Forums → Games → What makes a strategy game good?

What do you like in your strategy games?

Strategy. No strategy game is worse than one that just say "unit spam" or "turtle". Even on the most basic difficulty levels, AI (if you're programming AI), your units and buildings and just about everything else should force you into making tactical decisions -- is moving onto this square a good idea? and such.

I also like some level of unrepetitiveness. Getting comfortable with a race and then challenging yourself by playing another race is nothing if it's always the same units available, the same perks and technologies. Expand on every race, if you're including them (which you should), and give everyone their own units to allow people to play with everyone and choose their favourite character. This will not only give everyone the strategic advantages necessary when they become accustomed to a race and the things that come in the package, but everyone will want to be finding out what race works for them the best.

What is your favorite strategy game? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?

Civilization. Beautiful game, in both senses of gameplay and graphics. I don't expect you guys to be making fully rendered 3D graphics, but I do expect you to buy Civilization IV and do a tad of market research.

Are there any features or aspects of a game which you've thought was great, or awful?

I remember playing Master of Orion 2 when I was VERY young (that's a strategy series that reaches back to the DOS era AFAIK). It had a system whereby when you initiated in combat it would almost zoom in on the battlefield, and you'd have full control of your units and could move them around the grid, utilizing cannons that didn't turn all the way around, getting your fighters around the back, or sitting your Deathstar-like tank right in the middle of the battlefield, it made combat so in-depth and strategic and the MoO community went wild over it.

Try and do that. Cinematic cut-scenes whenever you go into the battle don't look good unless they're done in 3D. Additionally, that's all based on luck, MoO 2's combat required sheer skill and practice, so it's more likely to keep you coming back and, more importantly, make you think about how your ships are built and when you go into combat, put some forethought into how you're going to play it out.

Do you prefer strategy games which are realistic, or do you prefer strategy games which include fantasy races and magic?

I don't care where the setting is as long as it's immersive. Civilization travels from 4000 BC to 2010 AD, Rise of Nations ran along a very similar time scale. Rise of Legends is set far in the future, and Avernum is set far in the past. Galactic Civilization II was planetary domination, whilst Homeworld II was awesome space combat where the objective was wipe out all the enemy ships.

None of these settings, nor the objectives that come with them, bear any connection whatsoever. I'm just making a point, if the gameplay is good and the setting goes with that, you're good to go.

I hope I've given you some inspiration.

Sorry about the double post but:

Avernum is set far in the past

What am I talking about? I mean Battle for Wesworth. Just as an additional note now that this is a separate post, in Battle for Wesworth your characters earn experience points and as they level up and get stronger you can use them throughout every campaign mission.

It adds a sense of risk when you put your level 20 archer on the frontline or worried that the newest addition to your force is going to be brutally slaughtered by a wolf before he reaches level 2.

TBS strategy is hardly strategy. IRL people don't sit down and wait for you to take your turn.

RTS requires you to think on your feet more, and have a good response time.

Being strategic and being believable are two completely different aspects of a game. Normally, turn based strategies are far more difficult than real time ones, since real time ones just ask you to chuck out a barracks as fast as possible and then spam the place with your second-best unit.

Turn based strategies often trap you, when tiles are taken, when borders expand, or with complicated battle interfaces. RTSs are just unit spam with too many extras added on, they're fun, but they never make you think as hard as a well-developed, tactical TBS.

I like games where u controll your troops and tell them where and when to go.

. . .

Being strategic and being believable are two completely different aspects of a game. Normally, turn based strategies are far more difficult than real time ones, since real time ones just ask you to chuck out a barracks as fast as possible and then spam the place with your second-best unit.
Turn based strategies often trap you, when tiles are taken, when borders expand, or with complicated battle interfaces. RTSs are just unit spam with too many extras added on, they're fun, but they never make you think as hard as a well-developed, tactical TBS.

Lol you have never played a RTS before lol

Lol you have never played a RTS before lol

Granted, some RTSs take some skill. Strategic 4Xs are generally more difficult though and require a lot more consideration for every move.

What do you like in your strategy games?

I like the thinking required, aswell as accuracy and well. Variety in Strategy.

What is your favorite strategy game? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?

This is in no way 'fact', only my opinion from personal experiance. Age of Empires II. The reason is simply because of it's the only one I played online with other people. What I like?
With all AoE games, it possesses great knowledge about what you play whilst maintaining great gameplay experiance. It requires variety in units which make it harder for any rookie to play, especially with early offense strategies (which for some people is the only way to beat them, really).
The bad thing about AoEII? Preserving resources. I love the game and the fighting, but the Gold resource runs insanely low after a short while and without teammates you will crumble if you cannot sustain the supply. The main 4 things I <3 about AoEIII is this:
1. Mills / Farms no longer need to be resupplied, saving resources (and time) very effectively.
2. They have Gold Mills / Farms, called Plantations, which allow unlimited supply of Gold, ofcourse throughout a very prolonged period of time, which also means more villagers = more income.
3. Villagers don't need a supply dropoff. It just makes more sense. I know - that sounds stupid as a villager can bring 100 wood to build a house by him / herself. But it's also kinda stupid that you gain 100 wood and instantly teleport it there from a lumber camp? Not that it matters, it's better for gameplay.
4. Different Civilizations. Like - REALLY different. In AoEII some are very different while others can be considered identical. But AoEIII has 8 European Civilizations all boasting different perks.
5. Ships don't cost population - instead you've a limit, which is very good as it can limit the Frames you get if you have a ton of Galleons. No. Seriously, even a 2v2 with me, my brother in law and 2 hard enemies nearly lagged us out.
6. Differing Population costs. I like that bigger units take more population as it makes it need to be treated like a proper resource. In AoEII it's usually "Can I spend 3375 food for 15 Persian War Elephants?", now it's more like "Do I want 5 Siege Elephants but lose out on 20 Skirmishers and 5 Dragoons?". Oh, and yeah, it needs variety, which it also enforces. Which is great!

Are there any features or aspects of a game which you've thought was great, or awful?

I'll just point upwards and leave it as that. ^

Do you prefer strategy games which are realistic, or do you prefer strategy games which include fantasy races and magic?

Realistic? Depends on what you mean. If it's say.... Company of Heroes style, where as if your men are pinned down you can order them to retreat and they run exceptionally fast - for their life, as it were. That is a great mechanic, but others. Not so much.
I like magic ones, not solely but I don't mind.
Really this question is Not Applicable - it can only be told from the games made.
Armies of Exigo / Warcraft series - Magic and Fantasy
StarCraft series / Command and Conquer 'in the future' games - Supposedly realistic future RTS
Age of Empires series - Medieval realistic game.
Company of Heroes / Command and Conquer 'in the present' games - Realistic present RTS.

That's the best I can put it in short time, and yeah. I do think about all of this I say, :P

I got a headache.

If you're talking about a Flash Strategy game all I can say is Epic War II is the best due to story and overall gameplay.
Age of War? Wtf is that? I played it and it sucks. No offense, I mean I would prefer go through a game and know I'm advancing but Age of War is &quotlay once, you do it, done.", Epic War II has different upgrades and such which you get and thus further define your play style.
I don't expect much from RTS Flash Games, simply due to the amount of info on it. They're still good fun though :P

- H

Graphics,deep storyline,epic multiplayer,and at least 50 unlockable units.

....
50 Unlockable units?
I don't know RTS's that let you unlock 10! Let alone 50.
Unless it's a flashgame

If you mean a proper RTS, please tell me of one that has so many unlockables. I'd love to see it

And that's only one question you answered :<

- H