An RTS that plays like chess
- Thread starter SunoffaBeach
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd say Rome: Total War.
Or at a pinch, a little heard of game called Axis vs Allies. The AI is very hard, even on easy. So you might like that if you want a challenge. It's an old game too, so it'll hopefully be cheap.
Or at a pinch, a little heard of game called Axis vs Allies. The AI is very hard, even on easy. So you might like that if you want a challenge. It's an old game too, so it'll hopefully be cheap.
Nothing is impossible but some things are difficult. An example of a succsesfull combination is the "Risk" funmap for wc3. There is a timer in the right corner of the screen with a countdown. When the countdown finishes you get gold and bonus units depending on your territory. Building units works instantly. So while your fighting rts battles with the units that were already build the econamy and all the macro game(so the grant strategy) is turnbased as you need the resources of every turn to advance deeper into your enemys territory.Zeeky_Santos said:
Topic: Defcon realy is a good suggestion. if you turn the speed down this game is not about reflexes but about a good plan and predecting your opponents next move. Plus no other game has so many cassulties in just one match
Well, if you think about it, it is impossible for an RTS (Real Time Strategy) to be similar to chess, because chess is turn based!
Think about it.
Think about it.
No game is as balanced as chess. Even if the game itself was perfectly balanced there are factors in it that are attributed just to pure luck that make it unbalanced.
Tom Clancy's EndWar.
You're restricted to 20- troop deployment at all times. Units are all arranged in a nice rock-scissors-paper cycle and come with special abilities. And the AI will assrape you if you fall asleep on duty.
Heroes of Might & Magic III
Units there are locked in grids whenever you engage in battle, so it plays more like chess if you're picky about what you can do with your troops. Only you got towns to manage and explore the maps.
You're restricted to 20- troop deployment at all times. Units are all arranged in a nice rock-scissors-paper cycle and come with special abilities. And the AI will assrape you if you fall asleep on duty.
Heroes of Might & Magic III
Units there are locked in grids whenever you engage in battle, so it plays more like chess if you're picky about what you can do with your troops. Only you got towns to manage and explore the maps.
Some people say that Starcraft is the Chess of RTS games especially if you want a game with a lot of strong competition. What you want sounds more like the old Close Combat games though.
I think the greatest if not only chessish RTS were you have a finite number of units is Dwarf fortress. You can download it, has a steep learning curve, forces you into defense, you have to work for your men, and it's fun to lose. Just like real chess.
I think a Turn Based game would be more along the lines of what you are looking for (as almost everyone else mentioned).
I recommend the Fire Emblem series or the Advanced Wars series. Both are great but I think Fire Emblem is more what you are looking for (in terms of the limited units thing).
Or you could just play chess...
I recommend the Fire Emblem series or the Advanced Wars series. Both are great but I think Fire Emblem is more what you are looking for (in terms of the limited units thing).
Or you could just play chess...
well if you really do want something real time like the title implies, and not turn based like the thread seems to, i suggest warcraft 3. the game reduces gold income if you have too many units(at several levels, and there is a maximum), every unit matters, because of the hero mechanic, which also fits your "punishes you for screwing up" requirment, defensive play is viable with human, its NOT just a matter of time until you win, unless youve already won and just need to mop up and the AI should challenge you for a good while.
of course im not talking about the campaign (which is good, despite its de-emphasis on the hero mechanic limiting some of the things you said you like, simplifying the gameplay, and love of scripted events) im talking about ladder-type games, which you can play single player against the computer if you dont want to deal with idiots.
of course im not talking about the campaign (which is good, despite its de-emphasis on the hero mechanic limiting some of the things you said you like, simplifying the gameplay, and love of scripted events) im talking about ladder-type games, which you can play single player against the computer if you dont want to deal with idiots.
Chess is not balanced. White starts out with the healthy advantage of initiative.
DoW does not require a zerg rush to win, however, I do remember being annoyed at how frequently I would run into commander rushes...
There are RTS's out there that capture elements of chess, so to answer your question accurately, you should probably clarify what you like about chess.
As many people have stated if you like it's turn based nature then you should probably find a TBS game
If you like the chess dynamic of balancing positional advantages and material advantages then DoW and CoH series of games probably would be a good choice since the contested points on the map lend itself towards a positional game with positional advantages resulting in later material gains. The Kohan series has a lot of strategy related to where forts are built, so that troops may resupply in strategically strong areas to put pressure on strategic areas of interest
If you like the chess dynamic of closed games being able to turn around into an open game very quickly or being able to use tempo to push people in a closed game into a position where they have no productive options then Kohan is the only series that I have seen that has those aspects of chess. Units resupply when they are near forts or towns so you can create a closed game where mobility is reduced and force a war of attrition, or use control of the center to attack east and then west in a way that your opponent would not be able to reposition their troops well due to loss of the center in a closed game, etc. Other games lacking a resupplying system end up having material costs as the deciding factor making a closed game not viable or meaningful.
If you like the chess dynamic of starting out with a full force and then grinding against an opponent in a series of trades until only a few pieces are left and constantly trying to gain some positional or strategic advantage in some of the trades, then I would recommend Warhammer: Mark of Chaos or the Total War series. Total War would be chess + rock/paper/scissors. Warhammer: MoC has better tactical elements when it comes to flanking and positioning on a micro level.
