Best Strategy Game

Pretor

i've had so many arguements with friends on which the best strategy game is out of these:
C&C Generals, Age of Empires2, Starcraft(still gud after all these yrs) or Medieval:Total War

Maybe someone here can help out i have problems with all of them but so far my favourite is Generals mostly because of the multiplayer despite it having no decent single-player story unlike other C&C games.

I'd also like to know if theres a better strategy game, one with a really gud online multiplayer, out there but not the new ones coz i hav a hard time getting them to run on my pc.

Kare Bear

Check out dawn of war and the expansion thats out soon.Best sci-fi rts in years.

monkeyfudge

I've always liked the Settlers games. I just find them very relaxing.

Another one I loved was Star Trek: Birth of the Federation. I used to spend hours playing that one.

Oh.. oh... and K240 on the Amiga... so much fun...

Gangsta

For me, Medieval and Generals are king.

I prefer Medieval to the likes of Rome because I prefer the more real time strategy side of the game and just a bit of turn based while Rome has really developed the turned based which I don't really like. Generals as you say does have poor single player (same reason) but the skirmishes and multiplayer over the lan is just fantastic.

Black and White I thought was also very good until I got to the 4th/5th level (I think) and it just got repititive with the "We need food/shelter etc. etc." Warcraft III is also a classic single player game, fabulous campaign but haven't really tried mp.

I also need to give Civ III a go and see what all the fuss is about (I know I'm like 3/4yrs behind but better late than never )

corblimey

monkeyfudge wrote:

I've always liked the Settlers games. I just find them very relaxing.

Even the latest one, monkeyfudge? That game just annoyed the sh one t out of me, for some reason.

monkeyfudge

corblimey wrote:

Even the latest one, monkeyfudge? That game just annoyed the sh one t out of me, for some reason.

I really haven't had enough time to play Heritage of Kings too much yet. But I've enjoyed it so far.

I just love making little happy villages with farms and windmills and stuff... I do miss the little pigs from the previous games though.

TerrorFirmer

Red Alert Original is the KING!!!

KKND Krossfire and Xtreme are also decent, very CandC-ish.

Red Alert 2, Tiberian Sun, Generals, Zero Hour, all funish games, but not a patch on the original CandC games...

Gangsta

MobileInfantry wrote:

Red Alert Original is the KING!!!

Ah twas legend :cool:

Memnoch

The best strategy games and the ones that "pro gamers" play professoinaly are Starcraft and WC3.

Both games introduced ground breaking game play and interface use and have been the benchmark of strategy gaming. AOE and AOE2 are pretty damn good but nowhere near the depth of these games. The C&C games are mere shadows in comparison.

U want to try really challenging multiplayer then try playing these games and you will soon find that not only does your level of strategy need to be perfect but also your skill be able to do well in them, not to mention they are immensly fun.

The top starcraft players get up to around 300 actions per minute, while in WC3 it's closer to 150-200, though WC3 requires more micro.

Anything I can say about these games is too little, but the fact that there are people who are paid 300,000 $ a year to play them goes some way towards reflecting just how great they are.

CerebralCortex

Yeah Starcraft is alot of fun. But for me it has to be Rome tw. It gives you a feel for what a battlefield was like during the Roman era. Multiplayer Shogun total war was probably the best.

Pretor

CerebralCortex wrote:

Yeah Starcraft is alot of fun. But for me it has to be Rome tw. It gives you a feel for what a battlefield was like during the Roman era. Multiplayer Shogun total war was probably the best.

Rome:tw was good but it focused more on turn-based strategy although the battles were brilliant and i hav fond memorys of the elephant attack. i never really got into any turn-based strategy game except for advance wars1+2

Dawn of War is pretty good especially with the daemonhunters mod but ever since patch 1.3 came out i cant play it over the net coz now the game wont start :mad: so ive lost interest in it.

btw Red Alert was the first and best strategy game i ever got, nothin beats the joy of stopping a mammoth tank rush with a line of tesla coils.

Sand

Rome:tw was good but it focused more on turn-based strategy although the battles were brilliant and i hav fond memorys of the elephant attack. i never really got into any turn-based strategy game except for advance wars1+2

I found the exact opposite, the battles were good - though the enemy AI can really be pathetic when they dont have outright superiority or a good mix of troops - but Ive always found the turn based aspect of Total War to be very undeveloped. Diplomacy is practically pointless apart from bribery. When youre at war with someone youll always be at war with them - theyll only ever make peace when youve little reason to go to the table. I could go on but I wont...

For people who dont like the turn based aspect you can happily amuse yourself with historic and custom battles.

Overall R:TW is without doubt the king of strategy games. Its Civillisation-Lite with a top class RTS tacked onto it.

MrTimewalk

Starcraft, best value for money game I've ever bought, played and played it. Dawn of war comes a close second

Nietzschean

Yer missing out on the all time classic that was Total Annihilation with the core contengency addon....Deadly game

supersheep

Best strategy game? Hearts of Iron 2. Grand strategy, mind you, but I'm having so much fun romping through Europe - my azi empire stretches from Spain to the Soviet Union, and it's only 1939...
I think that this might be more of an RTS section though... Boohoo. My all-time fave was Total Annihilation, with a load of downloaded addons. So many tanks and planes! And humongous battles. Ahhh yess....

BadCharlie

supersheep wrote:

Best strategy game? Hearts of Iron 2. Grand strategy, mind you, but I'm having so much fun romping through Europe - my azi empire stretches from Spain to the Soviet Union, and it's only 1939...
I think that this might be more of an RTS section though... Boohoo. My all-time fave was Total Annihilation, with a load of downloaded addons. So many tanks and planes! And humongous battles. Ahhh yess....

Have that game also and its good. Make sure your playing it on hard as normal and easy or what ever the settings are is well just far to easy. Also get the patch for the game, Have most of the world my self but it is 1945-46 but then i did join up with allot of other countrys who do help you out from time to time.

supersheep

I was wondering why Germany stretched from the Black Sea to France and no-one was invading me... I can't get anyone to ally with me though, I had +200 relationship with Italy, and they didn't want to know about it...

BigEejit

Total Annihilation was the dogs dangly bits alright .... dust it off and play for a while every now and again .... the number of mods is incredible ....

As for modern games I'd have to go with Dawn of War .... love that game ...

kodute

hey monkeyfudge you dont still have a copy of st:botf?

oh and settlers is really annoying!

monkeyfudge

kodute wrote:

hey monkeyfudge you dont still have a copy of st:botf?

Only a few months ago I went looking for my copy and couldn't find it anywhere.

But I did find a fansite that hosted all the backup files on their server for people who owned the game so I was able to download it. I won't put the link up here as it's probably a legal grey area, and also I don't remember it...

The same site had lots of interesting total conversions. Such as one that converted all the races and ships into races and ships from Babylon 5. There is work underway on a fan-made sequel.

kodute

oh id love to get into that again....my wasted childhood. have the cd at home but its got five tiny pinpricks in it, just enough for it to crash while installing... :mad:
yeah its kinda crap the way info on the game just dropped into a black hole on the net, never to be seen again. ive seen mods for it before, 3d models weren't done right.

anyway keeping some part of the original thread in my post my vote goes for civ3!

Landa2

Civ3 very good game. a little tedious though when your at war with all 15 of the other players,decided to discontinue that one.

Battle for middle earth is one of my current favs. :rolleyes:

KamikazeBananze

Dawn of War. Oh. My. God. Amazing game. And Orks are fun.

Warcraft 3. Also bloody good. I love clicking on Peasants until they quote Monty Python.

And, for some reason, Warlords Battlecry 2. It's great fun. And the latest iteration has more races than any other RTS.

Oh yes, and Starcraft. Starcraft owns. It's a national sport in Korea.

Ivan

Starcraft, tbh.

nix

Starcraft plain and simple,

One of my top 5 games of all time tp be honest, Anybody know if they plan to make a sequel?

Also the commandos genre kicked ass too, many wasted hours finishing them games

Davei141

Hell yeah commandos and age of empires 2

TheDoc

I think Warcraft III is the best RTs along with Starcraft.

I have not played dawn of war simply because i dont think it can beat WCIII. OK so blizz made a mess and runied their own ladder system but the game was flawless, lovely colours, the whole hero combos and the array of units. And the game is pretty balanced too along with weekly tournaments and ladders etc.

I must give dawn of war a try though.

Tar.Aldarion

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

I think Warcraft III is the best RTs along with Starcraft.

I have not played dawn of war simply because i dont think it can beat WCIII. OK so blizz made a mess and runied their own ladder system but the game was flawless, lovely colours, the whole hero combos and the array of units. And the game is pretty balanced too along with weekly tournaments and ladders etc.

I must give dawn of war a try though.

Dawn of War is brilliant,Warcraft III:TFT is simply better.
Play DoW too though it's good fun but is not as balanced and micro is unheard of.

Dan Druff

Starcraft!

Kadeshh

none of the above.

pharaoh for simple relaxed gaming

and the homeworld series bout the best games you can buy.

mcgarnicle

Rise of Nations is my fave. Like a mix of Civ and AoE

Venivici

Medieval total war is my all-time fav. I like civ3 too but it doesn't get the heart racing like MTW does!
The future of stragtey games looks bright!

]HaVoC[

I found Dawn Of War a really good game, it had pretty nice graphics and i had some great little battles with those Orks! But i think the amount of units you can build could be improved even if it just increased it a bit. Although maybe thats what the expansion did haven't played it yet.

The most gameplay i got out of any Strategy had to be AOE II - Age of Kings. What a game :rolleyes:

Personally hate Generals C&C games have went downhill i remember the orignal on the playstation! Mighty! :cool:

Beno

1 Age of empires II
2 Red alert 2
3 Starcraft
4 commandos
5 Settlers 3 or 4

Im not a great fan of the newer flashier ones.

BopNiblets

-The C&C series was great, stopped after Red Alert 2 though
-Total Annihilation, awesome blastinginess! Great score too, I still have the MP3s long after my disc went missing (always keep track of who borrows your stuff, otherwise, it's called stealing )
-Homeworld series, it's like, all in space... and stuff. Homeworld 2 is spectacular eye candy.
-Shogun TW was awesome, never played much of Medieval though, and I only got Rome recently, still haven'y played it much, it seems very complex.
-Starcraft & BW, also good, haven't played in ages, same with AOE series.
-Battle For Middle-earth, I don't care what anyone says about bugs or whatnot, I have it patched to the latest version and it's grand, but then again, I've a nice system to run it on. It's hella fun watching little Gandalf running around beating the **** out of Cave Trolls and hobbits. Haha!

randomfella

1. Age of Empires 2
2. Settlers
3. Commandoes

Never played all the other ones mentioned. Except for Civ but can't remember it. What exactly is starcraft like? Anybody with screenshots or can explain in comparison to the 3 i mentioned?

Nietzschean

1. Total Annihlation
2. Starcraft
3. Dawn Of War
4. Red Alert 2
5. Red Alert
6. Enemy Nations

Maximilian

Battle Isle series ftw!

theCzar

Memnoch wrote:

The best strategy games and the ones that "pro gamers" play professoinaly are Starcraft and WC3.

Both games introduced ground breaking game play and interface use and have been the benchmark of strategy gaming.

ground breaking in what sense? I would have said they added little to their genre except to show just how well the "boring old rts fromula" can be worked.

They are the defacto MP RTS games though, never cared for it personally as i was never very good, and the standard is very high. So I always stuck to the excellent single player campaigns

My fav strategy games of all time are Civ 2/3 (hopefully soon 4) and C&C (the original, better than RA so there), also the Total War series.

There are many others i enjoyed a lot, AoE 1/2, Homeworld 1/2, Settlers 2/3/4, Pharoh/Zeus/Emperor. The aforementioned Craft games.

As to ST:BOF, pish, MOO2 is the game (but MOO3 is pish as well )

God I love Strategy

Gyck

TA tied with the DOS version of CIV. I've witnessed so many dawns break while saying to myself 'one more turn, then bed'.

I've recently installed VMware in an effort to recreate the total Win95/98 immersion for TA. So far TA is working fine. I plan to get DOS 6 going so I can run CIV and Dune 2, complete with the screwing around in my autoexec to get the soundcard emulation working. I actually still have DOS install floppies for the job...

Danecookie

Red Alert 2 - Too old but still all time favourite.
Age Of Empires - Better then RISE OF NATIONS.



Regards
-Admin Factor 75

thirdmantackle

Settlers - imagine having no blocks of stone left to build with and watching one of the little ****ers chisling away at the quarry, and then the block being brought up the path by one of the carriers to some building site where they need 20 more of the fecking things to build an important watch tower to defend your borders... Sheer brilliance in a game

Pretor

Danecookie wrote:

Red Alert 2 - Too old but still all time favourite.
Age Of Empires - Better then RISE OF NATIONS.

ahh... RA2, loads of fun in multiplayer, wasted many hours playing that but some of the weapons just seemed too wacky for my tastes and i hated the storyline, wasnt RA meant to be the prequel to the first C&C?

Age of Empires is great, just started playing it on my pda, if i had a euro for every time i missed the bus.... well u get the idea...
:v:

HybridTech

C&C Red Alert

theCzar

Pretor wrote:

ahh... RA2, loads of fun in multiplayer, wasted many hours playing that but some of the weapons just seemed too wacky for my tastes and i hated the storyline, wasnt RA meant to be the prequel to the first C&C?

Age of Empires is great, just started playing it on my pda, if i had a euro for every time i missed the bus.... well u get the idea...
:v:

yeah Red Alert was set before the original game, there was little bit of linkage (notably with the ageless Kane) and also a news report alluding to the founding of "a Global Defence Inititive"

I didn't like the wacky units either, and the W.M.A,
Weapons of Mass Annoyance like the drone and squid. RA1 was cool, but I prefered the story/characters/sides/weapons from the original C&C, i remember the first time I saw the FMV intro on my brand new 120Mhz PC.... i'm sorry I have something in my eye...

Memnoch

theCzar wrote:

ground breaking in what sense? I would have said they added little to their genre except to show just how well the "boring old rts fromula" can be worked.

in every sense. Most RTS games have 2/3 factions. But in the vast majoirty of RTS games the difference between these factions is purely cosmetic. Starcraft was completely and utterly revolutionary in that it produced 3 completely unique and different factions. Not only were these factions different cosmetically, but also deeper down. Each faction had a different philosophy behind it which actually translated to how you play it. For example.

The zerg lived up to their name, with cheaper expendable units and the ability to expand faster than any one all over the map. Lots of cool things included only being able to build 99% of their buildings on creep. All their units being mutated from larva that spawned at hatcheries. A zerg player doesn't care about individual units as much as other players. I could go on but then this post would get too long.

The terran are another great example on the other side of the scale. Where every single unit becomes extremely important and expensive. Positioning of units makes all the difference between win and loss. Rather than cover the map like the zerg the terran can win by digging in deep and fortifying their main base while using a slowly advancing strike force to strategically take out the enemy.

The protoss are just too cool for words, the fact that one single probe could build an entire base is pretty damn slick.

The variations in units and abilities allows for so many different permutations, strategies and counters that it really is much more a thinking game. Strategic control of the map, harrassment, dropping behind enemy lines for sabotage flanking the enemy, splitting the enemy forces in half, positioning of individual emplaced units, and so on and so for become so important. It's not simply a matter of building 20 super tanks to crush the enemy with like so many other RTS's out there.

Starcraft was truely revolutionary in this and no other RTS has since come out with that level of innovation to contribute to the genre the way it did.

WC3 was no slouch however while not AS innovative as starcraft, it too has introduced innovation and novel ideas in a genre saturated with repitition. It was the first RTS to introduce the Hero unit and experience game, turning the RTS into something more. With neutral creeps now to kill on the map in order to gain an advantage over your opponents. The introduction of hero units adds so much dimension of the game play that it's quite incredible, also adds the use of items and power ups and special abilities that get stronger as the hero progresses. Many games since have tried to emulate the hero concept but none have done it quite as well. WC3 was also the first RTS to introduc the concept of upkeep, and this strange new concept actually works quite well, not to mention reflecting the supply burden of maintaining a huge army. A player with a smaller but more focussed force is just as vaiable as one that simply tries to mass units endlessly. A player must balance expansion of their army with their ability to support it. There are numerous other tiny and some not so tiny innovations. Take the NE wisp for instance. A worker that can harvest a resource without consuming it (lumber), that can self detotnante to sap enemies mana and hurt summoned units rather than being destroyed. Not to mention once again the uniqueness of the 3 seperate races.

Each race FEELS like a truely unique faction, not the same basic units with different names and graphics like most RTS's try to do.

Lets not forget the EXCELLENT world editor in WC3 which has resulted in countless scenarios and minigames that are hugely popular amongst Battle.net players. Few RTS's have engines that are used so well by their fan base.

They are the defacto MP RTS games though, never cared for it personally as i was never very good, and the standard is very high. So I always stuck to the excellent single player campaigns

this is sadly true. Ppl tend not to enjoy a game they aren't good at. At the end of the day games that may be poor quality but "easy" to play for the less skilled casual gamer would be more enjoyable for said gamer. But IMO multiplayer is the most important feature of an RTS, and no other game comes close to WC3 or SC when it comes to providing balance, innovation and varaition in multiplayer mode, or longevity.

My fav strategy games of all time are Civ 2/3 (hopefully soon 4) and C&C (the original, better than RA so there), also the Total War series.

CIV 2 is definately a great strategy game. However I dont' really compare it to SC/WC3 as CIV is turn based. Don't get me wrong, I love turn based games, but I think that turn based and RTS are different genres. C&C was a great game too in it's time, but again the game play while fun was relatively simplistic when comapared to the depth of starcraft.

There are many others i enjoyed a lot, AoE 1/2, Homeworld 1/2, Settlers 2/3/4, Pharoh/Zeus/Emperor. The aforementioned Craft games.

loved AOE myself not as huge a fan of the others. AOE is the only one of the above with a good multiplayer value.

Off course diff players have diff priorities. I enjoy a good single player campaign as much as anyone. But scripting a decent campaign isn't hard. The true test of a games design only comes in multiplayer, where the human mind is allowed to run havoc with the only limitation being the ability of the game itself. This is where poor games show how limited and constricted they really are and how much they lack in depth when the player isn't being guided by a set script. This is where a complete game can shine as players get a much more rewarding and fullfilling experience with each game.

OfC MP actually provides intelligent opponents who can innovate and adapt on the fly, and that is where the real challenge lies.

Manic Moran

I'm not a huge fan of RTS games, with one major exception:

Close Combat. (Ideally, number 2, A Bridge Too Far, but others as well)

This really was strategy. There was no resource hoarding/collecting, what you started the battle with is all you had, there was no such thing as a 'rush'. You might go up against heavy enemy equipment that meant there was absolutely nothing you could do except withdraw off the map, and surrender the battle. (as the game was a sequence of battles, it wasn't so permanent a problem)

It was a much lower level of game. It incorporated morale. (In a more realistic manner than Dawn of War) You might have a half-dozen tanks max, and say, 50 men. But you had much greater fidelity and detail as to what you could do with them. If your 6pdr couldn't kill the Panther from the front, you needed to get a side shot, and a single penetration could kill it. I've never seen that in an RTS since.

It was one of the first games I loaded onto my new machine a few months ago. It's just as good now as it was then.

An honourable mention has to be Harpoon. Particularly Harpoon II, which has since been modified into Harpoon III with the multiplayer capability it should have had from the start. It may not seem like a conventional RTS, but it does fit the requirements, and was a technological tour-de-force. The modding community has worked ceaselessly since it came out, and they're still updating it. It is a lasting shame they cancelled H4, maybe I'll buy III.

For 'conventional' RTSs, I've got Dawn of War, with Winter Assault expansion, to give me the Guard. It's one of the better of the genres, I also like they way one fights repeatedly over resources.

I will probably also be reinstalling my Homeworld CDs once I get off my current IL-2 kick.

These, however, are all RTSs. For strategy in general, two worth noting are TacOps and Combat Mission. Both are tactical wargames, TacOps was the first 'simultaneous turn based' game that I know of, where both sides would plot orders to be executed simultaneously. Combat Mission brought stupidly high levels of detail in a similar 'We-Go' system and 3D graphics. Steel Panthers had a massive, massive following, and indeed still does. The latest, Windows-friendly version just got released a few months ago, but as an 'IGO-UGO' system, suffers some flaws.

Railroad Tycoon was mentioned on another thread, it was one of the first PC strategy games that people 'had to have', with Sim City (Remember that?)being a very good close contender.

Civilisation almost got me kicked out of college. I spent far too many nights playing that instead of studying.

So, my votes for best 'strategy' game ever, and best 'RTS' ever..? Difficult. Very difficult.

C&C almost has it for sheer originality. But I vote Close Combat 2 because of its realism and emphasis on treating every unit you have as important, instead of just cannon fodder to use in a mass.

Best non RTS strategy. Given the hours upon hours I spent at it, and the fact that it really kicked off the whole 'empire' style of gaming, Railroad Tycoon. RRT2 & 3 were worthy successors.

NTM

ButcherOfNog

1. Close Combat Series
2. Total War Series
3. Combat Mission Series

I feel the majority of RTS games don't really belong in a "Best Strategy Game", I also perfer tactical level games rather than strategic level ones.

Of the above games, you cannot beat the Close Combat Series for proper real-time multi-player strategy. For turn based, the pbem option in the Combat Mission series is unsurpassed. I can feel a reinstall of all my Close Combat games coming on

I don't dislike normal RTS games, I've enjoyed C&C, Red Alert, Dawn of war, Warcraft (1,2 and 3) and the AOE games, but alot of the playability in games comes from the Multiplayer end for me, the RTS thing of build orders, hotkeys and generally building/researching stuff a second or two faster than your opponents so over the first 10mins you gain a minute over them, then you out-tech them or out-number them, doesn't do it for me. Each to their own, I enjoy a setup with fixed forces, where thought, positioning and speed only when speed is needed, wins out.

Pugsley

Have to agree with Memnoch, but another thing to note with both Star+Warcraft, is not only was their multiplayer downright amasing, but they only had, imo, one of the best single players in an RTS to date, especially Frozen Throne, which had me hooked from start to finish, and I rarely bother with campaigns in RTS's either, but the craft games were definately worth seeing through to the end. Im a huge AoE2 fan (still play it multiplayer), but I felt its campaign seriously lacking (downright cr*p would probably be closer tbh).

An RTS that hasnt been mention is Kohan2, it works very differently from most RTS's in that you cant build 1 unit, only squads (from 3-9 men in each), and that if even 1 man from the squad manages to get back to a city alive, the entire squad will be resupplied for free, which adds a very interesting tactical side to things in that if you manage to flank an enemy force, or get behind them entirely you will infinately more damage than if you just fight them head on, as a head on fight will just mean the losing side's force's will retreat to a city and resupply, causing no long term damage, the only base building RTS to have implimented any real use to flanking from memory. Very good game to play on LAN aswell, as it can get quite hectic if the other guy managed to get behind your main force, or in a 3 way FFA where fights ensue are always a good way to spend some time.

Another RTS that hasnt been mentioned is Dragonshard, its a Dungeons and Dragons based RTS, while in no way a truely revolutionary RTS, it does have enough perks to make it worthy of notice, such as it has 2 floors on each map for a start, all the base building is done on the top floor, and most of the large scale scraps will be done above ground aswell, but if you go to the underworld (Khyber), it comes down to a smaller scale dungeon crawl, where you beat your way through horde's of monsters and find treasure chests, and magical items, both of which can seriously effect the outcome of the wars above ground. Also has a very good way of using XP, you get XP from killing anything, and certain scrolls can give it too, and its spent leveling up your army, you upgrade unit types individually, ie: you can spend some leveling up your priests, this will give all priests increased mana, health, damage, a new ability, and now each of your priests will have an extra soldier to accompany them. The soldiers are far weaker than the units you train but they add a lot of bulk to your army and add a lot to its lastability, and can be resupplied for free at a city if your captain survives, and dont work in Khyber (thus larger armies above ground than below), each unit gets 1 soldier per level of XP, up to a maximum of 4 soldiers at level 5. Anyway, its a pretty decent RTS, and worth getting IMO.

[/rant]

theCzar

A detailed reply, thanks Memnoch, but I'll agree to disagree.

Memnoch wrote:

[revolutionary] in every sense

When I say "boring old RTS formula" I mean build-a-base, collect resources, build army, defend base, destroy other base. Starcraft did it very well but didn't revolutionise it.

Memnoch wrote:

Each faction had a different philosophy behind it which actually translated to how you play it

It didn't invent the concept of different sides with different weapons, it DID take the idea to the next level, and it was the first game where it really worked and affected gameplay. I guess you can call that revolutionary if you like, but I see it as building on or perfecting a long established idea.

Memnoch wrote:

The variations in units and abilities allows for so many different permutations, strategies and counters that it really is much more a thinking game. Strategic control of the map, harrassment, dropping behind enemy lines for sabotage flanking the enemy, splitting the enemy forces in half, positioning of individual emplaced units, and so on and so for become so important.

In regards to gameplay, i don't think it massively added strategic depth, (for example) using drop ships to leave reavers behind enemy lines isn't very different from the Chinook (or even kamikaze APC) and engineers sucker punch from ol' C&C. Starcraft certainly had a greater scope for trying out different stratagies but as I keep saying, not revolutionary which is the point of my debate.

The single biggest revolutionary concept introduced since C&C was fog of war developed from WC2, and I think FoW was what made Starcraft a lot better than RA for MP.

Memnoch wrote:

WC3 was no slouch however while not AS innovative as starcraft, it too has introduced innovation and novel ideas in a genre saturated with repitition. It was the first RTS to introduce the Hero unit and experience game, turning the RTS into something more

WC3 is lot more revolutionary than SC, as it was the first (of my experience, I never played Warhammer games) to try and merge an RTS with diablo style RPG. Hence the full use of heroes, special abilities and upkeep to force you to use them. On the other hand, the core of the game is the still the "boring old RTS formula". That the variety of units and their abilities have improved over the years since the term RTS was coined is no surprise, but I don't call a very good example of the tried and true formula revolutionary.

AoE had heroes, they were just pants. A single unique unit with special abilities? sounds like Tanya / Colonel whats-his-name. Also the small squad of units that you have to take care of sounds like some of the no base missions from C&C series. Other games had units gain experience, it just didn't impact too much on gameplay.

Memnoch wrote:

Not to mention once again the uniqueness of the 3 seperate races.

BTW isn't there 4 races in WC3? *crowd at the back clamours: "ooooooh, he has 'em"*

Memnoch wrote:

CIV 2 is definately a great strategy game. However I dont' really compare it to SC/WC3 as CIV is turn based.

I wasn't comparing Civ to SC/WC3, becuase you're right I can't. I provided my Fav RTS and TBS in reference to the original thread subject.

C&C didn't invent the RTS (Dune 2 was one of the first games I ever got), but I stand by C&C, it the was the first RTS that made me ooh and ah, and SC and WC3, while fantastic games in their own right, haven't affected me the same way.

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of RTS games, with one major exception:

Close Combat. (Ideally, number 2, A Bridge Too Far, but others as well)

PS oh man I forgot about a bridge too far, absoloute class. Trying to hold off Fireflies, Achillies and the dreaded Churchill AVRE, on the map before Son town with 1 88mm with rubbish field of fire and 1 panzerschrek team hiding in a barn

"but will the final bridge over the lower Rhine, prove, to be a bridge to far" Class.

Manic Moran

ButcherOfNog wrote:

1. Close Combat Series
2. Total War Series
3. Combat Mission Series

I feel the majority of RTS games don't really belong in a "Best Strategy Game", I also perfer tactical level games rather than strategic level ones.

Of the above games, you cannot beat the Close Combat Series for proper real-time multi-player strategy. For turn based, the pbem option in the Combat Mission series is unsurpassed. I can feel a reinstall of all my Close Combat games coming on
.

Mr Nog, I happen to have a gauntlet here...

Present face...

*THWACK*

Pick your game. (CMBO/CMBB/CMAK)

NTM