Best strategy games from 2000 to 2005 or so

[Jonny]

I thought Tropico was pretty good.

Others I'd suggest not from your list: Rails Across America, Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom (another Caesar/Zeus style city builder, if you're into that kind of stuff), Monopoly Tycoon.

In looking through my CDs to make these suggestions, I've noticed that A) my rate of getting new games has declined noticably over the past few years, and B) some of the best ones that I still play came pre-2000, like SMAC and Deadlock.

[Bkeela]

I would recommend trying Rise of Nations before buying. I thought it would be great, but found it a painful experience. Random map battles are okay, but I simply couldn't find the motivation to plough through the ultra tedious campaign.

Rise of Nations I would suggest is a game for people who really love RTS, who love the battle aspect of RTS, and who love playing multiplayer. It is not a game for the solo builder type.

There aren't many RTS games that I really enjoy, but Warcraft III is one of them. Instead of needing to worry about and keep track of the billions of units in Rise of Nations, you only have a few key units to manage. The campaign has a fantasy style story as incentive to play through, and each of the various races feel very distinct and are a pleasure to play.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Bkeela
I would recommend trying Rise of Nations before buying. I thought it would be great, but found it a painful experience. Random map battles are okay, but I simply couldn't find the motivation to plough through the ultra tedious campaign.

Rise of Nations I would suggest is a game for people who really love RTS, who love the battle aspect of RTS, and who love playing multiplayer. It is not a game for the solo builder type.

There aren't many RTS games that I really enjoy, but Warcraft III is one of them. Instead of needing to worry about and keep track of the billions of units in Rise of Nations, you only have a few key units to manage. The campaign has a fantasy style story as incentive to play through, and each of the various races feel very distinct and are a pleasure to play.

Hmm, thats interesing. WC3 really does sound like my kind of RTS, despite my preference for history, and my interest in keeping up with Brian R and his career which would incline me to RON.

How would you compare RON in style to AOE - i own the first, and enjoyed the SP campaigns, and even downloaded several of the user campaigns (i heartily recommend those by farrel and imhotep) Im thinking AOK (AOE2) is one of the first games i'll get - its pretty cheap by now, and actually would have run on the dino puter, except for some copy protection problems.

[Bkeela]

I think Rise of Nations is essentially a rip off of Empire Earth. I expected much more from Brian Reynolds.

Rise of Legends sounds more promising, but is more rooted in fantasy and science fiction - although underneath it will just be Rise of Nations.

Essentially if you like Age of Empires, you will like Rise of Nations. It has borders and attrition, the ability to invade foreign cities instead of reducing them to rubble, and it progresses into the modern era.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I was lukewarm about PG2. Is PG3 really that much better?

Haven't played PG2 yet

There are two PG3 games. One is the western front and is called Panzer General 3D Assault, The other one is for the eastern front and is called PG3: Scorched Earth. The latter game is a refinement of the former. You maybe able to find a combined set.

I found it quite interesting because you get to groom leaders in campaigns, and they make the difference between winning and losing.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Bkeela
I think Rise of Nations is essentially a rip off of Empire Earth. I expected much more from Brian Reynolds.

Rise of Legends sounds more promising, but is more rooted in fantasy and science fiction - although underneath it will just be Rise of Nations.

Essentially if you like Age of Empires, you will like Rise of Nations. It has borders and attrition, the ability to invade foreign cities instead of reducing them to rubble, and it progresses into the modern era.

Oddly enough Rise of Nations is lots of fun, unlike Empire Earth which is universally reviled.

[Sava]

I always liked the intro movie for Empire Earth.

