CHUD.com Community › Forums › VIDEO GAMES & RPG › Video Games › Turn based strategy games
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Turn based strategy games

post #1 of 26
7/18/06 at 4:57am
Thread Starter 
Anyone play these types of games ? It seems all the threads are about action type games (with some roleplaying thrown in). I am a big fan of this genre of computer games. I am interested in any opinions about them (for possible future purchases or game play ideas).
Reply
post #2 of 26
7/18/06 at 5:04am
I much prefer turn-based strategy games, because they actually force you to stop and think and use - hey! - strategy. Too many RTS games just become frantic exercises in resource harvesting so you can build loads of units and drag-click the enemy to death.

The greatest turn-based strategy game of all time, and my vote for the greatest computer game of all time, is Chaos.

I also had a lot of fun with Vandal Hearts II on the PSOne, and Future Tactics on the Xbox. Lord of the Rings Tactics for the PSP is pretty good, even if it takes a long, steaming shit on the continuity of the story.
Reply
post #3 of 26
7/18/06 at 5:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
I much prefer turn-based strategy games, because they actually force you to stop and think and use - hey! - strategy. Too many RTS games just become frantic exercises in resource harvesting so you can build loads of units and drag-click the enemy to death.
I totally agree. And never heard of Chaos, going to have to do some investgating on that.

I just play on my computer these days. Though i still have my Playstation 2. Galatic Civilization 2 has been eating up my time recently. Much better than the first. Though I have not gotten into designing my own ships (other than picking weapons and such). The computer AI seems pretty good from what I have played so far (wish I could same the same for Heroes 5).
Reply
post #4 of 26
7/18/06 at 5:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
IThe greatest turn-based strategy game of all time, and my vote for the greatest computer game of all time, is Chaos.
Just read up on the link and Chaos sounds pretty cool. Where the games quicker than some of the modern marathon games ? I enjoy long epic games (not against other players though), but some times I want to play a game all the way through and not spend a few hours doing it.
Reply
post #5 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
I much prefer turn-based strategy games, because they actually force you to stop and think and use - hey! - strategy. Too many RTS games just become frantic exercises in resource harvesting so you can build loads of units and drag-click the enemy to death.
You hit the nail on the head with that. It takes a little bit of strategy to place your initial units, but then it's a race to see who can build up an army quicker. Then, you send wave after wave of units into enemy territory to wipe them out and take over their resources. They can get dull rather quickly.

One of my favorite strategy games of all time was called 'Robosport'. It was mainly a Mac game in the late 80s/early 90s, but I believe that it was available on the PC as well. It was a top down view of a maze of buildings that you'd send your team of robots into. In your turn, you'd program each of your robots to move, scan, shoot, whatever...then the other player(s) would program their team(s) to do the same thing (or the AI would control the computer team(s)). You'd watch and see ONLY what your team of robots would see, and have to plan accordingly. You could play games like Capture the Flag, Tag, and just outright Kill The Enemy. We played this for hours.

For most strategy games, I stick with the board games from companies like Avalon Hill. 'Squad Leader' is great fun, for instance.
Reply
post #6 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint G
Just read up on the link and Chaos sounds pretty cool. Where the games quicker than some of the modern marathon games ? I enjoy long epic games (not against other players though), but some times I want to play a game all the way through and not spend a few hours doing it.
What I always loved about Chaos was that it was as easy or hard, as long or as short, as you wanted. If you want a quicker game, just play with less wizards and give them all lower ratings. If you want an epic, go with all eight wizards at maximum difficulty.

Considering the whole thing was made to fit into 48k, it generates a fantastic illusion of genuine AI from very simple behaviour algorithms. And the balance of spells and abilities makes for a genuinely tactical experience, full of surprises and coincidences.

The guy who wrote it, Julian Gollop, also made Laser Squad (also excellent) and now sells an online turn-based update called Laser Squad Nemesis (www.lasersquadnemesis.com).
Reply
post #7 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:43am
Here's an interview I did with Gollop a few years back...

Quote:
Mention the word “strategy” to a gamer these days, and they’ll tell you about frantically harvesting resources, building generic bases and then click-dragging dozens of anonymous units and sending them to attack another bunch of units and bases on the other side of a map before they do the same to you.
Needless to say, it wasn’t always thus. Back in 1984, strategy games meant plotting, planning and taking your time before committing to a course of action. Strategy, in other words. It meant turn-based gameplay, and the pioneer of turn-based strategy games was the mighty Chaos, coded by young games enthusiast Julian Gollop while studying at the London School of Economics.
If you’re reading this magazine, then you must surely have played this classic game. Or at least heard of it. If you haven’t, and you’re not reading this magazine after mistaking it for Practical Topiary, then let us explain…
Subtitled “Battle of the Wizards”, Chaos was at once both astonishingly simple, and surprisingly complex. Set in a square black void, up to eight wizards used their randomly generated list of spells to conjure up creatures both earthly and fantastical to destroy each other. What made the game so clever, and one of the reasons why it remains a satisfying strategy experience to this day, is the way that the spells cast would influence the gameworld. Every spell had a percentage chance of success. Something simple like a Giant Rat was easy – you couldn’t fail to summon one of those. By contrast, the fabled and nigh-indestructable Golden Dragon had a 10% chance of success. But every creature also had an alignment – Law, Chaos or Neutral. The more Law spells were cast, the more Lawful the world became, and the easier it was to cast more Law spells. The reverse was true of Chaos spells. So by cunning use of your arsenal, you could utilise your weaker spells to shift the balance of the world in such a way that your strongest monster became less of a gamble.
Of course, you could also cast any monster as an illusion for guaranteed success. Trouble was, any wizard could instantly vaporise such a beast by casting a Disbelieve spell on it. Yet again, a simple idea in theory, but layered on top of the other game rules, it opened up a deceptively broad range of options so the game would never play the same twice.
Much like the chaos theory that would later steal its name, Chaos managed to produce an eerily lifelike world of cause, effect and random change within the confines of the ZX Spectrum’s 48k memory. It influenced every strategy game that followed, and is still much-loved today.
Retro Gamer was lucky enough to prise Julian Gollop away from his latest computer strategy project to delve into the mystic mists surrounding the creation of Chaos.

Retro Gamer: You started programming on the ZX81. Did you find that learning in the confines of such tiny memory taught you how to squeeze the most out of a system?

Julian Gollop: Without a doubt, and it forced me to learn assembly language, rather than rely on BASIC. Then I upgraded to a 16k rampack, which did allow a lot more to be done but suffered from the dreaded “rampack wobbly”. After a frustrating attempt to glue the ZX81 and rampack to a large plank of wood, I quickly moved to the 48k ZX Spectrum. At the time I though this machine had huge amounts of memory and a significant improvement on the 16k Spectrum (did anyone actually buy that version?). I even went back to programming BASIC for a while.

RG: You went on to create Nebula and Rebelstar Raiders for the Spectrum. What would you say you took from those first commercial projects - coding tricks, publishing experiences - that helped you later in your career?

JG: I guess the popularity of Rebelstar Raiders led me to recreate the basic design in future games, but I can’t say that the programming was particularly great. Nebula was essentially an early version of space games like Master of Orion, and many others. It’s a shame that I never re-visited this theme. At the time I made these games I was in my year off before going to college, so I hadn’t seriously considered making computer games as a career at this stage, but I did enjoy the whole process of creating a game, including the programming, art and sound.

RG: Were you a role-playing gamer before Chaos came along?

JG: Yes, certainly. I played quite a bit of D&D, some Dragonquest and the superb Traveller. I was more keen on board games though. I had a collection of fantasy games, and wargames, by SPI, Avalon Hill, TSR, and others.

RG: How did Chaos come about? Did you come up with the game and then take it to Games Workshop, or did they come to you?

JG: Chaos was actually based on a board game I created in 1982 after seeing some kids at school playing a Games Workshop board game called Warlock. They didn’t let me play the game, so I made my own. I was intrigued by the fact that Warlock used cards, but less impressed by the fact that there was no arena for characters to move around. Although I never played Warlock, I was sure my game was better. Then one of my school friends who had a BBC computer programmed a computer version of my board game, which worked quite well. Unfortunately, due to the limited memory of the BBC it had to be programmed in text mode, and graphically it didn’t look very good. So two years later, after I got my Spectrum and learned to program assembly language, I decided to make my own version of the game. I made a few enhancements to the game system, but it is essentially very similar to my original board game.
At first it was going to be published by Redshift, the company a group of friends had set up, but the financier of the company pulled the plug on it, so we had to go elsewhere. At the time Games Workshop wanted to get into the computer games market, and Chaos was among several games we did for them. My colleagues produced computer version of Games Workshop board games, Talisman and Battelcars, but Chaos was the only one which was completely original. Well, apart from the fact that it was actually inspired by a Games Workshop game that I hadn’t actually played several years previously.

RG: How long did it take you to program Chaos?

JG: I can’t remember exactly how long it took, because the programming was interrupted when I started university, but I soon got bored of studying and went back to programming part time until it was finished.

RG: What were the hardest parts of the game to code?

JG: Nothing was particularly difficult except that it was the first long program I had written in assembly language. The ZX microdrives were a bit of a pain though, but I never actually lost any data.

RG: How did you go about creating a challenging artificial intelligence opponent in only 48k?

JG: I based the AI on some behavioural rules, plus a small element of randomness. The wizard avoided threats, but took opportunities to attack, whilst his creatures attacked the threats to the wizard, or went for the enemy wizards. It probably appeared more clever than it actually was.

RG: What process did you go through deciding which monsters to include, what they'd look like and how to convey them in only a few frames of animation?

JG: The monsters were entirely based on my original board game. I wanted to include creatures that had some unique traits, such as being undead, flying, or breathing fire.

RG: Do you have a favourite monster or spell from the game?
My favourite spell has to be the Turmoil spell, which randomly repositions everything on the map. However, you could only get this spell from the enchanted wood, and there was only about a 1 in 65 chance of getting it. Otherwise, it has to be the Gooey Blob – which appeared again in Lords of Chaos and again in Magic & Mayhem, the PC game we made in 1998 that was inspired by Chaos.

RG: Creating a monster as an illusion - clever gambit, or a waste of a perfectly good spell?

JG: Depends on your opponent really, but it works better against the AI than against a human opponent.

RG: Are you surprised at the continuing popularity of Chaos?

JG: Yes, very much so.

RG: What do you make of the many homebrew attempts to create a version for the modern PC?

JG: The more the merrier. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I would like to see some innovations on the basic idea.

RG: Can you tell us a little about the transition from Chaos to Laser Squad? It's a much more sophisticated game engine.

JG: Yes, Laser Squad was my second attempt at a major assembly language program, and much better designed. The first major decision was to create a larger map with a scrolling map viewing window, which was later used in Lords of Chaos, of course.

RG: You also coded Laser Squad for the C64 and Amstrad. How did you find the different machines, and did you have a sentimental attachment to the Speccy?

JG: The Speccy will always be my favourite. It was truly a blank canvass, with very little hardware to deal with. The C64 was the most impressive machine for games though, with its sophisticated sound and sprites – but what a hideous disk drive it had! The Amstrad was solid enough, but a bit lacklustre in comparison.

RG: Lords of Chaos seemed very much like the best bits of Chaos and Laser Squad combined. Was that the idea behind it?

JG: Yes, and to create more of a RPG type game. Your wizard character improved from mission to mission. If we had added a storyline linking many missions we would have had something similar to the Japanese tactical RPGs that became popular at a later date.
Reply
post #8 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:43am
I was a huge fan of the Warlords series, and I'm a total slut for anything that looks remotely like a galactic conquest sim.

Galactic Civilizations II was pretty fun, and that's a fairly recent addition to the genre.
Reply
post #9 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:44am
cont...

Quote:
RG: What were your feelings on the transition between the 8bit and 16bit eras? How did the technology affect your work methods? And going from so-called "bedroom coding" to working with larger teams and corporate publishers, how did the changing industry impact on the process?

JG: It didn’t affect us much at the time. We went rapidly from programming the ST and Amiga to the PC, with X-Com. By that stage we really wanted to program on the PC, because it was the most popular platform for strategy games. However, there was still just me and my brother Nick working on the games. So our team never really expanded until 1995 when we finished the first X-Com game. Then we expanded like crazy and we were working on two big projects at a time. It was still a fun process, if stressful at times. However, dealing with publishers was always quite difficult and we had severe problems with the X-Com Apocalypse project, where we were doing all the coding, but Microprose were providing the artwork.

RG: How did you feel about Laser Squad 2 turning into X-COM and it subsequently being absorbed into Microprose? Was it hard to watch something you created turn into a corporate franchise that was out of your hands?

JG: Actually, at the time we were sick to death of all things X-Com because of the problems with X-Com Apocalypse. However, it is sad that we haven’t been able to continue the series as it should have been done. Instead the franchise was squandered on games that bore little relation to the first three. I remember attending E3 in 1999 where there was a huge display for X-Com: Alliance, with dwarves dressed as aliens, and giant plastic alien foetuses in tubes. I wandered up to a screen where an enthusiastic PR guy asked me whether I was familiar with the series. I said that I had played it a few times. Then he was trying explain how they had listened to the fans and how the game was returning to its roots. All I could see was a strange FPS hybrid running on the Unreal engine with little strategy involved. The game never made it to the shelves.

RG: Is Laser Squad Nemesis a deliberate attempt to get back to the small creative teams and classic gameplay of the good old days?

JG: Yes, for sure. It has been a great fun project, and I have enjoyed playing a strategy game online against other human opponents.

RG: What does online play bring to the strategy genre?

JG: It brings a real sense of challenge, knowing that you are not just beating another robotic, cheating AI. But most of all it creates a great player community who have a lot of input into the game.

RG: What are your plans beyond Laser Squad Nemesis? Is Sci-Fi your preferred genre, or would you like to dip a toe in swords-and-sorcery fantasy waters again?

JG: We have gone for another small project. It’s a strategy game based on one of my earlier Spectrum games which is not entirely unlike Laser Squad. The most interesting thing of all though, is that we are developing it for the GameBoy Advance. But after this project I would certainly like to go back to they fantasy genre again.

RG: The success of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings must have stirred up a lot of interest in the idea of warring wizards. Were you ever tempted to cash in with a new Chaos?

JG: I have never though about it like that. I doubt there would be much cashing in, but I would certainly like to revive it in some way.

RG: Finally, what do you think of the state of the current strategy genre? Specifically, the impact of "real-time strategy", which I personally feel has resulted in a lot of games that are all about frantic mouse-clicking but very little to do with actual strategy. I think you need the turn-based system in order to give the gamer a chance to really wrap their brain around a situation...

JG: I couldn’t agree with you more. In some ways it has become a little bit depressing in the PC market, with so many games which are little more than variations on the real-time strategy theme. I did enjoy Warcraft 3 though, simply for its exuberance and quality. However, there have been some real gems available on other platforms. In particular I like Disgaea on the PS2, which is a bit like a fantasy version of X-Com on acid, and also Advance Wars and Fire Emblem for the GBA. There is hope for us all.
Reply
post #10 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:03am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
Galactic Civilizations II was pretty fun, and that's a fairly recent addition to the genre.
While I have been playing these types of games for about 5 or so years, I have basically only played a few games. The Civ series mostly (Civ 2 to the present badass Civ 4). My favorite for a long time was Alpha Centari. When I updated my computer I could not get it to run on my new CPU (it did not recognize it). That game was the best of Civ series (which basically was), at least until Civ 4 came out. I wish they would do a new version Of Alpha Cent, but I had read that the game (and its expansion) were big sales disappintments. Which almost definetly removes any chance of a new version on an updated engine.
Reply
post #11 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
Oh, also I could not get this link to work.
Reply
post #12 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:13am
Weird. It works for me.

Try www.lsnemesis.com instead.
Reply
post #13 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:16am
Alpha Centauri required a level of thinking that I'm obviously incapable of. That game was impossible for me.
Reply
post #14 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:18am
You might want to give Massive Assault and Shattered Union a try.
Reply
post #15 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:29am
Masters Of Orion? Anyone?
Reply
post #16 of 26
7/18/06 at 12:51pm
You wanna go old school, my friends and I wasted hours playing M.U.L.E. over and over again.
Reply
post #17 of 26
7/18/06 at 6:42pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
Alpha Centauri required a level of thinking that I'm obviously incapable of. That game was impossible for me.
I am guessing you were not a fan of the Civ series then.

I have vague memories of trying to play MULE on the nintendo. What I realy rember is that my friends and I could not figure out we were suppose to even be doing. I guess if came my way now that would not be the case (or at least I hope).
Reply
post #18 of 26
7/18/06 at 7:47pm
I had a fantastic turn-based WWII game for the Saturn. I think it was called Iron Storm in the US.

Recently though there don't seem to be many turn-based games. Everything's real time. Can anyone suggest a good recent title?
Reply
post #19 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:00pm
Thread Starter 
I tend to like the explore/build type games, more than the straight war games. With that in mind, I recommend Civilization 4. It is a major leap forward in the series after the lackluster Civ 3. In the same vein, but more space oriented I would recommend Galactic Civ 2. It is more war oriented than Civ 4, but follows the same idea of exploration, building, and expanding.

