Poll: Calling master strategists

[Mr.Switchblade]

On a personal note:
I know some of you are pack rats and collect those wonderful hidden gem games that reek of excellence and good quality, even if they are old, and I would like to give credit to Age of Wonders 2, which is sadly not on the list because most people haven't played it. If you have, more power to ya, if not, if you got a little extra money and a PC i highly recommend it. If your a fan of the turn based games your sure to love it.
cheers

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.

We are talking about 2 entirely different games dude. Your thinking Age of Empires. Age of Wonders is totally different in almost every way.

 

[Chickenlittle]

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.

 

[101194]

Hmm, I didn't find anything on that list that was Supreamly Challangling. I'd have to say Chess out of all of them, Or Real War...Thats about it.

 

[Handofpwn]

I am a huge advance wars fan. that game can get pretty challenging at times.

 

[sighh]

Uh... chess?
Or how 'bout Go?
Now THAT takes strategy. If you aren't thinking at least 10 moves ahead, you aren't going to win unless the person you're playing is terrible.

I agree, Go requires a lot of strategic play.

Chess is mostly tactical in my opinion, tactics and strategy are not the same thing.

 

[SimuLord]

Other;

Europa fucking Universalis.

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.)

 

[Ebola256]

I enjoy tactics games over strategy: Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 are among my favorites. Myth was great, too. I like the fact that you can't overcome poor battlefield management and strategy with a vastly superior economy as is possible in AoE/the Crafts.

As for Chess, sure it's a classic and all, but it ain't visceral. Though I'd never pass up a game of Chess on one of those park-sized boards.

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.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

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...

 

[Flying-Emu]

Fire emblem seems conspicuously absent from this list.

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.

Anyways.

Civilization for me, but that's mostly because I've never played someone who grasped even the basic concept of Chess.

 

[Graustein]

Fire emblem seems conspicuously absent from this list.

'Cause I'm pretty sure in terms of turn based games thats almost the simplest you can get. Try Heroes of Might and Magic 5.

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.

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.

 

[fontlas]

I voted SupCom but Civilization or Total War would be just as good choices.

 

[Horticulture]

I enjoy tactics games over strategy: Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 are among my favorites. Myth was great, too. I like the fact that you can't overcome poor battlefield management and strategy with a vastly superior economy as is possible in AoE/the Crafts.

As for Chess, sure it's a classic and all, but it ain't visceral. Though I'd never pass up a game of Chess on one of those park-sized boards.

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.

'course "aint" ain't good grammar, you forgot the apostrophe.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

anyone ever play 3d chess? that game can turn a mind into jello the first couple times through

 

[Cerebreus]

The Chinese version of Chess is more difficult that the more well known version, in my opinion.

 

[wrightofway]

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.

 

[Duke Machine]

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.

 

[Horticulture]

I gotta say you can't beat the classics. I also have to say chess. Sure there is the micromanagement that Warcraft brought in and future build plans created by starcraft. Civilization taught people to learn to invest in learning but their combat was on pure chance.

Chess is timeless in terms of strategy. One wrong move and you just lost a peice which will affect your entire game. Sure there is no micro but you have to force your opponent into making moves you want them to do while ensuring you do not fall into the same trap. I love playing video games but give me another person, a couple of drinks and a chess board and there will be some serious matches even if you are a rookie.

kekekekekeke pawn rush -_-

 

[sms_117b]

I voted total war, however I do happily acknowledge Chess, Go and Othello as being very tactically challenging, and at a push 3-dimensional 4 in a row naughts and crosses, which can take ages to play a single game.

 

[zifnabxar]

Uh... chess?
Or how 'bout Go?
Now THAT takes strategy. If you aren't thinking at least 10 moves ahead, you aren't going to win unless the person you're playing is terrible.

I agree, Go requires a lot of strategic play.

Chess is mostly tactical in my opinion, tactics and strategy are not the same thing.

Here here. It's amazing how important strategy can be in go. I've had a 9 stone handicap and still been beaten into the ground by some players who aren't close to pro, because they knew some of the strategy.

 

[Valiance]

Civilization definitely. You have to know what you'll do before you even begin to play, and juggle a million different things at once.

^

That's my vote, though Chess is a close second.