[Locutus]

Never thought I'd say it but I agree with Vesayen

EE is crap (a nice idea in theory but a very poor implementation) while RoN is a great game. I'm a hardcore TBS player, and an SPer and builder at that, but RoN is the one of the very few RTS games I truely enjoy. Most RTS games are pure wargames and clickfests to boot: who can build the largest army fastest? RoN has much less excessive micro-managing than most RTS games and many more interesting Civ-esque concepts like true cities, borders, trade goods and trade routes, a real tech tree, goverments... Even RTS elements such as the combat system are quite different from most RTS games, with true flanking, rear attacks, entrenching and formations that have a real impact on combat. The fact that you can pause the game at any time and still give orders (like EU) and set the game speed to very slow and play at a snails pace (comparable to Marathon mode in Civ4) means that can effectively play it as a TBS, a great boon to TBSers like myself. Also, the TBS campaign map is loads of fun, my favourite part of the game (esp. in the XP Thrones & Patriots).

As I see it, RoN is basically AoE meets Civ and as such combines arguably the two best franchises from both the TBS and RTS genre.

But yeah, there's a demo for RoN out there (as well as one for RoN:T&P) so unless you're on a dial-in connection you'd be nuts if you didn't try that before spending money on this game...

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Hmm, thats interesing. WC3 really does sound like my kind of RTS, despite my preference for history, and my interest in keeping up with Brian R and his career which would incline me to RON.

How would you compare RON in style to AOE - i own the first, and enjoyed the SP campaigns, and even downloaded several of the user campaigns (i heartily recommend those by farrel and imhotep) Im thinking AOK (AOE2) is one of the first games i'll get - its pretty cheap by now, and actually would have run on the dino puter, except for some copy protection problems.

I prefer WC3 - it is one of the few RTS campaigns I've stuck out to the end. I'm not a big fan of SP RTS though, and I think you will like RoN. RoN is certainly closer to AoE than WC3 is.

[Solver]

Yeah, RoN does what it's supposed to do perfectly - it was supposed to be a AoE + Civ hybrid, and it is. RoN also has a LOT of customization options, which is great. Basically, you can play it in a mode similar to the classic AoE gameplay - move quickly, build quickly, attack early. Or you can play it in an almost civ-esque mode with slow research and stuff, so that a game could take like 7 hours of time, and you can also keep pausing it while at it.

The campaign is also not the usual RTS campaign, but indeed plays more like a game of Civ than RTS. Individual battles are fought in the RTS mode, though.

I'd say RoN is worth it for anyone who likes RTS at all, and it's also probably worth it for most Civ players even if they're not RTS fans. Trying the demo is a must. RoN's definitely my favorite RTS game, though not my most played one.

[lord of the mark]

It sounds like I might enjoy BOTH Rise of Nations, and Warcraft3. In different ways. I think I can avoid Empire Earth, though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Haven't played PG2 yet

There are two PG3 games. One is the western front and is called Panzer General 3D Assault, The other one is for the eastern front and is called PG3: Scorched Earth. The latter game is a refinement of the former. You maybe able to find a combined set.

I found it quite interesting because you get to groom leaders in campaigns, and they make the difference between winning and losing.

Being able to resupply, or even add replacements, to a surrounded unit kinda detracted for me. I mean you can give me a simplified beer and pretzels game without supply rules and replacements, or give me a game where theyre handled in a way that makes sense (where I can only resupply if its geographically realistic) PG2, IIRC, had rules that meant you couldnt resupply if you lacked prestige, but if you had it, you could resupply even if the unit was in a position where that was impossible.

The rest of the game wasnt quite overwhelming enough to make up for all that. I might play it again, but im not real inclined to get the sequel. There are other older wargames id get first - TOAW, or Combat Mission.

[DrSpike]

Empire Earth.

Combat Mission.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Being able to resupply, or even add replacements, to a surrounded unit kinda detracted for me.

In PG3 you can't resupply or get replacements if your unit is adjecent to an enemy unit.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


In PG3 you can't resupply or get replacements if your unit is adjecent to an enemy unit.

i think it might be the same in PG2. But only applies if enemy unit is directly adjacent. If theyre not adjacent, but youre surrounded, you can not only get supplies (airdropped?) but even replacements.