Looking for a Strategy (not real time) Game

[YohanTM2]

Hi,

I'm trying to find a good Strategic level game (all who count Axis and Allies as strategy please stop reading) for a buddy of mine to play by PBEM.

I'm looking at either WWII or Napoleonic computer games that fit this bill.

Thanks...

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Yohan
I'm trying to find a good Strategic level game (all who count Axis and Allies as strategy please stop reading) for a buddy of mine to play by PBEM.

I'm looking at either WWII or Napoleonic computer games that fit this bill.

Uncommon Valor should fill the bill.

[YohanTM2]

Thanks but UV is really grand tactical not strategic IMHO

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Yohan
Thanks but UV is really grand tactical not strategic IMHO

A "fine" distinction. Well, both Hearts of Iron (Paradox) and Strategic Command (Battlefront) suck wind.

Did I mention Uncommon Valor?

[CCB]

Originally posted by Yohan
Hi,

I'm trying to find a good Strategic level game (all who count Axis and Allies as strategy please stop reading

so much for Risk and Stratego. :p

[Jim1954]

Russo-German War 41-44 is a good division/regimental simulation of the Eastern front.

http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/index.htm

Only available online.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Avalon Hill made the old Third Reich game for PC. It sucked pretty bad really but that is about as good for a PBEM PC game you will find IMHO.

Copies can still be found on eBay from time to time and they are pretty cheap.

GG

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Game scale needs to be better determined here.

Then you need to decide complexity level (because Axis and Allies while simplistic, is still a challenge against a good player eh).

Then there is whether it can be played solo adequately (ie is the AI at least reasonable because some game's woeful AI ruins the game if you don't intend to go online and play others by email at all).

And of course we need consensus on the word "Strategy". Because the term Strategy seems to be tagged onto every military program in existence eventually.

Someone has already stolen the pleasure of saying HoI sucks, but SC doesn't. It is merely not as incredible complex to play as is A3R.

But if your target buyer is not a hard core gamer, then it will take him a while before he can shrug and say SC is to easy.
And he only needs to try play it against a hard core gamer to find out what hard is about.
And the fact it is the cheapest cost intro game I can think of that is also new currently.

I had a chance to get Third Reich for the PC for free (buddy didn't like it), I passed.
It was not well made at all (and odds are it won't like your computer at any rate).
If you would even consider TR for PC, then you should be buying SC instead (because TR PC is no where near as good as SC even with SC failings, which are not to numerous really).

Back to game scale. Is a game like Steel Panthers defacto not included due to scale ie not technically "strategy".

Next notch up the scale, Panzer General's Allied General variant is inexpensive, and hey how about that, it likes XP, gotta like that.
Of course I can show you where you can currently just download it for free.

If you go by common grognard usage of the term though, I would say, that SC is currently the only "strategy" ie "strategic" ie global grand strategy warfare game on the market.

By definition almost everything else is operational level.

If you can manage operational though, I strongly suggest Century of Warfare. It appears highly modable, and encompases WW2 and modern in one package.

[VictorH]

Don't believe what you see in some of the comments on this thread. Hearts of Iron and Strategic Command are good games. So is Schwerpunkts Russo-German War. Europa Universalis I & II are also excellent games. All these are "Strategic in Scope", whereas Art of War - Century of Warfare is more Operational in Scope, but Excellent. Then there is Uncommon Valor, Excellent choice for an Operational scope game. Also there are HPS's games: Normandy 44, Smolenks 41, Civil War, etc. are are also Excellent. Finally there are the games from Adanac Command Studios, 1806 and a "Strategic Scale" game on the American Civil War that is FREE! Check out the websites for these game company's, just use the search on Google with the names I have given.

It all really depends on what you like to play.

This is a great Hobby, good to see you getting a friend involved!

[Culiacan Mexico]

Originally posted by Yohan
Hi,

I'm trying to find a good Strategic level game (all who count Axis and Allies as strategy please stop reading) for a buddy of mine to play by PBEM. I'm looking at either WWII or Napoleonic computer games that fit this bill.

Thanks...

Have you ruled out PacWar and WiR?

[YohanTM2]

Hey Sarge,

Good to see you over here. I have played SC out. It is a good game but tilted way to much in favor of the Axis. Unless you have very bad research luck with the Germans you should never lose.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

VictorH, defend HoI.

I challenge you to defend a game that has a very lousy AI, that sits inside a buggy as hell program, that even dozens of patches won't help.

With a price tag that exceeds numerous proven "good" games.

Simulating all of WW2 in perhaps the most clumsy mode possible, RTS mode.

That takes micromanagement to new levels, under the most unacceptable circumstances. This is the worst possible way to do grand strategy.

WW2 hour by hour? Only a dolt would call this a good idea. Speeding up the game, I don't think this solves the stupidity of choosing hourly initial rate one bit.

Which allows such incredible levels of ahistorical idiocy, that even limitless suspension of disbelief will fall short of making the game credible. Poland winning the war? why not just add aliens too while you are at it.

Anyone that would call this game "fun", should either accept they should have bought Civilization 3, or requested that Civilization 4 be made into an RTS game.

At least Civ would not be pretending to emulate a specific historical event.

I am trying to stop slagging games, but HoI is counter productive to our hobby being taken seriously.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Good day Yohan, hmmm your comment has me thinking now "glad to see you here".

Hmm but can't for the life of me recall if I know you on another forum.
Looked, but can't place ya heheh.

Oh for god's sake give me a hint heheh.

[YohanTM2]

Hey Sarge,

Seen your posts in the SC forum at Battlefront.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

That was my guess Yohan, but it's amazing how useless member name searches can be sometimes hehe.

