Recommend a strategy game

[Kaptin Keen]

Here's what I like: I like positioning my troops in a sensible manner on the battlefield, archers to the rear, cavalry flanking, infantry center, with artillery positioned on high ground - and watch a plan (hopefully) work.

On the other hand what drives me absolutely out of my mind is when logical plans somehow fail to do anything. I own Total War: Empire, and it's one of the worst games I ever played - primarily because one such plan worked wonderfully, and a small group of enemy cavalry fled the resounding defeat ... and I had no way to chase them down, so the battle just never ended. At other times, the AI just did so bafflingly poorly at everything ... never mind, I'm getting a headache just remembering =)

So I've considered any number of games - from Total WarHammer, over Europa Universalis, to one of the 40k games. Each have their problems; Total WarHammer is a Total War title, which has disappointed me bitterly in the past, EU requires a bajillion DLC's to be worth playing, and I actually own a couple of 40k titles that ... also disappoint. I dislike when a game creates an artificial situation to harass me - such as a timer.

So .. is there any solution? There must be titles out there, but Steam is no help.

(as a sidenote, the whole 'position troops' is not an actual requirement - I just want a good strategy title for when I grow weary of Witcher 3)

[Manticoran]

Here's what I like: I like positioning my troops in a sensible manner on the battlefield, archers to the rear, cavalry flanking, infantry center, with artillery positioned on high ground - and watch a plan (hopefully) work.

On the other hand what drives me absolutely out of my mind is when logical plans somehow fail to do anything. I own Total War: Empire, and it's one of the worst games I ever played - primarily because one such plan worked wonderfully, and a small group of enemy cavalry fled the resounding defeat ... and I had no way to chase them down, so the battle just never ended. At other times, the AI just did so bafflingly poorly at everything ... never mind, I'm getting a headache just remembering =)

So I've considered any number of games - from Total WarHammer, over Europa Universalis, to one of the 40k games. Each have their problems; Total WarHammer is a Total War title, which has disappointed me bitterly in the past, EU requires a bajillion DLC's to be worth playing, and I actually own a couple of 40k titles that ... also disappoint. I dislike when a game creates an artificial situation to harass me - such as a timer.

So .. is there any solution? There must be titles out there, but Steam is no help.

(as a sidenote, the whole 'position troops' is not an actual requirement - I just want a good strategy title for when I grow weary of Witcher 3)

Not sure if it counts, but I've been enjoying Stellaris quite a lot lately. Hearts of Iron is also really good, and the best parts of it are mods like Road to 56, so it mostly doesn't matter if you have most of the DLC.

If you want fantasy with infinite depth, Dominions 5 is a game I've been enjoying a lot. It's best played like Diplomacy, IMO, with a game taking place with friends over the course of months at a turn every day or two.

I quite enjoy Total Warhammer personally, though I do find its uh, strategy elements somewhat lacking. It's mostly a fun romp through fantasy warhammer, at certain levels of difficulty the AI cheating is too extreme for me to enjoy it or feel like it's even slightly realistic(Plus the everyone and their mother being at war with you part is kind of frustrating.)

There's a number of older games I can recommend too, if you're good with stuff that isn't within the last couple years.

[Resileaf]

Gratuitious Space Battles is a game where all you do is build spaceship fleets, position them on a battlefield, give them strategies, and wait for them to finish the battle. There's no base building, no economy, you just have a set amount of money to use against a pre-generated enemy army.
Personally, I didn't really like it, but it was a while ago, and maybe I just didn't understand how to build a spaceship very well.

(Too bad your first experience with Total War was the buggiest, less liked game in that series. I quite enjoy it, but I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise if you got soured so early, the AI may be better these days, it's still not the best and brightest.)

[Triaxx]

It's not strictly strategy, but you can do things like that in Mount and Blade. How well it works... depends on your abilities as a commander.

[Blackhawk748]

Empire was definitely one of the worse titles in Total War. Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 are probably the best ones, but I can say that Warhammer Total War (both of them) are great.

[Balmas]

I'm just gonna plug Wargroove as being perhaps what you're looking for. It's turnbased instead of real time, but still great fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's not strictly strategy, but you can do things like that in Mount and Blade. How well it works... depends on your abilities as a commander.

