1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Strategy Games: Comparisons: (Name two series and compare them)

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Technology' started by Justinian20, Mar 16, 2015.

  1. Justinian20

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    Now, I am on a bit of a strategy game spree, I love the total war series especially Rome and Medieval II, I play a bit of Civilization: Revolutions, but considering this. I think Total War is my favourite strategy game. Now I like it because it allows you to use actual generals in battle, named and provided for you. Now I can be creative in that aspect, but when I'm gaming I'd rather the game somewhat provide a base for my creativity.

    Civilization does not use leaders, but rather is ruled by the same guy, I honestly would rather if the game just didn't use famous names, instead the game used the name of the capital as it's icon. So instead of Julius Caesar being representative of the Romans, it is Rome that is the representation of the civilization. As the real power behind a civilization is it's capital rather than it's commander.

    Total War on the other hand gives greater focus to war, so generals and leaders are important in the game as we play the generals as they wage war with surrounding nations, the purpose being conquest rather than just expansion. You can try your hardest to diplomatically expand but that will work a lot less than normal. In fact the Total War series has fallen from being immersive to being about researching technology and waiting to build your horde very slowly. You can actually tell the difference between Empire and Medieval II. Empire: Total War has a monarch who cannot go to war making it kind of pointless making a front line monarch like you can in Medieval II and Rome. I would be able to personally say if you want Total War games, get Rome and Medieval II(although not complex, the fun and ability to create your own stories for your kings is what makes these two games shine above the rest in the Total War franchise)

    On the other hand I see Civilization moving forward and creating a rather solid next few games due to the success of Civ 5. Now I do wish though with Civilization, even if it is like how Empire Total War implemented government and kings, that they do have the kings and line of dynasties in the actual game. It would be hard to implement I know but for me personally it would add the extra level of immersion into the game as I fanboy for my own generals to succeed in war against the French or English.

    (By the way) My Total War campaign for Denmark resulted in me being excommunicated by the Pope for attacking the French of whom were on the backfoot of my tremendous war campaign in Europe, My King of whom is Birger the Lewd is currently in the steppes conquering the Russians, I also am being attacked by Venice, I have also waged war with the Pope for excommunicating me in his foolishness. I took Florence but he took Bologna. I will attempt to take Rome and with armies I shall take Milan, Venice and another city in the south of Europe. I will also take back Bologna, but if I do not succeed I shall keep forming a empire in the steppes and the east. (This is just an update for you all)

    Also now for you guys, I want to hear what are two strategy games that you have played and which one did you like best and why. Also give reasoning as to why you didn't like the other game as much. Also if you want you guys can update me on what you are doing in your strategy games and who you are conquering and all that information relevant to your campaigns. So onward my brothers and let the thread begin.
     
  2. Kaiser

    Kaiser Guest

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    кєηтυ¢ку
    SuperPower is one of my favorite strategy games. It doesn't have fancy graphics, mind you, and comes off as more of a point-and-click, with some typing, kind of game. But you can control your country, by building cities and bases, investing in various types of research, buying and selling resources, creating military units, and even attacking or causing trouble (assassinations, sabotage another country's political leaders/military/economy, incite revolt, terrorism, etc) and blame it on another nation.

    You can change the government type which, though hardly noticeable at first, over time, does give certain advantages to various branches. For example, a Democracy tends to make people happier, which means you produce a little more, while a Dictatorship tends to make you produce more soldiers, and so on. You can even rig elections, bringing another nation under your control, or subject them to total governmental collapse, allowing you to swoop in and look good for the international audience.

    The game isn't a cakewalk, but it can be typically simple, especially with an industrial nation... unless you take the time to manually edit the nations. I tend to create three types of scenarios:

    World War II stats. Personally, I like to play as the Axis here.
    Cold War in 1989 stats. Personally, I like to play as the Soviet Union here.
    War on Terror 2003 stats. Personally, I like to play as Iraq here.

    I have done my best to recreate the Punic Wars, but had to take some liberties, since the game begins in 1997. I removed nuclear weapons, of course. I renamed tanks into elephants, for example, while editing the stats.

    I'm also, though it has gone neglected, attempting a Napoleonic Wars endeavor.

    I alter the technology, produce the various units, establish the government, make the treaties and alliances. Then I begin the game.

