Slow paced RTSs?

[Ellye]

I've always been a fan of strategy games, and while I like many RTSs, the truth is that the majority of them has too many APM and too little strategy.

So my favorite games are the more slow paced RTSs - the problem is, I don't know many of those. Besides Sins of a Solar Empire, Paradox's games (Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Victoria, etcetera) and maybe the Anno series, I feel like I'm out of options.

One game I had in mind to try was The Settlers 7, but reviews were mostly negative - is it good? Does it fit this genre?

Are they any more games that I'm forgetting here?

[Erloas]

Well what about turn based strategy games? I'm a bit behind the curve having just started playing Civ 4 (it was a good deal on Steam), but I'm having a lot of fun at it so far. It has a fair learning curve to it, but because of that it has a lot of options.

[Volatar]

You should totally check out AI War: Fleet Command (http://www.arcengames.com/aiwar_features.php), its really really good and might be the kind of game you would enjoy. Plus, its coop!

[Ellye]

You should totally check out AI War: Fleet Command (http://www.arcengames.com/aiwar_features.php), its really really good and might be the kind of game you would enjoy. Plus, its coop!Thanks for that! I've made a mental note of checking AI War, but apparently mental notes aren't really very useful, since I've had completely forgotten about it. :smallbiggrin:

@Erloas
I enjoy TBSs too (Civ4 is great, by the way!), but currently I'm looking more specifically for the rare specimens that are the slow paced RTSs.

[Volatar]

Thanks for that! I've made a mental note of checking AI War, but apparently mental notes aren't really very useful, since I've had completely forgotten about it. :smallbiggrin:

If you get it, you should hit me up on Steam. (You can buy the game on Steam or not by the way) As I have been yearning for a game recently. Haven't played in a bit. Too much TF2 :smallbiggrin:

[king.com]

I didnt like the settlers 7, it had lots of potential and the win conditions were good but the way the DRM screws over people (particularly if you happen to be in Australia like me) and the poor performance of the game itself even on a pretty good machine (with the game freezing up on autosaves), makes it irritating to play. The game doesnt do a very good job at explaining how the mechanics wok, and while the settlers 6 made everything perfectly clear from the start on how things work, 7 only explains what the role of different buildings are, without explaining details like how much resource to production each building should have. Not to mention combat isnt controlled by the player but rather an 'attack this sector and let them go' kinda deal. Though atleast combat isnt mandatory like it was in settlers 6.

[Vitruviansquid]

I know not everybody cares about these things, but I feel obligated to encourage you to boycott Settlers 7 because of Ubisoft's ridiculous DRM.

In any case, the Tropico series (I actually haven't played 3, but I'm told it's a lot like 1) are nice and slow, though they're technically more city building sims than what we traditionally think of as RTS's.

Dwarf Fortress is also a good real-time game in which strategy is involved, but it's not everybody's cup of tea. On the bright side, it's FREE!

[The Orange Zergling]

Supreme Commander is probably the slowest RTS I've ever played and a lot of other people liked it and gave it pretty good reviews (though I much prefer the Blizzard RTS model myself so I never delved too deeply into it) so it sounds like something up your alley.

[Volatar]

Meh, Supreme Commander was too fast paced for me. Plus it totally was not a good spiritual sequel to Total Annihilation (Total Annihilation is a good one on larger maps).

On DRM: I'll chime in for AI War again. AI War has no DRM. Only a CD key to turn the demo install into a full install. (hint: yes, that does imply there is a demo of AI War. Go get it. NOW! (http://www.arcengames.com/aiwar_buy.php))

[Bouregard]

I've always been a fan of strategy games, and while I like many RTSs, the truth is that the majority of them has too many APM and too little strategy.

So my favorite games are the more slow paced RTSs - the problem is, I don't know many of those. Besides Sins of a Solar Empire, Paradox's games (Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Victoria, etcetera) and maybe the Anno series, I feel like I'm out of options.

One game I had in mind to try was The Settlers 7, but reviews were mostly negative - is it good? Does it fit this genre?

Are they any more games that I'm forgetting here?

Age of Empires: Age of Kings/Conquerors. Good old strategygame. A solid round is about 4h minimum. Played one langame that lastet for good 12hours.... good I love the multiplayer save option. You can hecticaly micromanage every single fight, but in my opinion it's usually the guy with the bigger economy that wins.

[Tavar]

Rise of Legends seems pretty slow to me, so you might look into that. It's kinda old, though, so you might not find much online play; haven't looked myself.

[Player_Zero]

Generally speaking, multiplayer RTSs are all about speed. Since being the first to build something, get the first attack or tech up is an advantage for the faster player.

