Fantasy strategy games

[tormy]

Hey I was just wondering...why do we have lot of WW2 themed strategy games released by Matrix Games, but there isnt a single fantasy themed around!
I think many people -like me- prefers to play with fantasy themed games. It would be cool to have a strategical turn based game available someday. Yes I know there are some on the market like Dominions 3, but I would prefer something like Advanced Tactics with a fantasy theme. [Actually I plan to make a fantasy mod for that game after I ve bought it, maybe more people will be interested in it.]

[MikeBrough]

ORIGINAL: tormy

Hey I was just wondering...why do we have lot of WW2 themed strategy games released by Matrix Games, but there isnt a single fantasy themed around!
I think many people -like me- prefers to play with fantasy themed games. It would be cool to have a strategical turn based game available someday. Yes I know there are some on the market like Dominions 3, but I would prefer something like Advanced Tactics with a fantasy theme. [Actually I plan to make a fantasy mod for that game after I ve bought it, maybe more people will be interested in it.]

Fantasy General was great fun as were the games in the Warlords series. Worth seeking out if that's what you're after.

[ravinhood]

I like fantasy games because the historical realism nuts can't ruin them like they do so many of these ww2 games with there this isn't realistic and that isn't historical blahzay actions. I'm likened to that game MAKING HISTORY instead of playing it.

[Kuokkanen]

Fantasy General was mentioned, good luck for finding it. Heroes of Might & Magic serie is worth to look at, though there combat is mostly at tactical level (but you move your armies in strategic scale map). Battle for Wesnoth is open source project, but it seems decent game anyway. But fact is most of recent fantasy strategies are tactical level RTS.

[Zap]

I remember years ago playing a board game that depicted the invasion of the USA by the russian and cuban armies(on the scale of Flash Point Germany). with amphibius assualts on New orleans.ect.

That would be an interesting twist. Or China attacking USA Homeland.

[StephanFH]

Tormy,
Fantasy General is as mentioned above is a lot of fun. It is a spinoff from the five star series of games by SSI. That was the series that started with Panzer General, a real perennial favorite. Fantasy General is abandonware and is available for free as both a full install and an ISO (you will need both). I recommend Dosbox as an emulator to run it. Lots of support out there to intall and run it.
You can download Fantasy General for free legally here:
Fantasy General Full and ISO
I hope this helps.

Steve

[tormy]

ORIGINAL: StephanFH

Tormy,
Fantasy General is as mentioned above is a lot of fun. It is a spinoff from the five star series of games by SSI. That was the series that started with Panzer General, a real perennial favorite. Fantasy General is abandonware and is available for free as both a full install and an ISO (you will need both). I recommend Dosbox as an emulator to run it. Lots of support out there to intall and run it.
You can download Fantasy General for free legally here:
Fantasy General Full and ISO
I hope this helps.

Steve

Hehe, thanks. I've compledted that game a long time ago. [:)]
Its a real shame, that we dont have strategical fantasy turn based games nowadays...Wesnoth is good, but I would prefer something else. more strategical, less tactical. Not to mention, that I prefer games with armies, not that I can control a few units 1 by 1 on map...and I also dont like the huge luck factor in Wesnoth.
So something likethe upcoming Advanced Tactics with a fantasy setting should be decent. [Especially if it would have a decent game editor / modding capability.]
However maybe it will be possible to make a total conversion mod for Adv. Tactics, if true.
Heroes of M&M....well I dont like that too much either.

PS. Back to the topic...Ive made this topic because I was wondering that why aint there a decent strategical fantasy TBS around nowadays.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: tormy
PS. Back to the topic...Ive made this topic because I was wondering that why aint there a decent strategical fantasy TBS around nowadays.

Can't think of one, although as to the sort of game you are suggesting I'm not sure there has ever been one. The Age of Wonders games ('2' and Shadow Magic) are the best fantasy strategy ones I have come across (much better than HoMM), but I don't think they are really what you are after. I'd be very interested to see if Advanced Tactics can be used in that way.. I'd love to try a Hyborian Age scenario or three.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I like fantasy games because the historical realism nuts can't ruin them like they do so many of these ww2 games with there this isn't realistic and that isn't historical blahzay actions. I'm likened to that game MAKING HISTORY instead of playing it.

Don't be too sure of that. I'll bet that if WCS used the COG/FOF engine for this we'd get savaged for giving the Hobbits ironclads...

[tormy]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: tormy
PS. Back to the topic...Ive made this topic because I was wondering that why aint there a decent strategical fantasy TBS around nowadays.

Can't think of one, although as to the sort of game you are suggesting I'm not sure there has ever been one. The Age of Wonders games ('2' and Shadow Magic) are the best fantasy strategy ones I have come across (much better than HoMM), but I don't think they are really what you are after. I'd be very interested to see if Advanced Tactics can be used in that way.. I'd love to try a Hyborian Age scenario or three.

According to Vic, even a full fantasy themed version of Advanced Tactics will be possible to make with modding, since basically you can change everything. We shall see it soon, when we can get our hands on the game.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I like fantasy games because the historical realism nuts can't ruin them like they do so many of these ww2 games with there this isn't realistic and that isn't historical blahzay actions. I'm likened to that game MAKING HISTORY instead of playing it.

I don't like fantasy games, but I do agree with your reasoning.

I remember having a discussion with people on the IL-2 boards about exactly that. Some people wanted every single rivet in exactly the right place!