Put archers on top of hill. Put warriors at the bottom of the hill. Give all your heroes horses, and tell all of your Cavalry to not attack until the armies clash, then have them rush all the enemy archers and mop up. After that, have your cavalry hit the enemy in the back, where they're undefended.

That's....about it. Although I had a lot of emphasis on Nord Warriors and using longbowmen, and I didn't dive into cavalry all too much so I'm sure there's better use for cavalry than harassing archers.

[Cespenar]

Definitely give Total Warhammer a try. As a Total War grognard (:smalltongue:), Warhammer was one of the best recent ones, in my opinion, besides Shogun 2.

[zlefin]

Do you mind games with so much depth that it can be almost tedious or overwhelming?
If so, Dominions V, or some of the Grigsby stuff like War in the East could work. though you may have to play multiplayer to get the best experience.

[Kaptin Keen]

Oh my - lots of replies. Thanks =)

An addendum: I don't much do multiplayer, because I'm really bad at it =)

I already have Stellaris, and enjoyed it plenty for a long time. But I am now unwilling to sink any more time or money into it. Dominion 5 looks like it's not really my style. Or conceivably it's just my kind of thing, but the graphics turn me off. That's possible too.

Gratuitous Space Battles could be fun. I've looked at it before, and I think the game trailer didn't really appeal to me, though quite possibly it should have.

Wargroove looks like it's trying to be turn-based League of Legends. Which might actually be a good thing - even if I don't really do pvp =)

There seems to be a general consensus that I should try Total Warhammer and/or Hearts of Iron. Ok, I will then. I mean, who doesn't like the Warhammer universe - or crushing nazis?

[NRSASD]

Joining the choir to sing Total War Warhammer's praises. As someone who mildly to moderately dislikes Warhammer on general principles, I quite enjoy Total War Warhammer. It does a great job making each faction feel unique, not just with their unit roster. Each faction has entirely different, yet valid, reasons to go to war with one another.

Just as an example, the Wood Elves need Amber, which you can only acquire by sacking enemy cities or signing alliances. In the early game, everyone hates your guts utterly, but as the game progresses you can research techs to make other factions hate you less. This causes you to go from an absolute warmonger to possibly forming an alliance with your erstwhile enemies.

Meanwhile, Bretonnia needs chivalry, which basically means heroic victories. So you're mechanically incentivized to not just win, but to do so against impossible odds. Repeatedly. Taking territory is nice and important, but honestly, driving chivalry up is even more important. It's even worth having an enemy empire right next door so you can constantly fight the good fight at little risk to yourself.

[Balmas]

Wargroove looks like it's trying to be turn-based League of Legends. Which might actually be a good thing - even if I don't really do pvp =)

It's closer to Advance Wars with a Fire Emblem coat of paint on it.

[Triaxx]

If the graphics don't bother you, Total War: Rome was one of the best in the series.

[Aotrs Commander]

I would say of HoI4 and Total Warhamer, the latter is much more immediately accessible. I've played (and throughly enjoyed) CK2. EUIV and Stellaris, but I found HoI4 difficult to get very far with, and even with the help of the PDX forum, it took me some tens of hours and numerous restarts to really get anywhere with it. (I'm actually over the tipping point some hundred hours or something in, and I have probably won my current game (finally), just a case of forging onwards.)

[GloatingSwine]

Joining the choir to sing Total War Warhammer's praises. As someone who mildly to moderately dislikes Warhammer on general principles, I quite enjoy Total War Warhammer. It does a great job making each faction feel unique, not just with their unit roster. Each faction has entirely different, yet valid, reasons to go to war with one another.

The Old World was never as grimdark darkness as 40k, because more of it came out of history (like the Empire just being the HRE) and it was the beardier game aimed at older gamers.

Creative Assembly appear to have taken over guardianship of the Old World now that GW have made a new more copyrightable version, they've already included stuff that only existed in lore not an army list.


It's great for the whole "set up your troops and smash them together" business, because there's a large number of different factions and they all have relatively strong faction defining traits and weaknesses (eg. Dwarfs mostly have strong armour and high leadership, but move slowly and have no cavalry). Which means that an approach that works against one force might not work against others because it bounces off their particular strengths (and some factions just have matchups they're gonna hate).

Plus if you get both you can plug them together and have loads of different factions to try and/or fight. (And TWW3 will expand that further)

[Resileaf]

At least wait for Total Warhammer to get on sale. You're less likely to regret your purchase if you end up not liking it.