Even if the game goes on a long time you will have to work fast and micromanage fast.

Single player not so much.

In conclusion, play Alpha Centauri instead.

[Vitruviansquid]

Rise of Legends seems pretty slow to me, so you might look into that. It's kinda old, though, so you might not find much online play; haven't looked myself.

Having played it, Rise of Legends is actually quite fast. This is mainly due to the need to micro to keep your units from being trampled by larger enemies, the presence of heroes you have to micro more intensely, and the need to macromanage cities and buildings. You really don't have that many moments in RoL where there's just nothing to do.

Rise of Legends is also dead. It's a multiplayer game (the campaign is absolutely awful, in my opinion, and lacks replay value of any kind) with the multiplayer servers shut down. I wouldn't recommend it even if you somehow got your hands on a copy.

[KBF]

Age of Empires: Age of Kings/Conquerors. Good old strategygame. A solid round is about 4h minimum. Played one langame that lastet for good 12hours.... good I love the multiplayer save option. You can hecticaly micromanage every single fight, but in my opinion it's usually the guy with the bigger economy that wins.

Good old Age of Empires.

It can be played reasonably slow, and is very focused on resources and city building.

[Airk]

I share your views. I also suggest Kohan: Ahriman's Gift if you can find it (It's old now, alas, having released in 2001, and doesn't seem to have been picked up by any of the Steam/GoG/Gamersgate/etc outlets.). It strips out a lot of fiddly micromanagement bits that tie up a lot of attention in more traditional RTS games. There's no real resource gathering to speak of, and absolutely no 'peon' units, though there are a few specialized "builder" units in the form of Settlers (who found new towns) and engineers (who build mines and forts and do repairs.) There's no real 'base building' either - cities are discreet elements on the map that can have components built 'inside' them that either provide resources or allow building of units (or noth), but you don't place structures, or click on your barracks to build infantry or anything. The 'unit count' is capped at 20, though that's somewhat deceptive, since each 'unit' is actually a company that can consist of up to 6 individual units and a captain (for a total of 7), that are commanded as a group. (So at max company count, you might actually have 140 individual 'units' on the field.)

The game has a very different dynamic than traditional RTS games, and generally a more manageable pace. If you can't find KAG, you might be able to locate its newer (2004!) sequel, Kohan: Kings of War, which has a more modern feel, but which I felt, overall, wasn't as elegantly put together.

[Jokasti]

All the RTS's I've played have Slow, Normal, or Fast modes...

[Ellye]

I didn't know about Kohan. I'll see if I can check it too, thanks for the suggestion. Alpha Centuri is another game that a owe a try. Heard many good things about it.
Currently taking a look at AI Wars.

As for Age of Empires and Rise of Legends, those are pretty much traditional RTS (Age of Empires was the very definition of "Traditional RTS" for me for many years). Great games (and Rise of Legends is very under appreciated, it deserved a bit more of spotlight), but not the kind I'm looking for. :smallsmile:

[Volatar]

All the RTS's I've played have Slow, Normal, or Fast modes...

Maybe you could elaborate and tell us what RTS's you have played then :smallconfused:



Currently taking a look at AI Wars.



Sweet! IIRC the demo allows 3 hours of play on a campaign. After the tutorials would you like to play a game with me? :smallbiggrin:

(ps: its AI War. Not AI Wars. Theres only one :) )

[tgva8889]

Age of Empires never seemed that slow for me. It's all about build orders and how quickly you advance from Age to Age: not a slow game at all. It is slower than, say, Starcraft, but only if you make it so. It's very easy to have Age turn into a very quick 15-minute game.

I'm glad I found this, I've been looking for a good slow RTS-style game for a while.

[Erloas]

Stronghold 2 was a fairly slow paced RTS. Its fairly old now so it should be fairly cheap. It was pretty fun, nothing like dropping flaming logs on infantry running up a hill, especially when there is oil hidden all around them.

It seems in general the more an RTS is focused around resources and city building the slower paced it is. Games where the building comes first and the killing comes second, in terms of importance.

[Volatar]

Age of Empires never seemed that slow for me. It's all about build orders and how quickly you advance from Age to Age: not a slow game at all. It is slower than, say, Starcraft, but only if you make it so. It's very easy to have Age turn into a very quick 15-minute game.



A 15 minute game is not slow. A 6 hour game is slow :smallwink:

[Breltar]

Stronghold 2 was a fairly slow paced RTS. Its fairly old now so it should be fairly cheap. It was pretty fun, nothing like dropping flaming logs on infantry running up a hill, especially when there is oil hidden all around them.

It seems in general the more an RTS is focused around resources and city building the slower paced it is. Games where the building comes first and the killing comes second, in terms of importance.