I say, let it go. History is done. Now let us deal with the same time line but under whatever circumstances we want. That's one of the reasons I like HoI2...I can play a itsy bitsy nation and keep out the big war...or I can take control of one of the biggies and alter the course of the war.

I can't abide rivet counting and exact OOBs in games...but, on the other hand, I do understand why people want them...to see if, under the same conditions, they can fair better or worse than the commander at the time. Also rivet counters....if you actually flew a Supermarine Spitfire IV and you are playing one of these games and the gyro was on the wrong side, I can understand why that grates people...

[Twotribes]

I have to make a point. When a game claims to be a recreation of a historical period or war or when it Uses as its name a specific war or battle, it is NOT unreasonable to expect to find in the game at least a scenario that is has historical as the game engine allows.

[ravinhood]

@Twotribes I guess you're one of those types that would play Custer in  Custers Last Stand even though  there is no possible way you can win just for the historical realism of that eh? lol Sorry, but, I just can't get into those types of simulations. I'd rather have the resources and the time frame units and do things myself in a whatif fashion than waste my time playing out a scenario or simulation I have no chance of chaning anything except a few minor points. An historical Barbarossa is no different, the Germans can't win if it's HISTORICAL until the game is given the ability to WHATIF. If you play by historical rules then the game is nothing more than repeating history in turns. I'd just as soon read a book or watch a movie as to play out a game just for historical realism of the battle.

[JudgeDredd]

Again (for some strange reason) I have to concur with Ravinhood...although I will slightly deviate in that I have no problem with games being an "accurate representation" of a particular battle, as long as there are other things that can be switched in order to make it playable as either side...

Again, like Ravinhood, I have no need to play an historically accurate game....it's a game. I don't mind that historical stuff is included, so long as I stand a chance of winning as either side.

I can understand why people want historical accuracy....so they can see what it was like to command it...see if they can equal or better the commanders...but I don't know any battles well enough to be able to warrant that kind of satisfaction froma  game...I really, simply, just want it to be fun.

Anyway, I would expect that there have been many, many battles fought were any one (or more) particular parameter during that battle could've changed the outcome, ergo it follows, does it not, that very few games should have a pre-determined outcome at all.

Still...I digress. I don't want, at this time, historical accuracy in my games. I want my games to be fun. However, I do understand why "grognards" would want historical accuracy...especially in a game that features a specific battle that they are particularly knowledgeable about.

How's that for sitting on the fence!! [;)]

[Twotribes]

If a game uses as its premise or title a war or battle it better have an accurate recreation of strengths and such in at least one scenario.

As to the 2 listed "examples" You are of course aware that In Barbarosa the Germans COULD have won? And that in the case of Custer, he could have waited as ordered and been supported by another column, OR he could have kept his command together and the out come would have been much different?

[Terl]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

If a game uses as its premise or title a war or battle it better have an accurate recreation of strengths and such in at least one scenario.

I agree that the starting postions and force composition should be historical but once play starts anything goes. I do not want to simply move as they did. I want to see if I can change it.

As to the 2 listed "examples" You are of course aware that In Barbarosa the Germans COULD have won? And that in the case of Custer, he could have waited as ordered and been supported by another column, OR he could have kept his command together and the out come would have been much different?

This is why I like the freedom and not a play by play recreation. When given the same assets, I want to see if I could win as Custer, or win Barbarosa with my tactical brilliance or fail miserably (I do that one well most often [:D])

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: tormy
Hey I was just wondering...why do we have lot of WW2 themed strategy games released by Matrix Games, but there isnt a single fantasy themed around!
I think many people -like me- prefers to play with fantasy themed games. It would be cool to have a strategical turn based game available someday. Yes I know there are some on the market like Dominions 3, but I would prefer something like Advanced Tactics with a fantasy theme. [Actually I plan to make a fantasy mod for that game after I ve bought it, maybe more people will be interested in it.]

Agreed. [8D]

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

If a game uses as its premise or title a war or battle it better have an accurate recreation of strengths and such in at least one scenario.

As to the 2 listed "examples" You are of course aware that In Barbarosa the Germans COULD have won? And that in the case of Custer, he could have waited as ordered and been supported by another column, OR he could have kept his command together and the out come would have been much different?

Know what they call that in gaming? WHATIF's I rest my case.

[cdbeck]

Two small comments:
As a historian, I'll agree with Dredd and RH (good to see those two concurring once). "Historically Accurate" depends on WHOSE history you are reading... [:D] What perspective is a game developer supposed to base their game upon. Sure we know WHAT happened, but there are so many complex and variable reasons for WHY something happened (especially in war) that it would be impossible to model this in a game. How does one accurately model why Barbarossa was a failure. Worse yet, how does a game accurately model why the Battle for Britain did not have the effect the German Luftwaffe planned it to have? Isn't the fun of games trying to see if you could do it "better" than Stalin/Hitler/Churchill anyway?
 
Second note, I am going to take Erik's comment as a sign that maybe Matrix is searching for some Fantasy based developers... and will take this chance to profess my undying love for him in response! [;)]
 
SoM

[ravinhood]

He just agreed he didn't add any comments like "in the works or we're looking" lol I had ask Joel Billings about fantasy games awhile back in the Gary Grigsby/Joel Billings mode of play and he said Gary was a stubborn die hard HISTORICAL nut lol and wouldn't break away to do fantasy gaming, but, that he would be internested in it. Perhaps he can do something for us??? I'd personally love to see a "War of the Lance" upgrade or remake. It's pretty dated, but, the ai and the gameplay are still excellent to this day. Kinda like CAW another great game they upgraded.