[Kaptin Keen]

The Old World was never as grimdark darkness as 40k.

I find that statement highly questionable. Like so many games, there weren't Editions yet when I started playing/reading Warhammer - and the inevitability of Chaos' eventual victory was never in question. To the best of my knowledge, it's never been anything but dark, doomed and gory to the armpits. I read the Felix/Gotrek stories, and ... well, others less well known, like the story of Konstant Drachenfels. They're about as grimdark as I can imagine.

As for the rest: Seems I need to play Total Warhammer. Do I start with the first one? Or has it aged poorly, not like cheese?

[NRSASD]

The Old World was never as grimdark darkness as 40k, because more of it came out of history (like the Empire just being the HRE) and it was the beardier game aimed at older gamers.

Creative Assembly appear to have taken over guardianship of the Old World now that GW have made a new more copyrightable version, they've already included stuff that only existed in lore not an army list.


It's great for the whole "set up your troops and smash them together" business, because there's a large number of different factions and they all have relatively strong faction defining traits and weaknesses (eg. Dwarfs mostly have strong armour and high leadership, but move slowly and have no cavalry). Which means that an approach that works against one force might not work against others because it bounces off their particular strengths (and some factions just have matchups they're gonna hate).

Plus if you get both you can plug them together and have loads of different factions to try and/or fight. (And TWW3 will expand that further)

Agreed. I'm just not a fan of a lot of the lore. That being said, I still enjoy the game as a game on it's own terms. Even if I have to ignore quite a bit of what I'd normally relish digging into.

[Resileaf]

The first Total Warhammer game is as good as ever, although the second game has a few updates that make the game more enjoyable, especially in the Mortal Empires campaign.

To explain, the first game is set in the Old World and has the classic races: humans of the Empire, Brettonia and Norsca, Orcs, Dwarfs, Wood Elfves, Vampires and Beastmen, with Chaos acting as the endgame threat. The goal of the game is to survive the Chaos invasion and defeat a specific faction.
The second game takes place in the new world, with High elves, Dark elves, Skaven, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings and Vampire pirates. The goal of the game is to accomplish a big ritual to take control of the magic vortex on the continent.
The Mortal Empires campaign combines both the Old and New world, with all the factions on the same map, in the area where they live in in-lore, and the goal of hte game is to dominate the world through conquest and diplomacy.

The Mortal Empires campaign's map is therefore much more complete, and each race has a few mechanics that are not available to them in the original campaign from either game.

[GloatingSwine]

I find that statement highly questionable. Like so many games, there weren't Editions yet when I started playing/reading Warhammer - and the inevitability of Chaos' eventual victory was never in question. To the best of my knowledge, it's never been anything but dark, doomed and gory to the armpits. I read the Felix/Gotrek stories, and ... well, others less well known, like the story of Konstant Drachenfels. They're about as grimdark as I can imagine.

As for the rest: Seems I need to play Total Warhammer. Do I start with the first one? Or has it aged poorly, not like cheese?

Warhammer Fantasy had a lot more room for idealism than 40K though. In 40K the Empire is a fascist theocracy that is dedicated to engaging in xenocide against anything not like itself. In Fantasy the Empire is a more historically normal alliance of states which has open diplomatic relations and alliances with other human and nonhuman peoples.

Warhammer Fantasy is a world where the romantic ideal of knights in shining armour can not only exist but prosper.

The world might have harsh things and deadly enemies in it, but it's not all grimdark all the time forever.


You might as well get the first one, it's cheap, but playing with both bolted together into a Mortal Empires campaign (free update once you have both) feels better.

Especially in battles, in TWW1 the AI is a bit passive until you get into missile range, which gives you all the time you need to set it up for pincer attacks. In TWW2 it's more eager to get at you.

[Aotrs Commander]

I've always quite liked Warhammer Fantasy; I was exposed to it in... the back end of Third edition, wiki tells me, plus 1st edition WFRP (which I played before D&D - D&D was a distant forth RPG) in the very early 1990s.

Well, no, actually; technically, HeroQuest is Warhammer Fantasy, which makes it my FIRST RPG (followed by Rolemaster, followed by WFRP followed by AD&D.) And there is nothing Grimdark about frickin' HeroQuest.

I just barely tolerated 40k in those early days of Rogue Trader and Space Marine, but very rapidly came to actively dislike it as time went on. (Mostly because it felt more and more like the fluff was being written to Win Internet Arguments, either literally or figuratively.)