I will second Stronghold 2, I have it and the pace doesn't go as fast as things like starcraft.

Another you might like is the Homeworld series, but again those are fairly old comparatively.

[Mando Knight]

(though I much prefer the Blizzard RTS model myself so I never delved too deeply into it)

The model where you have to be a Korean cyborg in order to be considered "good" at the game?

[Triaxx]

Cyborgs? You kidding? Those are too slow. Those are actually robots that have been covered in the skins of dead internet cafe users.

Supreme Commander gets a second, and a vote for Total Annihilation, mostly because they both let you max the speed to +10 or slow it down to -10.

But for truly slow paced RTS, get Total Annihilation and download Epic Africa. You and one computer player of your choice. It'll take a while for the ground forces to arrive even if the planes start battling fairly quick.

Star Wars Galactic Battleground is an AOE 2 based game that's also slow paced.

[blackouttwo]

If turn-based strategy games seem like your kind of thing, I wholeheartedly recommend the Space Empires series. Particularly, Space Empires IV and V.

[Volatar]

But for truly slow paced RTS, get Total Annihilation and download Epic Africa. You and one computer player of your choice. It'll take a while for the ground forces to arrive even if the planes start battling fairly quick.


Heck yes! I love that map :smallbiggrin:

Make sure to at LEAST get the 500 unit .ini, or even better, the 1k, 2k or 5k unit limit patch.

[Zeful]

Age of Empires never seemed that slow for me. It's all about build orders and how quickly you advance from Age to Age: not a slow game at all. It is slower than, say, Starcraft, but only if you make it so. It's very easy to have Age turn into a very quick 15-minute game.

I'm glad I found this, I've been looking for a good slow RTS-style game for a while.

It's not nessecarily slow, but it's never as fast as Starcraft. Simply because playing defensively is very easy due to the existance of cheap Stone Age walls. Even against human opponents, walls can stall long enough to ensure survival elsewhere.

[Legoshrimp]

The model where you have to be a Korean cyborg in order to be considered "good" at the game?

No its the model where the game is actually balanced enough to be a sport. And I hope by "good" you mean the best.

Edit: to add to the topic.
Are you looking for a slow multiplayer RTS, or do you want single player? If you want single player I would say try sc on a slow speed setting. Or try hosting on bnet games with a slow speed setting, but people will likely not join/leave when they notice it.

[Cristo Meyers]

Stronghold 2 was a fairly slow paced RTS. Its fairly old now so it should be fairly cheap. It was pretty fun, nothing like dropping flaming logs on infantry running up a hill, especially when there is oil hidden all around them.

It seems in general the more an RTS is focused around resources and city building the slower paced it is. Games where the building comes first and the killing comes second, in terms of importance.

Personally I'd recommend Stronghold: Crusader over Stronghold 2. The city-building part of Stronghold 2 had the difficulty increased and it just honestly seems to get in the way of the fun part: watching hordes of soldiers break themselves against your high high walls...

[Triaxx]

Balanced precisely like NASCAR. Every little thing is utterly counterable, supposedly to promote skill over mechanics.

Personally, love the map to play with World Domination 5.0. I turn off their aircraft and certain long range game breakers and let them have at each other to determine a winner. It's awesome.

[Cobalt]

If turn-based strategy games seem like your kind of thing, I wholeheartedly recommend the Space Empires series. Particularly, Space Empires IV and V.

Dang, you beat me to it. There's an LP of IV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87074) here, if you're interested in knowing more about it, and combat for single player is pretty much just what you described; a slow RTS. Only not RTS, as there's an End Turn button. But combat in V is real time, and you can both slow it down and pause it comepletely. Looks bitchin, too.

So get them. Get them now.

[Storm Bringer]

what, no love for homeworld 1 or 2?

short discription: Space opera, the game.

longer, more helpful discription:

s spaced based RTS with full 3-d movement (As in, vertical envelopments and flanking moves above or below the 'normal' plane, Though most maps are wider than they are tall). fleets sizes run up to the dozens of craft (though patches can lift this), with ships ranging form fighters to battlecruisers (with reasonable scale differences, to boot!. captial ships are still too small for the amount of stuff they hold, but much bigger than the strike craft). the plot is, in a word 'epic'. two games, both 'self contained' (in that playing the first is not a requirement for enjoying the second). Basic plot is that the players race (not human, but some rubber forehead alien race) discovers that they are not natives to the world they live on, and build a massive 'Mothership' to take them home. after many fights and adventures, they get thier. second game is set many years later and deals with some massive invasion of their new home.


and, even though the games are old (homeworld came out in 1999), they are still really, stunningly pretty. the backdrops are just incredible.


really, I'D recommend looking at either of them. that no one has made a similar game since is a great loss.