If you like chess tactics like sacrificing to create an opening or pressing a particular advantage like a passed pawn or exploiting subtle pressures like a pinned piece then Kohan I and Kohan II are the only games that I've seen that has strategic and tactical moves that require this kind of higher level game play elements to become a master. But, I am realizing that it's kind of hard to explain how some strategies remind me of chess strategies unless the audience knows the basic game system behind kohan...and..chess....
If you like the pacing of chess where you have time to think out your moves on a strategic level then Kohan, Total War, Warhammer: Mark of Chaos and Warcraft 1 (yes, 1) would all be viable.
Kohan I is paced like standard chess
Kohan II, Total War and Warhammer MoC are paced like 15 minute chess
Warhammer Dawn of War is potentially like 5 minute quick-chess since you do have a few seconds to prioritize what to build and where to attack, but if you spend more than that on any 1 decision then you will likely lose.
1. D4?? D5!!
DoW does not require a zerg rush to win, however, I do remember being annoyed at how frequently I would run into commander rushes...
There are RTS's out there that capture elements of chess, so to answer your question accurately, you should probably clarify what you like about chess.
As many people have stated if you like it's turn based nature then you should probably find a TBS game
If you like the chess dynamic of balancing positional advantages and material advantages then DoW and CoH series of games probably would be a good choice since the contested points on the map lend itself towards a positional game with positional advantages resulting in later material gains. The Kohan series has a lot of strategy related to where forts are built, so that troops may resupply in strategically strong areas to put pressure on strategic areas of interest
If you like the chess dynamic of closed games being able to turn around into an open game very quickly or being able to use tempo to push people in a closed game into a position where they have no productive options then Kohan is the only series that I have seen that has those aspects of chess. Units resupply when they are near forts or towns so you can create a closed game where mobility is reduced and force a war of attrition, or use control of the center to attack east and then west in a way that your opponent would not be able to reposition their troops well due to loss of the center in a closed game, etc. Other games lacking a resupplying system end up having material costs as the deciding factor making a closed game not viable or meaningful.
If you like the chess dynamic of starting out with a full force and then grinding against an opponent in a series of trades until only a few pieces are left and constantly trying to gain some positional or strategic advantage in some of the trades, then I would recommend Warhammer: Mark of Chaos or the Total War series. Total War would be chess + rock/paper/scissors. Warhammer: MoC has better tactical elements when it comes to flanking and positioning on a micro level.
If you like chess tactics like sacrificing to create an opening or pressing a particular advantage like a passed pawn or exploiting subtle pressures like a pinned piece then Kohan I and Kohan II are the only games that I've seen that has strategic and tactical moves that require this kind of higher level game play elements to become a master. But, I am realizing that it's kind of hard to explain how some strategies remind me of chess strategies unless the audience knows the basic game system behind kohan...and..chess...
.If you like the pacing of chess where you have time to think out your moves on a strategic level then Kohan, Total War, Warhammer: Mark of Chaos and Warcraft 1 (yes, 1) would all be viable.
Kohan I is paced like standard chess
Kohan II, Total War and Warhammer MoC are paced like 15 minute chess
Warhammer Dawn of War is potentially like 5 minute quick-chess since you do have a few seconds to prioritize what to build and where to attack, but if you spend more than that on any 1 decision then you will likely lose.
1. D4?? D5!!
In spite of the fact that the actual battle portion of the game is far from turn based, I'd have to say total war would fit the bill in a general sort of way:
At most the player is controlling only 16 units( at least I recall this was the case) though each unit may consist of over 100 individual soldiers. This means that the player can micromanage every unit on the battlefield without being taxed, and as such alleviates the need to have a turn based game (turn based games allow for greater unit management detail)
The pace of the game is often very deliberate, and even in the most brutal and difficult battles one will rarely be overwhelmed by the number of orders they need to give.
Each given unit type is a number of strengths and weaknesses to be considered. In Rome, one finds that the heavy roman infantry is as close to an all purpose unit one can get and yet they still possess glaring weaknesses that can be exploited. On the other side of the coin, there are units like Hoplites that are nigh impossible to take down from the front, but attacks on the flanks or rear rapidly causes the formation to break.
In either single player or multiplayer, the key to victory rests, in the end, on the player's capacity to choose an army that operates in a way they like and then try to force the battle into an game at which they excel.
At most the player is controlling only 16 units( at least I recall this was the case) though each unit may consist of over 100 individual soldiers. This means that the player can micromanage every unit on the battlefield without being taxed, and as such alleviates the need to have a turn based game (turn based games allow for greater unit management detail)
The pace of the game is often very deliberate, and even in the most brutal and difficult battles one will rarely be overwhelmed by the number of orders they need to give.
Each given unit type is a number of strengths and weaknesses to be considered. In Rome, one finds that the heavy roman infantry is as close to an all purpose unit one can get and yet they still possess glaring weaknesses that can be exploited. On the other side of the coin, there are units like Hoplites that are nigh impossible to take down from the front, but attacks on the flanks or rear rapidly causes the formation to break.
In either single player or multiplayer, the key to victory rests, in the end, on the player's capacity to choose an army that operates in a way they like and then try to force the battle into an game at which they excel.