Matrix is clearly my home turf zone (hence the lack of some letter thingy after my nickname heheh).

I am trying yet again (I pick at scabs too I guess hehe), to retain an interest at Battlefront.

I would likely prefer to center my SC comments either here or at Wargamer to some extent.

A. Matrix's software is more efficient.

and

B. Wargamer's forums are a bit less frantic paced that a person can leisurely follow a thread without it being buried under a sea of constant new threads.

Battlefront would be a vibrant forum if only they would move to software that allows the option of email notification when a thread a person posted to, was contributed to.

As it goes, their forums are pot luck, and the thread starters are inclined to start a new thread merely to retain their first page option.

Here at Matrix, I have been able to continue to contribute to threads long after they have left the initial viewable threads page.

I am sure this feature is a major factor in why the Matrix forums have some of the most involved thread discussions.

I do get a chuckle out of some of the slurs I have gotten in some cases a few times in the past hehe.
But I am unsure if some of the Battlefront crowd are aware, that in a lot of cases, posts replying to some of my comments are often lost do to my being totally unaware they were ever made eh.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

By the way notice you are new to forums.

How do ya like Matrix?

Oh and don't let post totals tell you anything. Those with high post totals are not necessarily our best contributors, merely active ones.

I suggest looking in the Hall of Heroes forum for Matrix's shining stars of the community.
It's where we honour persons who have show some aspect or done some selfless deed(s) that contributes a lot to our hobby.

To date I have not encountered another forum out there where the members have wished to do the same eh.

[jnier]

Originally posted by Yohan
Hi,

I'm trying to find a good Strategic level game (all who count Axis and Allies as strategy please stop reading) for a buddy of mine to play by PBEM.

I'm looking at either WWII or Napoleonic computer games that fit this bill.

Thanks...

Yohan,

As long as you don't need an AI, I would reccomend Computer Third Reich and Computer War in Europe. Both are decent ports of boardgames. IMHO, boardgame ports tend to be better designed than games that start out as computer games

Third Reich has always been my favorite ww2 game and the computer version isn't quite as bad as some people say it is. If you're familiar with the Board version than you can pick up the computer version pretty easily (if you're not familiar with the board version I would stay away from it). Plus it's available for free here:

www.the-underdogs.org

If you do give it a try, be sure to download the patch and the manuals. They are essential.

Another DOS game that works well PBEM is Computer War in Europe. You can buy it from Decisions Games website.

www.decisiongames.com

This is a HUGE game and it's very faithful to the original boardgame.

[VictorH]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
VictorH, defend HoI.

I challenge you to defend a game that has a very lousy AI, that sits inside a buggy as hell program, that even dozens of patches won't help.

With a price tag that exceeds numerous proven "good" games.

Simulating all of WW2 in perhaps the most clumsy mode possible, RTS mode.

That takes micromanagement to new levels, under the most unacceptable circumstances. This is the worst possible way to do grand strategy.

WW2 hour by hour? Only a dolt would call this a good idea. Speeding up the game, I don't think this solves the stupidity of choosing hourly initial rate one bit.

Which allows such incredible levels of ahistorical idiocy, that even limitless suspension of disbelief will fall short of making the game credible. Poland winning the war? why not just add aliens too while you are at it.

Anyone that would call this game "fun", should either accept they should have bought Civilization 3, or requested that Civilization 4 be made into an RTS game.

At least Civ would not be pretending to emulate a specific historical event.

I am trying to stop slagging games, but HoI is counter productive to our hobby being taken seriously.

Les, this is out of character for you. Generally you are civil, bet it's becuase you have been spending to much time on the SC forum. That's a rowdy and uncivil crowd over there.

I will give it my best shot and try to defend my remarks about Hearts of Iron. Yes, you are correct the game sucked when first released! It continued to suck after the 1st patch. But the 2nd patch has made the game "playable". I gave it a try because I liked Europa Universalis. Yes, it's real time and that is a game type I usually avoid. For WWII it's a stretch. But, the game can be paused while one plots the destruction of an opponent. So, in short I like the game, it's fun to play when I want to "relax the mind".

As I said in my previous post, what one plays is really a matter of taste. If I'm going to play a strategic level game on the computer, I'll start up SC, ACW or Hearts of Iron since they are about all there is available in that venue at this time.

But, if I'm really serious about playing a strategic level game I'll role out Totaler Krieg, World in Flames or Advanced European Theater of Operations (all boardgames and not trying to be patronizing).

Happy New Year!!

[Grumbling Grogn]

“Hearts of Iron” is a fine game. It is not real-time. When you can pause the game at any point and issue orders that take (real life) hours to plot the term "real-time" loses all meaning (if it ever had any :rolleyes: ) I will say one thing about the game engine (used in several other games by the same company), you either like it or hate it...

----------
BUT more importantly the man asked for a game that could be played via email (at least I thought he did) and “Hearts of Iron” can not be played via email (AFAIK).

I get the impression this gentleman wants a grand strategy game where the player has choices not only as to troop deployments but also for unit construction, research and development and perhaps diplomacy. If this is indeed the case then options are VERY limited...and with email being the mode of play they are even more limited.

I used to own an old game... “Command Decision”? I liked it better than SC. But good luck finding a copy these days.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
BUT more importantly the man asked for a game that could be played via email (at least I thought he did) and “Hearts of Iron” can not be played via email (AFAIK).

Good point. HoI is NOT playable by e-mail. This is probably the BIGGEST drawback of the "pausable real-time" engine used in that game and the EU series.