Company Of Heroes is a very challenging game in my opinion. You have to plan everything so meticulously for online play or you just get dominated by people with a great game plan.
Poll: Calling master strategists
- Thread starter Mr.Switchblade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That makes me sad to hear that people have not played AOE, I ended up buying the first two AOE games twice, and AOE 2 + the Conquerors expansion about 3 times. Most recently I picked up all 4 games for 10$ at Wal-Mart, I suggest EVERYONE gets it. I think the game requires a fair amount of strategy, however, the most thinking goes into chess.Mr.Switchblade said:
We are talking about 2 entirely different games dude. Your thinking Age of Empires. Age of Wonders is totally different in almost every way.Chinchama said:
I haven't played too many RTS games, but I enjoy the ones I have.
I have to say, I prefer Red Alert 2 and Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders for my RTS shenanigans.
In KuF, you need actual tactics to win, instead of just bum-rushing, and RA2 makes it easier for the player if they do so.
I have to say, I prefer Red Alert 2 and Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders for my RTS shenanigans.
In KuF, you need actual tactics to win, instead of just bum-rushing, and RA2 makes it easier for the player if they do so.
A-fucking-men. As for Chess, I find the game too restrictive and not strategic at all. Yeah, that's right, I said it. Chess comes down to rote memorization of books and "strategies" that have dissected the game to death, making it less a game of strategy and more a game of brute-force mental processing (which is why computers can beat chessmasters but even a mediocre player can beat the AI on any computer strategy game.)apsham said:
First of all "aint" isn't good grammar, second, I do get fairly excited when my carefully planned strategy lets me checkmate my opponent when he thinks that he is winning, and thirdly I would like to congratulate you for making me actually look up the exact definition of visceral.Horticulture said:
Chess; in general I have always found turn-based games of any sort to require a LOT more planning than real-time strategy, where in many cases the player with faster reflexes or micromanagement wins (Zerg-Rushing in Starcraft, Archer-Rushing in Warcraft 3). Advance Wars would be the video gaming equivalent, but still not nearly as complex.
It was made abundantly clear just how much I have to learn about Chess when I was invited to a tournament last year and lost every single match by more than 10 pieces. Granted, most of the other players were older men who played professionally but still...
It was made abundantly clear just how much I have to learn about Chess when I was invited to a tournament last year and lost every single match by more than 10 pieces. Granted, most of the other players were older men who played professionally but still...
Eh, I'd agree if not for the fact that I just get pissed and turn off my game whenever a character I care about dies.Souplex said:
Anyways.
Civilization for me, but that's mostly because I've never played someone who grasped even the basic concept of Chess.
In terms of gameplay and mechanics, you surely can't for a second imagine that Fire Emblem is simpler than Chess, which I notice is on the list.Mr.Switchblade said:
While I would argue that FE is more tactical than it is strategic, no turn-based game has given me a greater - or more fulfilling - challenge. In games like Starcraft, making a little mistake wasn't a complete disaster as you could at least make an attempt to recover.
What happens in Fire Emblem if you leave one single unit out of place for one single turn? The enemy slips past and kills your healer. Forever.
Chess, hands down. The game requires more raw strategy than any other game because that is all the game is. Nothing else even comes close.
I voted Total War, mainly cause there's just so much to do each and every turn, and there's rarely if ever nothing that you need to be keeping an eye on.