Short Games

[Taqwa11]

What I really dislike about Emperor is that it really is a rush game. Whether I rush someone and win in less than ten minutes or they do it to me, I don't enjoy it. My most memorable games have all been well over a half hour--the best ones taking more than 45 minutes. No matter how many times I've tried it, QM doesn't appeal to me. In QM, most of the time there are only lower-level mechs used in a frantic rush for the "sweet" spot on the map. Take over the "sweet" spot, and you get the game, generally. That's boring. Just last night, I played as Atreides against deum77, who played as Hark. I pumped out nothing but bikes and infantry, and he pumped out nothing but saws and infantry. He rushed me with about 10 buzzsaws and some infantry. I easily killed his rushing units, and then I kept hitting PP and sending all my units to his base. He quit before I could even destroy one of his buildings. I asked him why he quit. He said, "Because you had the advantage." He asked for a rematch. I told him, sarcastically, "Well, then, if you get the advantage I guess I'll have to quit too." I didn't do the rematch, but went to bed instead. But that experience got me thinking about Emperor and any RTS that can be played as just a frantic rush to produce as many units as possible and rush them to the "sweet" spot on the map. QM is sooooo boring to me because whether I rush or the other guy does it, the game never lasts long enough to really get into it. Just look at the game records for the QM players. How long is the average game? Something like 11 minutes? It's like premature ejaculation vs. good sex. Can't some company come up with a game (with mechs and planes, not orcs, elves and creepy-crawlers) that isn't just a mad rush? I've read about turn-based strategy games. Do any of you play them, and are they any fun?

[Navaros]

I have to agree. Take your stuff to the enemy early in Emp, or you lose. Generally speaking. That's not nearly as interesting as it could be.

The problem is that almost ALL the maps are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too small to make for compelling games. The QM maps should have been A LOT bigger than they are now.

[Dunenewt]

I find super weapons make a boring game as well

[Taqwa11]

I agree, Nav, for about the third time in your thousand posts. QM should be adjustable, and it should take advantage of ALL the maps. Living world should play no part of it--too much luck involved there, especially since worms really have a taste for minos--and turrets should be stronger in order to defend more easily against first-level mechs and infantry. I'm not making excuses about why I'm not ranked in the top ten in QM. And I'm sure a lot of the QMers like how QM works. I'm just expressing an opinion about what I think would have been better.

[Taqwa11]

Well, at least it takes a little while to get a superweapon--time enough to counter it with something of your own. But the mad rush with low-level mechs and first-level infantry is what I'm really talking about.

[Navaros]

superweapons are not much of a factor in Emperor gameplay. they've never ever made one iota of difference in determining the Winner in any of the thousands of QM's i've played because either I have SW too by the time my enemy does, or my enemy has already crippled me and SW are just the icing on his cake

(edit: ONE exception - on non-Spice maps where your enemy can use them to screw you up, but the ATR SW is IMPOSSIBLE to aim with precision so it's very unfair. my solution to that, don't play non-spice maps because they are unfair ne wayz because players don't get money at the same time ::) )

I am very disappointed about the lack of variety of Emp maps. The Guild Complex map is a good size. Big, but not *too* big like Fishers. They should have made almost every map the size of Guild Complex.

[Fuzi0n]

I think (for met that is) is that the real fun in qm are the long rushes.

When u rush ur enemy after say 4-5 mins, and the first rush fends off but u keep putting the pressure on him. So that it takes some time before u get his base.

[Taqwa11]

I'd love to play on Guild Complex, Fortified Canyon, Abandoned City, etc. They are nice-sized maps. The problem is, no one has them. WOL really screwed up (AGAIN) by not making these maps in an auto patch. Many times I have set up a game with one of these maps, only to see time and time again "Bla bla does not have this map." So for a good long game, there are two big maps that I'm really getting burned out on because everyone uses them: Fisher's Plain and Broken Plain. And yes, I wish the Geidi Prime, Caladan and Draconis IV maps worked differently, as far as money is concerned.

But about my question: Does anyone play turn-based strategy games, and what are the best ones?

[Marcel71]

With rushing the game is only fast over when the rushed one is bad..

I noticed that if you are equally good, the game can last very long although there was rush at the beginning.

I remember games with fuzion that lasted long.

Not so long ago 2vs2 me against warskum, also rushing, but the game lasted VERY long.

I think the problem with long games is that atreides have WAY better chances of winning. I could lose from a noob with 20 mino's protected by mongoose and fed snipers....

The aim of the game is to keep your opponent as small as possible. (and he has to keep you as small as possible).

And remember, if you defend, you have a small advantage on the guy who is rushing you ;). If u (let's say) for 15 minutes all the time break his rush down (so all his rushing units are killed) u can form a nice army and then go attack him. It happened to me, and i done it like that....

[Navaros]

I think the problem with long games is that atreides have WAY better chances of winning. I could lose from a noob with 20 mino's protected by mongoose and fed snipers....

that is because you've never reached the upper stratosphere of elite players in Emp. Neither have I. That's why I can beat you and you can beat me. But vs. the very best Hark or Ordos players, 20 protected Minos ain't gonna do jack.

[Taqwa11]

True, Marcel. But what is your definition of "long?" Again, look at the QM game logs and see how "long" the average game is between top players. Do you call 6 to 15 minutes a "long" game? In those QM games between top players, probably both are frantically rushing each other, but one got the "sweet" spot first.

In high school, I was a distance runner. I got a scholarship for cross country and track. I guess I like events that take endurance and tactics. A sprinter, on the other hand, would prefer more elements of luck, such as getting a good start, getting the best lane, and not pulling a hamstring. Two different types of mentality, you see.

[Marcel71]

i know what u r saying taqwa, and for me a game more then 20 minutes is long.

My toughts about game time:

< 3 mins = moron u rushed to early

3-5 = good rush

5-10 = bad rush or good tactical play for average game

10-20 = normal game time

20-30 = long game

30 > = Very long game (probably a gg)

Especially that realtime is longer then recorded WW play time....

ps. 2 messages back, did i hear a mouse pie? ;D

[SurlyPIG]

In high school, I was a distance runner. I got a scholarship for cross country and track. I guess I like events that take endurance and tactics. A sprinter, on the other hand, would prefer more elements of luck, such as getting a good start, getting the best lane, and not pulling a hamstring. Two different types of mentality, you see.

Yup that makes a lot of sense to me. I like stuff with a high margin of error. Like basketball, where if you totally bomb one play it doesn't matter, 'cause you'll have ample opportunity to make up for it. Whereas in stuff like soccer, if you mess up, you could have just screwed your whole team :-X.

Rushes give you a high margin of error. Lets say you goof up a rush when you and your opponent have 30 units. You lose all your units, your opponent still has, say, 10. Before he gets to you, you can build 10 units to stop him from killing you. But if you wait like a half hour before you attack, when you and your opponent have, say 500 units, if you lose all your units and your opponent still has 100, you're dead :-X.

Speaking of pulling hamstrings, that happened to the racer next to me in the 100m. He was running full speed, his leg cramped up, and he fell right on his face :-. Poor guy...

[ethan]

Taqwa, i have found the civilization games to be pretty fun and challenging. i like Civilization 2 the best, but you cant buy it anymore and Civ 3 is more advanced. so i dont know.... :-

[Gobalopper]

Taqwa you should look into Jagged Alliance 2. It's real time but goes into turn based for combat. Its not an RTS but more of a tactical squad based game. Not sure if it would be your style of game but I really enjoyed it. There are also the X-Com games or even Laser Squad Nemesis which is an email turn based game with mech like units.

[RotazoOm]

I think (for met that is) is that the real fun in qm are the long rushes.

When u rush ur enemy after say 4-5 mins, and the first rush fends off but u keep putting the pressure on him. So that it takes some time before u get his base.

Qm is this game! but i suck in long games i rarely win...

[undsputed]

Hmm.....about superweapons....some people like them on and others ask for them to be off. Personally, I think they should be left on. Supers are a way of making a difference in a tight game among good players....so Nav wouldn't know what I'm talking about =)

Often times, one side may control most of the map (team games I mean). Supers take a lot of space, especially when you get several palaces. Plus the starport. So, it is sorta like a reward for controlling the most building space. If you control the buidling area, then you get an added advantage. So, in that way, it may help crack a tight game.

What are some opinons on supers?

Sorry Taq, its sorta off topic I know.

For turn based strat. by the way, there is nothing like Civ from what I hear. I dont have that but I have Alpha Centauri (basically the same thing). I think it is a great game and has a lot of replayability. If you havew $20-25, you can get the original game and the expansion pack, Alien Crossfire. Look into that if you haven't played it.

[Taqwa11]

Thanks for the game info, guys. Gob, that LSN looks cool, but if you have to pay to play, I'm out. I've looked at Civilization. It looks like a cool game. What I really want, of course, is Generals. It's not that I don't like Emperor--I love it--but the QM aspect just doesn't appeal to me much because it's like a . . . well, knife fight. LOL. I prefer real battles, not small skirmishes, I guess.

[VigilVirus]

A 2v2 game always lasts at least 10 mins of noone quits.

[guusr5644]

lol i just won a game coz i rushed but my enemy cud defend himself i only had in his base 7 trikes... he just quited ??? at least i won that bc ;D...

[Dezertfish]

Taqwa, i have found the civilization games to be pretty fun and challenging. i like Civilization 2 the best, but you cant buy it anymore and Civ 3 is more advanced. so i dont know.... :-

Civilization II is awesome, i have been playing it moderately for years and rarely get bored. One thing i like about it is the way the game progresses through the technological eras, nothing like emp in that respect.

Cant afford civ III yet, but if its anything like civ II, itll be worth it.

[Dunenewt]

Where do you get the Guild Compex map from!?!

[Marcel71]

Mappacks !! download them.. See the mainpage of www.dune2k.com

[undsputed]

Any of you Civ. freaks ever play Alpha Centauri...that's a great game? Though, I've never played Civ. so I guess I should be careful what I say =)

[IxianMace]

I've got the Alpha Centauri CD packed away in my collection. I've already finished the game with every single faction and researched every single techonology along with 20 transcendent thoughts. ;D I doubt I'll be re-installing it in the near future, but it was a very fascinating and addictive game when I first played it. Lots of stuff to learn. :)