[Premier]

Some RTS-es that might be up your alley:

- Ground Control. Squad-based with very few things that you'd need to micromanage. Also, it has no unit building and a limited number of squads in a mission, so usually you shouldn't find yourself overburdened by information. Plus, it's been released as a free product a few years ago, so you can afford to check it out.

- Earth 2150, at least in single player mode.

- They're turn-based empire-builders, but the Total War series have RTS battles. Again, "squad"-based with limited numbers and no in-battle unit building, plus you can give orders while the game is paused.

[Breltar]

what, no love for homeworld 1 or 2?

short discription: Space opera, the game.

longer, more helpful discription:

s spaced based RTS with full 3-d movement (As in, vertical envelopments and flanking moves above or below the 'normal' plane, Though most maps are wider than they are tall). fleets sizes run up to the dozens of craft (though patches can lift this), with ships ranging form fighters to battlecruisers (with reasonable scale differences, to boot!. captial ships are still too small for the amount of stuff they hold, but much bigger than the strike craft). the plot is, in a word 'epic'. two games, both 'self contained' (in that playing the first is not a requirement for enjoying the second). Basic plot is that the players race (not human, but some rubber forehead alien race) discovers that they are not natives to the world they live on, and build a massive 'Mothership' to take them home. after many fights and adventures, they get thier. second game is set many years later and deals with some massive invasion of their new home.


and, even though the games are old (homeworld came out in 1999), they are still really, stunningly pretty. the backdrops are just incredible.


really, I'D recommend looking at either of them. that no one has made a similar game since is a great loss.

Yeah... page 1....


I will second Stronghold 2, I have it and the pace doesn't go as fast as things like starcraft.

Another you might like is the Homeworld series, but again those are fairly old comparatively.

Nice to know I'm not the only homeworld -ite around.

THQ owns the rights to the series, one can only hope they make #3.

[Martok]

If you like space 4x strategy games at all (or think you'd like them), then I strongly recommend getting Distant Worlds (http://codeforce.co.nz/overview.asp). It's a slow-paced RTS title that's often compared to the Europa Universalis series, just set in space. It's definitely one of my favorite games from the last few years!

[Vorpalbob]

I've always really liked Blitzkrieg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg_(video_game)). While its not slow on default, the + and - keys can be used to change game speed. Also, you don't need to muck about with base building. You do have a core of three tanks and three artillery peices, which have named commanders, can be upgraded, and increase in level the more they kill stuff. Other than them, you are given most of your units right away, with others showing up after a few minutes.

You can play as the Allies, Krauts, or Soviets, and each has its own campaign.

[Ellye]

If you like space 4x strategy games at all (or think you'd like them), then I strongly recommend getting Distant Worlds (http://codeforce.co.nz/overview.asp). It's a slow-paced RTS title that's often compared to the Europa Universalis series, just set in space. It's definitely one of my favorite games from the last few years!I wasn't a fan of space games... until I've played Sins of a Solar Empire. Great game, that one.

As for Distant Worlds, I've heard some good things about it, but I've haven't heard that it was comparable to Europa Universalis. If that's the case, than I'm definetely giving it try. Europa Universalis is by a nice margin my favorite series.

Thanks for the tip. :smallsmile:

[Rockphed]

Basic plot is that the players race (not human, but some rubber forehead alien race) discovers that they are not natives to the world they live on, and build a massive 'Mothership' to take them home. after many fights and adventures, they get thier. second game is set many years later and deals with some massive invasion of their new home.

I always figure that the players WERE human. They do have that nice huge angel moon after all. Higara never gets quite a good enough picture to determine if it is earth or not.


and, even though the games are old (homeworld came out in 1999), they are still really, stunningly pretty. the backdrops are just incredible.


really, I'D recommend looking at either of them. that no one has made a similar game since is a great loss.

I strongly agree with both of these, with the caveat that I have only played the demo for Homeworld 2. At some point I need to actually pick up a copy of Homeworld 2, but at the time I was either broke or didn't have a computer that could run it.

On the other hand, the skirmishes in Homeworld 2 are, to my slow paced mind, very fast paced. It might just be that the computer cheats like no other, or it could be that I really stink, but I could never do as well as I had in Homeworld. In Homeworld, I would hold off 3 or 4 hard computers targetting me.

Also, if you do get Homeworld there is a single broken ship in the game: The salvage corvette. A swarm of these can completely nullify a squadron of frigates if used properly. And by nullify, I mean deprive your enemy of their firepower while giving you that same firepower. It is, to say the least, one of the most important ships in the campaign.