Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    75
    Going straight for the Paradox grand strategy titles is pretty much diving straight into the deep end of the pool. It is probably not the place I would start.

    Since you already mentioned Civ, I will be a bit left field here and suggest AI War. Its technically an RTS (but then again so is EU3) but in many ways it plays very much like a grand strategy game and it is incredibly unique. I have never played anything that plays quite like AI War.

  2. #22
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    49
    I'm about as hardcore fan of the Paradox grand strategy games as you'd care to meet and for me it comes down to two things: my insatiable interest in history and a rather incurable information addiction. These attributes work beautifully in tandem: I might be reading an article about the Spanish civil war or the origins and fates of the Rurikovich and get inspired and start a game of HoI3 or CK2, just to see if I could do better.

    Especially the earlier editions of PI grand strategy were so heavily laden with historical events and flavor that I stood little to no chance against the charms of creating alternate history and overcoming the Haitian division to form the Ultimate Caribbean empire to rule all the Greater Antilles (in Victoria, just for example). The later games are more "world simulators" than rolling "history lessons", but the same rules apply when it comes to my interest in them: taking the underdog and creating the most ahistorical success story ever seen utilizing the awesome power of hindsight and the ability to game the engine (in addition to my obliviousness to the immediate political and circumstantial machinations that might have gone on in real life). That's not to say it's the only way to enjoy these games, just that it's my primary way.

    In all honesty if you lack both of the aforementioned attributes, I'm not particularly surprised that you might not find these games as enthralling as some of us. However, especially with the later games from PI, I think there are plenty of interesting options available for the more traditional gamers among us. The sandboxy nature of the Clausewitz engine games require the application of imagination when it comes to your in-game goals: you need to set a target for the game, a winning condition if you will, that either interests you from a historical point of view or is a gaming challenge, preferrably both. The magic happens when an unexpected arc of drama emerges from the apparent rng of the game engine: you might see the Muscowite heir be born an inbred fool or the Soviets taking an additional interest in the Republicans and the Nationalists making a crucial tactical error in defending Burgos. When these things happen countless hours go by and you might awaken to a sudden realization that the sun is coming up and you forgot to go to sleep.

    You can't really force an interest in these games, as glorious and rewarding as some of AARs and in-game happenings might sound. The taste that can be acquired however is the taste for the unexpected, for the surprising springing from seemingly historical starting conditions or for the challenges coming out from the AI reacting to your belligerence, and for the incredibly lucky break that could change the history of the world (or Europe at the very least, they are Swedish, give them a break).

  3. #23
    Obscure Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1
    I don't think theres anything wrong with starcraft 2 to be honest. It runs faster and to me is better than the other games on the market. I don't know maybe I just don't have a strong enough computer.

  4. #24
    Network Hub rsherhod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by bigl2369 View Post
    I don't think theres anything wrong with starcraft 2 to be honest. It runs faster and to me is better than the other games on the market. I don't know maybe I just don't have a strong enough computer.
    Yeah, but it's no grand strategy. It's very definitely a RTS and not a 4X game.
    To the OP, the Total War series are pretty good as grand strategy-lite and I've come away with a few interesting stories. Give them a go if you haven't already. Someone's already suggested SotS, which is like Total War in space.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by rsherhod View Post
    Yeah, but it's no grand strategy. It's very definitely a RTS and not a 4X game.
    To the OP, the Total War series are pretty good as grand strategy-lite and I've come away with a few interesting stories. Give them a go if you haven't already. Someone's already suggested SotS, which is like Total War in space.
    It has one post. Its clearly a bot.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by rsherhod View Post
    .
    To the OP, the Total War series are pretty good as grand strategy-lite and I've come away with a few interesting stories. Give them a go if you haven't already. Someone's already suggested SotS, which is like Total War in space.
    Sorry if this is being a bit pedantic, but Total War games focus on battle tactics. They have pretty limited strategic options and certainly aren't grand strategy. Personally I think the only games I know of which deserve the grand strategy moniker are made by Paradox.

  7. #27
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    77
    I think that's a bit much (coming from a staunch Paradox fan). They certainly publish some exemplary titles but I think not including TW as Grand Strategy is being needlessly exclusionary.

  8. #28
    I like the Total War games but would call them "grand tactics" not "grand strategy". I guess there's some strategy in knowing where and when to attack, how to divide your army and the limited economic management but on that level they certainly don't compare to Paradox games.

    But the tactical battle simulations in them are great...I actually think a Paradox strategy game with a Total War battle system would be the ultimate war game.


    Quote Originally Posted by tormos View Post
    I think that's a bit much (coming from a staunch Paradox fan). They certainly publish some exemplary titles but I think not including TW as Grand Strategy is being needlessly exclusionary.
    Last edited by iridescence; 20-04-2013 at 06:03 AM.

  9. #29
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    186
    don't treat them as strategy games

    as strategy games, all of them are horrible because they're just about learning rules for 50 hours and then killing dumb AIs

    you have to find other enjoyment out of them or just be bad at strategy in general

  10. #30
    Lesser Hivemind Node Stellar Duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by iridescence View Post
    Sorry if this is being a bit pedantic, but Total War games focus on battle tactics. They have pretty limited strategic options and certainly aren't grand strategy. Personally I think the only games I know of which deserve the grand strategy moniker are made by Paradox.

    So, no AGEOD games? No Supreme Ruler?

    Sorry, but limiting it to Paradox is needlessly exclusive. Total War was suggested as grand strategy lite which is a fitting term I think.
    Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since 1982.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •