Civ3 vs other strategy games

[Daz]

I played SMAC, and kinda missed what youre talking about(?!). It was boring. I guess I'll have to try again....

[Aqualung71]

Ok then, another question.....How do you guys compare TBS games with RTS games? In general can you say that one is more fun and challenging than the other, or that one provides deeper strategy but the other is more exciting?

Or are they so different in concept that you can't compare?

[LzPrst]

I've taken three (unsuccessful) runs at the tutorial to date. I've also found I need a book to read in between turns.

If you're playing EU2 you can crank up the speed when nothing much is happening. Also, if you're playing small backwater nations you'll be bored. Though it can work if you're able to expand on your weaker neighbours.
As Sweden (on grand campaign) I own all of northern europe far into russia, have outposts in france, holland, portugal and spain. and i own 90% of non-indian south america + considerable colonies in north america, among others, Manhattan I havent bothered playing cause the world is essentially mine. The way it should be, under Swedish rule

Enough ranting, a few classics, Master of Magic! similar to MOO, but has a very civ like city build and development. Also as mentioned, HOMM, and SMAC are must plays. good ole warlords is great fun too. ah the nostalgia washes over me. oh for the good ole days.
Btw check out Starcontrol2, not really strategy, but IMO one of the best games ever. rpg, space exploration, battle. too bad it doesnt have a colonization element.

DOH! You all forgot col! sid meiers colonization is also a classic you should check out.
how i long for old times...

[LzPrst]

TBS über alles. no thats not quite right. the concepts are very different. TBS games are usually slower, more intricate, require more thought and planning. far too many RTS become as said here "clickfest[s]". gather resources ASAP, build units ASAP, attack! whoever can do this the fastest will most often win. strategy is not really as big an element as dexterity... also its not really strategy as much as it is tactical.

most TBS require a little deeper thought and planning. and they generally take much longer. i enjoy TBS more simply because RTS are too often repetitive and have too little variation. but if i'm looking for a fast strategy game a round of warcraft or war of the ring can be quite fun. once, maybe twice. then i'm bored.

[lethe]

Originally posted by LzPrst
Btw check out Starcontrol2, not really strategy, but IMO one of the best games ever. rpg, space exploration, battle. too bad it doesnt have a colonization element.

How do you do the *pretty colors*

*Dance* is always *special* when against *spicy ones*

Do you want to do the *go go*

We must *camp* with *quickbabies*

Orz rock the free galaxy!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by LzPrst
TBS über alles. no thats not quite right. the concepts are very different. TBS games are usually slower, more intricate, require more thought and planning. far too many RTS become as said here "clickfest[s]". gather resources ASAP, build units ASAP, attack! whoever can do this the fastest will most often win. strategy is not really as big an element as dexterity... also its not really strategy as much as it is tactical.

I sense Zero coming, and he will be angry. Overall you're of course right.

[vulture]

I've tried RTS, and they hold absolutely no interest for me.

The best strategy / tactical game I've played, aside from civ3? Combat Mission. Turn based - with modifications. You give your orders for each turn, and then one minute's worth of action happens in real time (which you get to watch as often as you want), then back to the next orders phase....

Of course, if you don't like WW2 games on a platoon to batallion level, it's not for you (in game, that means 10 or so units, up to a few hundred for the larger engagements). And it's more tactical than strategic.

[ErikM]

Well, EU2 is technically RTS but it is very different from most RTS games.

It is sort of "event-based" - ie you can set the game to automatically pause whenever anything of importance happens and you can give orders when the game is paused. Very nice system, actually.

[Barinthus]

Any thoughts about Rise of Nations?

Dunegon Seige?

Diablo I and II?

[SpencerH]

I've only played it a little, but RoN seems pretty good. It plays like a RTS but with more depth than most others. My only ***** is that it is still to much of a clickfest for my mouse.

[vmxa1]

Diablo was a great game at the time. Diablo II is still a great game. I play it a bit every now and then. Just run normal and nightmare modes, never tried hell mode.

It is really just a straight bash em up, but I get hooked on the level up and get more items aspect.

[vmxa1]

RTS and TBS are not really equivalents. I have not played much RTS lately, but I am a big fan of the genre. It is more exciting, but less thoughtful.

Some of the later RTS games go to be too much for me to manage. I loved Age of Empires, but found AoK to be too many units to deal with and bailed out.

MP games with an RTS are just so intense, it can be draining.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by LzPrst
TBS games are usually slower, more intricate, require more thought and planning. far too many RTS become as said here "clickfest[s]".

Yeh, that's kinda what I thought. But so many times I've been into gaming shops and they look at you like you're a lunatic when you ask about Civ3. The response is usually along the lines of "It's a TBS, which means it's not even worth thinking about". Seems like most gamers go for the first-person shoot-em-up type stuff like Doom and Wolfenstein!

By the way, has anyone tried Empire Earth?

[Daz]

What does Diablo have to do with strategy games- tbs or rts?

(Not that is isnt a great game!)

[vmxa1]

Nothing Daz, same Dungeon Siege.