There IS a tonal difference, and 40K is much more "everyone is (frequently Stupid) Evil" whereas in WFRP, at least earlier on, there were still actual good guys.

[Kaptin Keen]

On the whole 40k vs Old World, I'd say ... I consider 40k to be stupid in a lot of ways - but frankly not particularly darker than Old World.

There are things that annoy me no end in 40k, such as the silly urge to call everything ancient, and technologies lost. So the Imperium is constantly at war, all the time, for thousands of years, and yet still maintain enormous fleets of battleships that cannot be replaced, and field weapons based on lost technology - to be specific, they field weapons that catastrophically fail around every 20th time they're fired, yet they still manage to be hundreds if not thousands of years old.

Yea. Let's .. not devolve into a 40k lore discussion, though.

I will buy ... well, we'll see what makes sense on Steam. But some Total Warhammer, coming up.

[Rodin]

This thread got me thinking about trying it, so I checked the price.

...Why is it still full price? It's the exact same price as Warhammer 2, and is the same price as some AAA games that are currently releasing. Heck, it's more expensive than anything on the Steam Top Sellers list. It's 3 years old for crying out loud!

I see now why waiting for a sale was recommended...

[Resileaf]

Games released on Steam rarely lower their prices. Since it costs basically nothing to offer them on the storefront, they do not need to fear having unsold stock. In a physical store, the games you find there are those the store has bought from the publishers, and those that go unsold are lost money, which is why the store will reduce the game's price as time passes so they're not stuck with something that just doesn't sell. (Or at least it was like that before. I have no idea if they still have that going on).

However, when the game goes on sale on Steam, it goes on sale hard. They can afford it, since the game goes at full price for it's entire shelf life, which is basically forever.

[Cespenar]

If the graphics don't bother you, Total War: Rome was one of the best in the series.

Definitely this as well, yeah. Rome 1 is pretty much unrivaled IMHO to this day still.

[Resileaf]

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. The AI is extremely lackluster, and generally doesn't have anything better as a strategy than charging headlong in your troops.
And if your troops are a phalanx and what they have is cavalry, they'll happily charge into a wall of spears and die instantly.

[Olinser]

Games released on Steam rarely lower their prices. Since it costs basically nothing to offer them on the storefront, they do not need to fear having unsold stock. In a physical store, the games you find there are those the store has bought from the publishers, and those that go unsold are lost money, which is why the store will reduce the game's price as time passes so they're not stuck with something that just doesn't sell. (Or at least it was like that before. I have no idea if they still have that going on).

However, when the game goes on sale on Steam, it goes on sale hard. They can afford it, since the game goes at full price for it's entire shelf life, which is basically forever.

Yep. Once its on Steam, price almost never actually reduces. 3 years is nothing - there are 5 and 10 year old games that are still full price.

Sales are relatively frequent, though. Most games have sales no more than 3 months or so apart so if you're willing to wait a bit for the next sale, and most games will go on sale 50-75% off.

[Aotrs Commander]

Rule of Steam: if it not on release, or you are not so desperate for something to play right this minute, you put it on your wishlist and wait for the inevitable sale (so you get notified by email). (Ideally, squirrel a few games away so that you have a reserve, even.)

[Triaxx]

Every game has AI flaws. Rome's are only glaring once you discover them. I never noticed it until it was pointed out.

[Aeson]

I also support the recommendation for Rome: Total War, though I will say that, at least to my recollection, artillery in R:TW was at best lackluster - especially for its cost - to the point that I'd recommend against including any in most armies. If you're looking for a game where field artillery is the queen of the battlefield, I would say that Rome: Total War is not that game.

[Triaxx]

In that case you want the silly hat archers.

[Resileaf]

Cretan archers are too strong.

[Cespenar]

The only missiles a man truly needs are his two pila! :smalltongue:

[Kaptin Keen]

Wow. 60 of your filthy foreign lucre on steam, 21 on some local store. That's like, a third.

See, that always infuriates me: That steam somehow feels the fact that getting rid of all the trouble of production and distribution of physical product doesn't warrant a reduction in price. For that reason alone I always try to buy all games from other stores. Hoping steam will eventually get with the program.

It is, however, a key code store. Which I've always found wildly dubious. Where to they get the codes? They're super highly rated on trustpilot though.

