Medieval II, anyone who doesn't play Medieval II sucks at life.

If you do try out Medieval II and you already know the basics of strategy, take a mod or two with it to make it challenging and expand the content. Total War Center hosts a bunch of them - my personal favorite is Dues Lo Vult (bloodlines, heraldry, auto-garrison scripts for the AI, army upkeep costs and an expanded map). The Long Road is also supposed to be quite good. 

[Lantyssa]

Master of Magic.

[naum]

Dominions 3
Best TBS Ever…

Plays like a fantasy epic unfolding…

Choose a fantasy themed nation, roll up a Pretender God, set your dominion scales and then embark upon a campaign to be the one true God. You can RP evil, good, or any other esoteric combination… …strategy possibilities are endless… …runs on any platform, and MP is sweet too…

Graphics are primitive, but the UI gives you everything you need…



Dom 3 Community Forum
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=dom3



Some Reviews

http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/archives/2006/12/dominions_3_the_3.html
http://www.tacticularcancer.com/content.php?id=36
http://gamingnexus.com/Default.aspx?Section=Article&I=1362
http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2007/01/05/on-site-review-dominions-3-the-awakening/

[Morat20]

SMAC is to 4x games as Starcraft was to RTS -- it was just done right, pretty much across the board. It felt like Brian Reynolds had worked out what he was after using the Civ games, then put it all together for SMAC. After that, it's all variations on a theme.

FIFY. Seriously. The best "Sid Meier" games were Colonization (interactions with natives, training citizens for specific jobs, processing raw resources), Civ 2 (still the best Civ overall), and SMAC.

Sid then unceremoniously dropped all the cool improvements to the formula and made a bland and shitty game. Civ 3 had a few improvements over Civ3, sure, but it dropped most of the goodness of Col and SMAC. Took me over a year to warm up to Civ3 after the powerhouses of Col/Civ2/SMAC.

It took the FfH team to make Civ4 into a good game. My copy of Civ4 was sitting unplayed.

It's a crime Reynolds went into goddamned RTS and Sid gets all the credit for the TBS stuff. I'm actually pretty skeptical of the SMAC remake, because Reynolds won't be involved. It'll be the Firaxis 3d engine remake and utterly lukewarm imo.

Oh yeah. Good point.

I second MoO2 -- I bought Gal Civ 2 because it had a MoO2 feel that MoO3 totally lacked (so I heard -- I never plunked down the cash for it, after reading the reviews). I second Master of Magic -- although frankly it was poorly balanced, so that it was easy to assemble UBER-FORCE and take over the world.

I'm trying to recall a game -- Lord of the Realms, perhaps (the first one) -- it was vaguely a 4x game, although all I really recall was my economies tended to be very cow-based.

Still, if we're going old-school -- the original Castles, man. :) My little dots pouring boiling pitch on attacking little dots owned. Plus I make the coolest castles.

[eldaec]

Space empires (any version, but the lastest is v5 - available on steam) is also basically a modern skinned version of MOO2, and it's easier to find plus runs in windows and whatnot.

[Ironwood]

You interest me strangely.

[Xerapis]

MOO3 is the only game I have ever actually broken the disks and thrown in the trash.  It was that disappointing.

But I still have my MOO2 disk, thank God.  And I do love me some occasional GalCiv2.  Even played some CIV4 recently.  But for TBS, I find I oddly prefer sci-fi.  ~shrugs~

[Murgos]

MOO3 wasn't that bad a space 4x game.  It certainly wasn't MOO2++ but I think if it had been named anything else it would have done respectably.

Sure, the combat mini-game was exploitable but watching your fleets launch thousands of little fighters was fun.  Or waiting to see how much of the missile strike headed toward your fleet would make it past the point defense guns.

As I recall most peoples complaints were that there really wasn't anything for the player to do other than click OK to messages.  This is probably true for the first hundred turns or so but the game was much more strategically orientated than most people were willing to accept.  Once you had a reasonably sized empire and contact wit a couple of other civs there was plenty to do every turn.  The ship designer was lots of fun if you were into min-maxxing your builds and tweaking them every time a new tech was discovered.

[El Gallo]

SMAC was cool and I enjoyed it, but it was really badly balanced and way too easy for a civ game imo.  Obviously, when you are playing vs AI, you often need to avoid certain actions/strategies that make winning too easy.  But you needed to make a ton of these "gentlemens agreements" with yourself in SMAC to keep the games close and that got distracting.  I'm not talking about exploits either, some of them were pretty straightforward (one of them was even in the manual iirc, play the greens, recruit mindworms, roll to easy victory on any difficulty level).  The expansion made this worse imo.

Civ 4, on the other hand, well and truly made me its bitch.  I'm utterly numb to Montezuma burning my cities to the ground at this point.  :-(

I was a fan of Panzer General I and II -- no empire building, but TBS.  Haven't had time to play much TBS except the Civ games since I became a mmo addict 

[Strazos]

I haven't touched it in awhile, but I love me some GalCiv2. I also played CIv4 when it came out.