    Nations react to things you do, and natural disasters do happen (only mentioned at the end of the week; 1 turn = 1 week, by the way). While these do influence your nation, such as lowering population, you don't see them, unless you're always looking at your statistics menu. Still, for a game you can find ridiculously cheap, it isn't bad.

    My World War II campaign looks like this:

    Green is under my direct control, as they were militarily conquered. While Blue is allied to me, either due to getting their asses handed to them, or because I control so much of the world's resources. Nations with neither of these, are still independent.




    Euro-Asia
    [​IMG]




    Afro-America
    [​IMG]




    At the moment, I'm on the fence about my next objective. I'm leaning towards taking India. If I can take India, I'll be able to directly link up to Japan, practically guaranteeing me that area of the world. But Russia and China are still a serious threat to me, in this part of the world, and knocking out India might get them to declare war on me.​
     
  3. Straight ally

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Santiago de los caballeros, Dominican Republic
    I love to play in an alternate way, playing with the game mechanincs... In total war i had an issue... I lovedmilan militia troops, but i prefer to be in an island and play economically and defensively... So, i begun playing with the milaneses , saved money for a few turns with taxes as high as possible.... Then i created a big army and put them in a ship along all heirs and generlss,, and i traveled from ther to the other side to where england was, and i took everything there, first beginning with the scotish and rebels territories then england...

    Obviously i was left in a huge debt in order to mantain my big army, and obviously that my original provinces begun rebelling, but i made sure to milk them with taxes and i even destroyed my buildings to get some money from there... I also gave a few provinces to the pope in exchange of money for my rebellious provinces who would soon rebel to their new owners.

    It took a few turns to recover from my debts, but while everyone was fighting others, i was able to grow my economy in the isolation of my island, there, i upgraded my cities, and i trained assasings , spies and priests in order to create chaos and rebellion in my neightbors. After this i took control of the denmark peninusla and the iberic peninsulas, because these are strategic positions that are easy to defend.
     
  4. JackAttack

    JackAttack Guest

    I feel like im missing out because I have never played a Total war game :frowning2:. They sound so good but for some reason I just havnt got round to it.

    I have to say that my favourite strategy game is Europa Univeralis 4. I think it is extremly hard to be successful and even impossible at times depending on who you pick (theres an achievment to conquer the world as Ryukyu, a small island near Japan, which is impossible). There is so much that goes on in this game like religion, crusades, cultures, coalitions, civil wars, trade wars, colonisation, colonial revolutions etc, the list goes on. The game can sometimes follow history accurately but alternatives happen a lot more often. One game I saw Spain inherit the whole British Isles and I even once inherited France as Poland.

    I havnt played for a while but my last game was with the Mamluks and I conquered the whole Arabian peninsulia, north Africa and most of the Ottomon empire and then formed Egypt. I then tried to push into Europe but the Austrians somehow allied with the French, so that was basically impossible. But I have to say that Byzantium is my favourite country to play as (but only if I can manage to beat the Ottomons).

    Another strategy game series that I really like is the Command & conquer games, with Red Alert 2 and Tiberium wars being my favourites in that series. But I dont think you can compare them with Europa Univeralis as they are really different. I personally prefer Europe because I like the empire buidlng in it.
     
    #4 JackAttack, Mar 16, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2015
  5. MapleBrownSugar

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ottawa
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    YESS. Paradox interactive has bumped its way to the top of my favourite game producers thanks to EUIV and Crusader Kings II!

    I do own EUIV but I have to say I haven't played very much yet... I'm still stuck on CKII because as some may be aware, these games have quite a steep learning curve and despite the same producer and similar style, EUIV and CKII play very /very/ differently. I'm too cozy with CKII and its mechanics so running into EUIV I always find myself at a bit of a disadvantage, hahaha. Crusader Kings II puts the player in a medieval political intrigue and war simulator with a focus on dynastic rule and interactions between individual persons as opposed to nation states in EUIV.

    But the best part for me insofar as owning both games is concerned, is being able to export my save from CKII and import it to play in EUIV! So you can begin playing as a small county in Ireland in 768 AD in CKII and create a continuous rule that stretches across centuries until you end up with an empire that controls half the world (if you're good) in the late 18th century in EUIV! The amount of customization, roleplaying, stories you tell your friends of how your inbred, excommunicated, dwarf ruler was able to beat back the Mongolian hordes from rampaging through your lands, mean while you plan to assassinate your brother and marrying his wife so you can take his land...

    Nothing but good times, but damn is it hard to start.