[Resileaf]

Steam's a distributor, they don't set up the prices. Blame the publishers.

[Kaptin Keen]

Steam's a distributor, they don't set up the prices. Blame the publishers.

iTunes is a distributor. Netflix is a distributor. Spotify is a distributor. Steam is a distributor.

I don't use iTunes or spotify because they don't pay the artists enough. I pay for Youtube Prime - but I can't bring myself to listen to anything I don't already own on CD (for the same reason - they underpay the actual content producers).

Steam, by comparison, pays the companies, but are often way over market price, which is also total BS - just, opposite.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I also support the recommendation for Rome: Total War, though I will say that, at least to my recollection, artillery in R:TW was at best lackluster - especially for its cost - to the point that I'd recommend against including any in most armies. If you're looking for a game where field artillery is the queen of the battlefield, I would say that Rome: Total War is not that game.

Artillery in R:TW has one purpose: assaulting the city on the turn you arrive, instead of having to siege it for a turn or two so you can build siege equipment.

It fulfills that critical role like nothing else can. But otherwise, yes, it is not as effective as archers.

Grey Wolf

[Silfir]

Getting into this kind of late. Have you ever looked at Battle Brothers? It doesn't take place on the army level; you command a band of mercenaries with anywhere between 6 to 12 members in a grim low fantasy world, fighting bandits, greenskins and the undead. It's pretty gruesome - the kind of armor that lets you feel fairly confident that your brothers won't die is late game equipment, until then you better not get too attached.

There is a Mount & Blade style map in which your band navigates a randomly generated world, to be interrupted by battles that take place on a hex grid. Weapons don't just represent stats; each weapon type has different attack skills associated with it that make them play differently from one another. Axes can be used to split apart shields, flails can bypass shields entirely (by aiming above the shield at the head), polearms attack from two hexes away... You get the idea. Terrain is a big deal; you have to use high ground, navigate obstacles and fight in difficult conditions; snow, sand, swamp, forest, you name it. I was really impressed by the combat.

Each brother has a background associated with him - what they were doing before they joined your band - that can lead to different outcomes in random events and quests.

Basically, it's a really well-executed take on fantasy XCOM. Not going to give you the big battle scenario, though you may be able to get into fairly big and messy scuffles as part of an alliance, and you get plenty of opportunity to feel like a smart commander using the terrain and your brothers' abilities to your advantage.

[Kaptin Keen]

Getting into this kind of late. Have you ever looked at Battle Brothers? It doesn't take place on the army level; you command a band of mercenaries with anywhere between 6 to 12 members in a grim low fantasy world, fighting bandits, greenskins and the undead. It's pretty gruesome - the kind of armor that lets you feel fairly confident that your brothers won't die is late game equipment, until then you better not get too attached.

There is a Mount & Blade style map in which your band navigates a randomly generated world, to be interrupted by battles that take place on a hex grid. Weapons don't just represent stats; each weapon type has different attack skills associated with it that make them play differently from one another. Axes can be used to split apart shields, flails can bypass shields entirely (by aiming above the shield at the head), polearms attack from two hexes away... You get the idea. Terrain is a big deal; you have to use high ground, navigate obstacles and fight in difficult conditions; snow, sand, swamp, forest, you name it. I was really impressed by the combat.

Each brother has a background associated with him - what they were doing before they joined your band - that can lead to different outcomes in random events and quests.

Basically, it's a really well-executed take on fantasy XCOM. Not going to give you the big battle scenario, though you may be able to get into fairly big and messy scuffles as part of an alliance, and you get plenty of opportunity to feel like a smart commander using the terrain and your brothers' abilities to your advantage.

Oh ... Battle Brothers is really well reviewed. Hm. Absolutely worth consideration =)

[Spacewolf]

There's also a battle brothers dlc coming out soon which will probably mean the base will be on sale.

[houlio]

Battle Brothers is great to play, and it's got that decently randomized world to add in a good chunk of replayability.

I was also going to mention, AI War is a cool take on strategy that leverages the asymmetry between human and AI in an interesting way. The sequel is in early access or something I think, but I haven't played that one yet.

[halfeye]

Weiqi aka Go aka Baduk.

