Strategery Grames - Discussion Thread

[Stoney]

Yes, I'm talking about the time honoured tradition of ordering a group of mindless cretins to bash another group of mindless cretins to death and hopefully set their homes on fire; Whether it's in real time, turn based, close up, or on a map, this will be the place to discuss it. Really feel like being an internet badass and eviscerate EA for what they've done to the CnC games? Or discussing the excitement of ordering a box with a cross in it across rural France in a Paradox game? We've got you covered, or, well, maybe not. Maybe there's some awesome new game that no-one understands, or you just feel like gushing about some timeless would be classic that you wish people would play.
In at least, but not limited to those scenarios, you're covered.


I for one can appreciate Paradox games; titles like Europa Universalis III and Hearts of Iron III being one of their strongest titles in my opinion. If you haven't heard of these games, they're essentially Grand Strategy games set anywhere between the Roman Republic Era to WWII, As well as publishing the little known title of Magicka, Gettysburg Armoured Warfare coming out in two days.

Anyone else a fan of Paradox?

[Goldeathorus]

I'm not personally a big fan of paradox's strategy titles. I like Magicka, but I'm not a big fan of the period between the first gun's invention and the distant future for it's combat. I don't really like it when there's too much of a push between ages. I prefer a game where if someone starts late, they can still have a chance of getting a reasonable place in the leader boards. I prefer Relic, myself. I've never played that one game that they released between the creation of Dawn of War & Dawn of War II, but every other game they've released is pretty damn good. They even managed to put out a bloody decent third person shooter with a reasonable element of strategy in it.

[Walrus Man]

They even managed to put out a bloody decent third person shooter with a reasonable element of strategy in it.

Sounds a lot like Gettysburg: Armored Warfare.

[Stoney]

I'm not personally a big fan of paradox's strategy titles. I like Magicka, but I'm not a big fan of the period between the first gun's invention and the distant future for it's combat. I don't really like it when there's too much of a push between ages. I prefer a game where if someone starts late, they can still have a chance of getting a reasonable place in the leader boards. I prefer Relic, myself. I've never played that one game that they released between the creation of Dawn of War & Dawn of War II, but every other game they've released is pretty damn good. They even managed to put out a bloody decent third person shooter with a reasonable element of strategy in it.

I never quite got the hang of Dawn of War II, I always felt that half of the game with that kind of RTS was base building. I mean, I did like the challenge it put forward sometimes, like when you had to keep a squad of SPEHS MAHREENS alive while eliminating the Ork base. Maybe I'm just not into that kind of RTS.

[Thunderclaw]

Yes, I'm talking about the time honoured tradition of ordering a group of mindless cretins to bash another group of mindless cretins to death and hopefully set their homes on fire

Oh, I died laughing. You certainly have a way with words Mr. Stoney.

[Stoney]

Oh, I died laughing. You certainly have a way with words Mr. Stoney.

Did anyone pick up your resources?

[Kazimierz]

Played a lot of EU3, back when. I got the achievement "Poland Can Into Space," which is really damn hard to do.

Currently, I'm in the habit of sacrificing schoolwork to the gods of Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. Now, I know what you're thinking: What is Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance? Well, unless you already knew that by this point. In which case there's a good chance that you know GPG stopped supporting their online client, GPGNet, this month. If that's the case, you're possibly wondering how I manage to play online? Because of a totally free, fan-made and fan-supported lobby, FA:F! Seriously, it's pretty sweet.

And that game is the bomb.

Edit: Answer to the original question. It's a strategy game where you build forces of various robots to go blow up somebody else's battlefield with. RTS. Known for all the innovative awesome that got Total Annihilation all the acclaim, if not sales, because it's mostly a more advanced, awesome-enhanced version of the former, already awesome TA. Game is freakin' sweet.

[whitetiger379]

Ever since I started playing RTS games, I've loved them. But I've never been good at any of them lol.

I started on Red Alert 2 when I was 5 years old and my 18 year old cousin stayed out my house and played it on our computer. That was the first RTS I'd played, then I played Age of Mythology between like 7-12 and played the hell out of it. The online was soo good. Since then I tried out Halo Wars when it came out, but it was pretty bad. And now I play Starcraft 2, mostly playing Mafia and duo-laddering with Imtehleetsauce.

So yeah, those are pretty much my experiences with RTS games.

[Rondait]

Warcraft 3, Warcraft 3 frozen throne, Civilisation 4, Dawn of war II, and empire total war pretty much fill up my strategy resume.

[Goldeathorus]

Sounds a lot like Gettysburg: Armored Warfare.

I've never played that, myself. As I said in my earlier post, I've never really liked modern forms of combat in games. I was referring to Space Marine. Now you're probably thinking: "That doesn't have any strategy at all!" It does when both fans of WH40K and of Relic are all used to strategy games. Because of that, most of the players actually at least try to strategize and use tactics in game rather than fire senselessly at anyone they see that shows up with a red dot in the cross hair when they're targeted. That's why in this, you'll see that people using snipers and heavy weapons will actually sit behind cover, usually in high vantage points rather than how in CoD you'll just have anyone that uses any form of strategy like that accused of being a camper and a noob.

I never quite got the hang of Dawn of War II, I always felt that half of the game with that kind of RTS was base building. I mean, I did like the challenge it put forward sometimes, like when you had to keep a squad of SPEHS MAHREENS alive while eliminating the Ork base. Maybe I'm just not into that kind of RTS.

Building in itself isn't really strategy, though. Sure, you have to work out turret placement, but if you just put a ring of the things just around the outskirts of your base that're only just outside of each other's range, it's pretty simple to keep your enemies at bay for long enough to assemble a small army in the back of your base to defend with. A game that has enough tactical effectiveness for it to last just as long as one in which you'd have to build an entire base first is what I'd say is a superior one.