Any good, in-depth, non-rushing/super aggresivesly obssesed stragegy games out?

[Khan]

Yeah Civ 3 is a great game and there are now 2 pretty good addons to get as well.

[Sneakgab]

The games I'm looking for also have to be RTS and in these game you must be able to acquire units and buildings somehow (and as many as you want until you reach a cap). These units and buildings don't need to be acquired C&C style, if you get units via reinforcements and you have an engineer unit or something who can build helpful defenses or buildings (for example), that would be fine.

BTW, I've only read a reader review of WW2 Frontline Command, which said that the game was (r@p and that anybody interested in such games should get combat mission or close combat instead. Was the reviewer correct?

[Atomic Mitten]

I've got that game, and yes I agree with the review of it, that you read,

[Sneakgab]

To all future posters, please take note of the word ''good'' in ''Any GOOD, in-depth,non-rushing/super aggresively obssesed strategy games out?

Just to remind everyone, I'm looking for an RTS and I would prefer it if it were possible to acquire buildings and units in the game during a mission

[Fuzi0n]

Hm.. Generals? LOL jk.

WW2 Frontline Command?

whatz wrong with zh? after patch it became much better, competition is killing and an official ladder is coming (in collaboration with cw)..

[davo]

The games I'm looking for also have to be RTS and in these game you must be able to acquire units and buildings somehow (and as many as you want until you reach a cap). These units and buildings don't need to be acquired C&C style, if you get units via reinforcements and you have an engineer unit or something who can build helpful defenses or buildings (for example), that would be fine.

Why couldn't have you been more specific with these requirements at the begininng of the thread, Sneakgab? Then again, why such narrow preconditions for a new game? Any thoughts of trying some completely different "in-depth, non-rushing/super aggresivesly obssesed stragegy game" ??

To all future posters, please take note of the word ''good'' in ''Any GOOD, in-depth,non-rushing/super aggresively obssesed strategy games out?

Sorry you have irked me here. How is it that your definition of "good" is more superior than another person's definition of a "good" in-depth,non-rushing/super aggresively obssesed strategy game?

[Apollyon]

Umm I think you're being a bit harsh, Davo. This isn't PRP, we're not trying to challenge Sneakgab's two dimensional views of what may or may not be classed as a good RTS.

"How is it that your definition of "good" is more superior than another person's definition of a "good" in-depth,non-rushing/super aggresively obssesed strategy game? "

The fact that it's his thread and if it isn't good according to his opinion it isn't helpful to him and doesn't fulfill the criteria of the thread.

[davo]

Umm I think you're being a bit harsh, Davo. This isn't PRP, we're not trying to challenge Sneakgab's two dimensional views of what may or may not be classed as a good RTS.

"How is it that your definition of "good" is more superior than another person's definition of a "good" in-depth,non-rushing/super aggresively obssesed strategy game? "

The fact that it's his thread and if it isn't good according to his opinion it isn't helpful to him and doesn't fulfill the criteria of the thread.

Apollyon, why should Sneakgab's criteria for his thread be sacrosanct?

[Sneakgab]

''The games I'm looking for also have to be RTS and in these game you must be able to acquire units and buildings somehow (and as many as you want until you reach a cap). These units and buildings don't need to be acquired C&C style, if you get units via reinforcements and you have an engineer unit or something who can build helpful defenses or buildings (for example), that would be fine.

Why couldn't have you been more specific with these requirements at the begininng of the thread, Sneakgab? Then again, why such narrow preconditions for a new game? Any thoughts of trying some completely different "in-depth, non-rushing/super aggresivesly obssesed stragegy game" ??''

I apologize for forgetting to remember to put in these requirments at the beggining post. However, I actually meant that I'd like it if were able to somehow acquire units and buildings in the game, not that that is a must (wether or not I remembered to mention it:D). As for my narrow pre-conditions, I have tried one or two strategy games before where you cannot build and they were not that good. Come to think of it though, not many strategy games are good full stop, thus, I may actually try another non-building strategy game. Unfortunately though, I know of no recent non-building strategy games. Another problem is that it is rarely possible to play such games multiplayer (although right now it is rarely possible to play ANYTHING online, what with only possesing a 56k). Additionally, to me, taking away building and other management only takes away a part of the game. The only good side I see to this in most games is that it reduces the reward for being a fast and accurate clicker; a reward that obviously does not belong in a strategy game.

''Quote from: Sneakgab on January 06, 2004, 09:34:50

To all future posters, please take note of the word ''good'' in ''Any GOOD, in-depth,non-rushing/super aggresively obssesed strategy games out?

Sorry you have irked me here. How is it that your definition of "good" is more superior than another person's definition of a "good" in-depth,non-rushing/super aggresively obssesed strategy game?''

You misunderstand, it is just that someone suggested that WW2 Frontline Command to me... and when I asked him if the game was good, he said ''no, it is (r@p''. I was basically just requesting that if a person thinks a game is (r@p, I would like it if he did not suggest that game to me (I actually almost went out and bought WW2 Frontline Command upon visiting a games store where it was virtually the only recent strategy game in the store)

[Khan]

Just get Homeworld 2.

[Sneakgab]

Is Homeworld 2 anything like cataclysm?

[Khan]

I don't know about cataclysm but it is much better than the original.

[jav barri]

medieval total war, it reshapes the whole genre,(ok so it might not be that chilled but get it, i won't play any other in the genre theyve all been out dated) when you realise the depths of it you won't stop playing. And rome tw looks totally sick 10,000 3d characters on screen (drool drool).

[Khan]

Yes but he wants one with buildings on the battlefield.

Do you have Warcraft 3 sneakgab?

[Sneakgab]

Yes, but that game is not very in-depth :P. It seems that a game that has buildings in it and is in-depth is a very rare thing to find (Only such game I know of Empire Earth). It seems that I will have to settle for a game with either of the two characteristics...

Apologies for the difficult characterics requested for the suggested game...

[SpiceGuid]

I have just bought Sim City 3000 (10 euros)