It's not a computer game, but computers can play it (they are currently hideously strong and getting stronger). You can play face to face, offline or online.

http://www.britgo.org/

You can play on boards of many sizes, 19 * 19 is standard, 13 * 13 is good for beginners, 9 * 9 is very tactical, very strong players sometimes play that against each other, I think the emphasis on tactics of the 9 * 9 game is too much for beginners, but your mileage may vary.

[Kaptin Keen]

Weiqi aka Go aka Baduk.

It's not a computer game, but computers can play it (they are currently hideously strong and getting stronger). You can play face to face, offline or online.

http://www.britgo.org/

You can play on boards of many sizes, 19 * 19 is standard, 13 * 13 is good for beginners, 9 * 9 is very tactical, very strong players sometimes play that against each other, I think the emphasis on tactics of the 9 * 9 game is too much for beginners, but your mileage may vary.

Haha! Thanks =)

I've played chess, and go, and checkers - and of the three, I prefer chess, being marginally less crap at it.

As you age, you come to a realization (at least, if you're me): There are skills you have, and skills you lack. I know my IQ, and it's enough that I know I needn't be ashamed. Because I'm not ashamed, I can openly admit the things I'm really pathetically bad at:

- I entirely lack the ability to think ahead on behalf of my opponent - I can see my own moves, but I cannot fathom yours
- I have a disturbingly low capacity for simultaneous processesing - I can do one thing at a time well, but more confuses me
- I cannot do maths in my head, at all
- I'm clever, but I think slow

Combined, these things tell me a lot about what I should and shouldn't do. I don't play bullet hell games, I don't play anything that requires me to ask myself 'what is my opponent doing right now?'. I don't play games that require me to calculate things, and I don't play games that require me to think fast.

Because doing those things is just not worth the aggravation.

Go is one such game. It really hinges on knowing what your opponent is thinking - and I'm just hugely bad at it =)

[halfeye]

Haha! Thanks =)

I've played chess, and go, and checkers - and of the three, I prefer chess, being marginally less crap at it.

As you age, you come to a realization (at least, if you're me): There are skills you have, and skills you lack. I know my IQ, and it's enough that I know I needn't be ashamed. Because I'm not ashamed, I can openly admit the things I'm really pathetically bad at:

- I entirely lack the ability to think ahead on behalf of my opponent - I can see my own moves, but I cannot fathom yours
- I have a disturbingly low capacity for simultaneous processesing - I can do one thing at a time well, but more confuses me
- I cannot do maths in my head, at all
- I'm clever, but I think slow

Combined, these things tell me a lot about what I should and shouldn't do. I don't play bullet hell games, I don't play anything that requires me to ask myself 'what is my opponent doing right now?'. I don't play games that require me to calculate things, and I don't play games that require me to think fast.

Because doing those things is just not worth the aggravation.

Go is one such game. It really hinges on knowing what your opponent is thinking - and I'm just hugely bad at it =)

I am not good at go, I just find it fun. I don't think you need to know what your opponent is thinking at all, it's just a matter of spotting what is possible, and what (with good play) isn't. It's a game of compromise, you both want the whole board, there are compromises to be made, the best at compromising wins, and/or somebody captures something.

It's a strategy game, so I thought it should be mentioned, if it's not to your taste, then it's not to your taste.

[Kaptin Keen]

I am not good at go, I just find it fun. I don't think you need to know what your opponent is thinking at all, it's just a matter of spotting what is possible, and what (with good play) isn't. It's a game of compromise, you both want the whole board, there are compromises to be made, the best at compromising wins, and/or somebody captures something.

It's a strategy game, so I thought it should be mentioned, if it's not to your taste, then it's not to your taste.

It's a very valid suggestion.

The guy who taught me go is very good at it. He's the one who told me you need to think many turns ahead - more so than chess. I like games I'm moderately good at. I really am awfully bad at go.

[Rodin]

This thread finally convinced me to pick up Battle Brothers, as it was a game that I've seen floating around my Steam queues for a while and never picked up. It went on sale for the DLC release which was nice.

I'm really enjoying it so far, although playing it with a guide open on a second monitor has been pretty much mandatory. The game doesn't hold your hand at all, especially if you opt for a different origin. After about 4-5 failed companies, I finally realized that Ironman is just NOT a good idea until I've beaten the game at least once.

I've finally managed to get a company off the ground, with a band of poachers that hired a bunch of yokels from the village to act as very literal meat shields until they could scrape together enough cash to get some decent equipment together. It didn't help that nobody in the entire country they lived in sold leather armor, and while fancy scale mail was available at the castle who has that kind of money? They finally got their big break when doing a milk run escorting a caravan through well-policed lands - one of the poachers decided to look in the back of the wagon and found a prisoner chained up there. He told them that he was a fancy lord and could pay them handsomely if they'd free him. Down to their last penny (constantly hiring fresh peasants adds up), they decided to risk it and murdered the caravan hands to escort the so-called lord north. When they arrived at the citadel guarding the lands from the wild north, it turns out that he IS who he said he was! Huzzah! A big payday later, everybody had nice fancy armor and decent weaponry, and promptly got eaten by an Unhold.

Again, don't play on Ironman :smallamused:

[GloatingSwine]

Another one that's possibly worth a look if you want a slightly different take is Creeper World 3.

It might technically be considered a tower defence, in that all you build are static turrets and support infrastructure for them, but instead of the usual "things follow a path" you are fighting against purple goo that gradually covers the map. It flows like a fluid so it pools into dips and takes time to fill up to break over heights, and just mindlessly expands whilst you build turrets to push it back and eventually destroy the sources.

[Man_Over_Game]

I have two games available on mobile. Neither of them require interaction with players, or gathering cards, or lootboxes, or any of that stuff. Just you, the strategy, and the game.

Mindustry: It's an economy game, controlled via strategically placed conveyor belts, mixed with a tower defense. You have to constantly plan around limited space, directions of routers, how to efficiently split resources between refilling your base's supplies and the ammunition of your towers....it's a lot to manage. I've put in many hours playing the newest beta version (has units), and I've only been able to hit about the 60% mark in terms of the technology before getting overwhelmed. The standard release is a bit more stable, but it is a bit simpler (no units, less technology), but still an A+ game.

Rebel Inc.: You are tasked with removing insurgents after a recent war in an area. Your job is to stabilize the region, implement policies to increase security and support, while also organizing your troops to isolate and dispatch any remaining insurgents. It's a hard game, with it being tough to decide between focusing on economy or warfare. Despite having few units (late game, I think I had about 7), and not a whole lot going on in real time, I still manage to lose about 70% of my playthroughs.

[Man_Over_Game]

Try something from the Lord of the Rings series. Or look for strategies that are designed for a high level of microcontrol

Man did I like the LOTR strategy games. They did a better job than most of the RTS genre of rewarding defensive playstyles.

[Kaptin Keen]

Man did I like the LOTR strategy games. They did a better job than most of the RTS genre of rewarding defensive playstyles.

Really? Hm. I might enjoy a LOTR strategy game. I loved the Warcraft titles, until they started churning out timed missions. I ... just hate timed missions.

[Man_Over_Game]

Really? Hm. I might enjoy a LOTR strategy game. I loved the Warcraft titles, until they started churning out timed missions. I ... just hate timed missions.

Very different. Warcraft, and most RTS's, rely on covering ground as quickly as possible. LOTR strategy games have a level up system for units, and have a lot of rewards for killing neutral units on the map. Also, units move much slower, so positioning is much more important than reaction time.

In a way, LOTR strategy games play more like Total War games.

[NRSASD]

In a way, LOTR strategy games play more like Total War games.

I knew I liked the Battle for Middle Earth series for a reason. Any idea where one can source them these days?

[Aeson]

I knew I liked the Battle for Middle Earth series for a reason. Any idea where one can source them these days?
Amazon, eBay, or similar probably offer physical copies, though I don't know if the pricetag would be reasonable.


Very different. Warcraft, and most RTS's, rely on covering ground as quickly as possible. LOTR strategy games have a level up system for units, and have a lot of rewards for killing neutral units on the map. Also, units move much slower, so positioning is much more important than reaction time.

In a way, LOTR strategy games play more like Total War games.
Well, there's The Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring, which plays a lot more like WarCraft than the more recent LOTR strategy games do.

[Resileaf]

Three Kingdoms just released. According to early release reviews, it's quite good.

[lefty2shoes]

Have you tried Warlock and Warlock 2?

[Kaptin Keen]

Three Kingdoms just released. According to early release reviews, it's quite good.

I saw. I'll have a closer look, although - new releases tend to be prohibitively expensive. Not that I can't afford it, it's just ... I feel like a fool if I Pay full price.


Have you tried Warlock and Warlock 2?

No, but .. I'll check them out =)

[GloatingSwine]

Oh ... Battle Brothers is really well reviewed. Hm. Absolutely worth consideration =)

Quick update: Battle Brothers is 50% off on GOG in their summer sale.

[Kaptin Keen]

Quick update: Battle Brothers is 50% off on GOG in their summer sale.

Ok, alright - I'll go buy it immediately. Thanks =D

[Artanis]

Here's what I like: I like positioning my troops in a sensible manner on the battlefield, archers to the rear, cavalry flanking, infantry center, with artillery positioned on high ground - and watch a plan (hopefully) work.

On the other hand what drives me absolutely out of my mind is when logical plans somehow fail to do anything. I own Total War: Empire, and it's one of the worst games I ever played - primarily because one such plan worked wonderfully, and a small group of enemy cavalry fled the resounding defeat ... and I had no way to chase them down, so the battle just never ended. At other times, the AI just did so bafflingly poorly at everything ... never mind, I'm getting a headache just remembering =)

So I've considered any number of games - from Total WarHammer, over Europa Universalis, to one of the 40k games. Each have their problems; Total WarHammer is a Total War title, which has disappointed me bitterly in the past, EU requires a bajillion DLC's to be worth playing, and I actually own a couple of 40k titles that ... also disappoint. I dislike when a game creates an artificial situation to harass me - such as a timer.

So .. is there any solution? There must be titles out there, but Steam is no help.

(as a sidenote, the whole 'position troops' is not an actual requirement - I just want a good strategy title for when I grow weary of Witcher 3)
I know I'm a little late to the party on this, but you might want to check out Direct Strike in the StarCraft 2 Arcade. Pick your troops, put them down, then periodically see them spawn and walk across towards the enemy.

[factotum]

On the other hand what drives me absolutely out of my mind is when logical plans somehow fail to do anything. I own Total War: Empire, and it's one of the worst games I ever played - primarily because one such plan worked wonderfully, and a small group of enemy cavalry fled the resounding defeat ... and I had no way to chase them down, so the battle just never ended.

Um, what? That sounds totally like a bug, because generally if a unit breaks in a Total War game it will run out of the battle area and be removed. There's no way that a unit which has broken and left the battlefield should prevent a win.

[GloatingSwine]

Also when you pass a casualty threshold the entire enemy army usually breaks and routs.

[Kaptin Keen]

Um, what? That sounds totally like a bug, because generally if a unit breaks in a Total War game it will run out of the battle area and be removed. There's no way that a unit which has broken and left the battlefield should prevent a win.


Also when you pass a casualty threshold the entire enemy army usually breaks and routs.

I ... have no way to comment on either of those things.

[Cespenar]

Maybe they started the rout way back to your side of the map, so that they'd take the maximal amount of time to reach their end of the map and finish their rout. So you probably waited for a time that you thought reasonable, and thought it just bugged out.

Or maybe it just bugged out. I never played Empire myself.

[snowblizz]

Sometimes in TW a routing unit has "left" the map, but one or more member sof that unit have still to exit. These stragglers can be waaay off from the main unit.

More generally I would agree with what most say, the game should not bug out like that.

One other scenario I can think of, units can regain morale, and especially light cavalry can be stupid hard to chase down and off the map (if they for some reason have good morale regeneration capabilities). I don't remember which TW game I had that issue with though.

[Resileaf]

No matter which Total War game, no unit can recover from routing more than twice. On the third time they rout, they are automatically shattered, and will never return to the battlefield.

It is however very possible that the battle was indeed already over, and that when you had the choice to decide between continuing to run down the enemy troops or end the battle, you continued the fight, and some units were taking an ungodly long time to escape the battlefield. I will not blame you for not knowing that you can exit the battle at any time at this point. I did not know for the longest time either.

[KineticDiplomat]

If it’s essentially war games you’re looking for, here’s a few goodies. They do tend to be a bit more accurate than the Total War series which have always been more about creating a visually stunning arcade game with a lift strategy layer:

Combat Mission. By battlefront games, pound for pound the single best battalion and below tactical simulation on the market. Comes in WWII and modern eras.

Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. You can find it on steam, a first rate operational level command game about the initial invasion in ‘41.

For some much more light hearted fare, not quite as cartoonish as total war, but less adamantly tactical, you could try Ultimate General: Civil War.