I own Heroes 5, and while I love the game, the lack of maps and the computers AI seems a little weak (my first game on it resulted in me destroying my comp opponents). A map editor is suppose to come out any day now. A random map generator is suppose to come with the planned expansion.

I should note that I am not a big fan of scenarios in these games. While they are fun at times, I do not like the pattern asspect of it. I do not want to play the scenario a few times to learn that a ambush occurs on turn 100 so be ready! Or a big army just appears on a ceratin part of a map, so if you are not prepared for that then oh well, try again. I love the random map generator that some of these games have. They seem to offer infinite replay, and with each game being different from the last.
Reply
post #20 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:10pm
No, I loved the Civ games, but Alpha Centauri had a far more ridiculous level of obnoxious micromanagement. It felt more like work than playing a game.
Reply
post #21 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
No, I loved the Civ games, but Alpha Centauri had a far more ridiculous level of obnoxious micromanagement. It felt more like work than playing a game.
I really do not agree with that. The game added more choices on certain aspects, such as goverment choice and military unit creation. I guess you had to worry about the enviroment also. Its heart was the same as the Civ series, same sorta city building/managing. War was fought in the same manner, again just with a few innovations. Everything they added to this game ultimately ended up in the Civ series. It either appeared in Civ 3 (they actually made that game on the Alpha Centarui engine, just changing the graphics to fit Civ and doing modding), or finally in Civ 4 (goverment aspects). All except the unit building (which intersting enough appered in the unrelated Gal Civ 2).
Reply
post #22 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:33pm
I have heard good things about Civilization 4. Sounds like Sim City with ten times as many variables. I'll check it out at some point.

Now, any wargame fans? I think Rise of Nations is partially turn-based and supposedly very good, anyone play it?
Reply
post #23 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:37pm
Rise of Nations is pretty good, so far as the RTS aspect goes. Then there's the turn-based World Map. It's functional, and works well enough, but for someone who's used to the Total War series, it's way too shallow. Not enough options, and it's really short. There's no really any empire management. The only strategy is deciding what province to attack next. Fun, but not strategic enough.
Reply
post #24 of 26
7/18/06 at 9:44pm
Civ 4 is good, except for the arcane procedures I had to go through to install had (has to download all the art as a separate pack file and extract it, pain in the ASS -- and this was an official fix due to problems with, you guessed it, Service Pack 2).

The Heroes of Might and Magic have been treading water for a while. Prettier versions of the same game for the last three iterations. It's a fun game, but I don't need to keep buying newer versions of it.

And if you want a steep (read:impossible) learning curve, try Star Wars: Rebellion. Take Empire at War and add the complexity of your average Palladium RPG, then multiply by 100.

I had a suprising amount of fun with Risk and Risk II on the PC.
Reply
post #25 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Civ 4 is good, except for the arcane procedures I had to go through to install had (has to download all the art as a separate pack file and extract it, pain in the ASS -- and this was an official fix due to problems with, you guessed it, Service Pack 2).

The Heroes of Might and Magic have been treading water for a while. Prettier versions of the same game for the last three iterations. It's a fun game, but I don't need to keep buying newer versions of it.

And if you want a steep (read:impossible) learning curve, try Star Wars: Rebellion. Take Empire at War and add the complexity of your average Palladium RPG, then multiply by 100.

I had a suprising amount of fun with Risk and Risk II on the PC.
Heroes 5 was the prettiest yet. It did actual add to the comabt, making it better. It also removed some aspects of 4 that dtracted from the game. The lack of random map genertor prevents me from playing this game alot more (I find it less fun to replay a map). Just to add I was plenty pissed when I shelled out the extra dough for the limited edition of 5 (pre-order). It came with heroes 3 and 4 (as advertised), but they were without the expansuon packs. this meant no random generator for 3, which was my whole reason for getting the limited edition. I had owned 3, but leant it to a friend, and to amke a long story short (too late), it is now lost. I guess i got to search the internet for a copy of 3 (full/ultimate/platinum/whatever edition).

I might have to check out the Risk games. I almost bought one of them in the past, and I loved the board game.
Reply
post #26 of 26
7/18/06 at 10:12pm
The Risk games aren't the height of invention or graphics, but they do a good job of replicating the board gameplay, and there are several different modes to play in.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games
CHUD.com Community › Forums › VIDEO GAMES & RPG › Video Games › Turn based strategy games