Chilled Out Strategy Games

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: pontifex
do any games like that exist? i mean, nmost multiplayer games are meant o destroy the other player.

Dawn of War II has a co-op campaign mode.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: pontifex
do any games like that exist? i mean, nmost multiplayer games are meant o destroy the other player.

Dawn of War II has a co-op campaign mode.

but thats not what he's asking for and not what i was talking about...

you don't get multiplayer city building games without a combat feature, otherwise there is no point...

 

[Luckz]

Originally posted by: endlessmike
It's not the newest one, but Anno 1701 is the deal on Steam this weekend. According to the game's page it has multiplayer. I've never played any of this series but it looks like it could be fun, and lots of people here have recommended the newer Dawn of Discovery. May be worth a shot for $15, does anyone have any input?

I found Anno 1701 / 1701 AD a very unfun game. It's sure.. well-made if you so want, but just like Age of Empire (1 & 2), I just don't like it. Plus the gameplay is somewhat flawed, i.e. the AI can almost immediately re-settle an island you throw them off. But indeed you can just eco around in MP there.

Originally posted by: Kromis
Star Wars: Empire at War

Not only an absolutely awful game (Universe at War is substantially better), but also peculiarly not at all what the OT wanted. It's all combat. Plus the combat is all some lame hide-and-seek crap, your spacefleet planet-hopping away from a stronger enemy fleet or the other way around.

Originally posted by: pontifex
I doubt you'll find anything like like a multiplayer Sim City.

Sim City 2000 Network Edition not only exists but is also truly awesome -- it just sadly needs Win95/Win98 or something of that sort. If you're up for running it in a virtual machine, it'll sure work.


Industry Giant 2 is a pretty fun MP game for your kind of purposes, why would it not run on Vista?
I just played a bout of Theme Hospital with my girlfriend, but because I'm on Vista64 we needed the DOS version of it running in DOSBox to get IPX networking. Ultimately worked fine though.

The previously mentioned Dungeon Keeper 2 is another good one, but the last time I tried it on a modern PC it wasn't fun at all. StarTopia and Theme Hospital are the only games of that sort that have MP. Evil Genius sadly doesn't.

 

[WildW]

My thread lives. . . . it should probably die, but never mind.

Am currently playing Anno 1404 (Dawn of Discovery). . . and loving it. No multiplayer mind you. Why did nobody tell me that the people who made the original Settlers had crossed it with Imperialism 2.

Still not managed to find a game with play with the GF. As for games without combat I guess I was thinking economic competition instead. Heck, a game with combat would be fine if we could just get similar levels of ability going on. . . or a game in which combat does not come down to one decisive game-ending battle. Alas, she didn't like Sins of a Solar Empire.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Play Company of Heroes on Vire River Valley in an annihilation game. It will take hours. Just pounding the other side's areas with artillery repeatedly, making failed pushes with tank armies...

Edit: As someone else mentioned, Dungeon Keeper 2 would be good. The combat is pretty lo-stress and manageable, and the game doesn't push you into it until later levels. It's pretty easy, too.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: daddyo
Kohan and Kohan 2 didn't have a huge city-building phase, but the combat itself was slow paced and very tactical. Many different ways to build an army, with a cap of 20 units at any one time, although it never felt like a limitation.

Probably my favorite RTS ever, and largely overlooked.

Enjoyed the first one more than the 2nd myself. Sins of a Solar Empire has a similar feel with a much larger battleground.

 

[Luckz]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: daddyo
Kohan and Kohan 2 didn't have a huge city-building phase, but the combat itself was slow paced and very tactical. Many different ways to build an army, with a cap of 20 units at any one time, although it never felt like a limitation.

Probably my favorite RTS ever, and largely overlooked.

Enjoyed the first one more than the 2nd myself. Sins of a Solar Empire has a similar feel with a much larger battleground.

I prefer the first, but I also played it more.
SoaSE I found reaaaally bad. Nothing ever happens, there's no sense of accomplishment, the battles are insanely boring, etc. I recently tried it again to see if I could get into it, but my 12 hours or so game didn't contain a single moment of fun.


Aaaand how is Anno related to "people who made the original Settlers"?

 

[WildW]

Originally posted by: Luckz
Aaaand how is Anno related to "people who made the original Settlers"?

The "Blue Byte" logo when it's loading. Granted it may not be the same actual people.

 

[wrbt]

I've always considered picking up one of the roller coaster tycoon games. I really should.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: LuckzSoaSE I found reaaaally bad. Nothing ever happens, there's no sense of accomplishment, the battles are insanely boring, etc. I recently tried it again to see if I could get into it, but my 12 hours or so game didn't contain a single moment of fun.

I hope you'll give Sins another chance. Perhaps it might be better if you set all of the speed settings to Fast and then played it on single star maps? I think the enjoyment comes from making the right choices and outplaying your opponent, just like any strategy game. If the AI is too easy, then you need to come play it in online multiplayer against real people (aka "the real Sins game"). (It's the "Ironclad Online" button.)

I only play it in online multiplayer, preferably in 5v5. When you win and/or help push your team to victory, you always feel like you have accomplished something, especially if the person you beat is a skilled player. It's actually a very intense game, at least when you're playing against human opponents, especially if the teams are balanced and all 10 players are skilled.

I don't find the combat boring at all, but I micromanage my units. I'm always keeping a close eye on my capital ships (so that if they are being focus-fired on, I get them the hell out) and my fleet in general, which I'm ordering to focus fire on individual enemy units. I also choose targets for my strikecraft to attack and micromanage support ships like Hoshikos or Guardians. I am also constantly evaluating whether I am going to win a battle or lose it and if lose it, when to GTFO before I lose the entire fleet.

Of course, the game is what it is; it's a map-based strategy game and not a zero-time-to-spectacle first person shooter.

Maybe what you're missing in terms of "sense of accomplishment" is that you're not playing it against human opponents in games where you could actually lose?

 

[fivetiger]

Do you have to play AGAINST your girl friend? What about just being on the same team?

When my friend and I used to play AoE2, we would play on the same team and see how many AI opponents we could beat. For a longer, build-up game, increase the number of opponents rather than the difficulty.

I would think there are a large number of strategy and RTS games that you could play cooperatively in this way. It won't be the same as playing against a human opponent, but there's a certain comradery that you'll feel from beating that stinkin' cheatin' computer.

 

[Luckz]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: LuckzSoaSE I found reaaaally bad. Nothing ever happens, there's no sense of accomplishment, the battles are insanely boring, etc. I recently tried it again to see if I could get into it, but my 12 hours or so game didn't contain a single moment of fun.

I hope you'll give Sins another chance.

A total of 15-25 wasted hours of my life is enough. If I want 'intense' battles in a strategy game, I have Warcraft 3.

It's not about micromanagement or lack thereof either. But okay, if you're desperately bored, you can go scroll down on http://www.xfire.com/profile/kopfab/videos/ , look at my SoaSE videos, and tell me what I did wrong to make the game so unenjoyable.

 

[nageov3t]

not for the pc, but if you have a playstation sitting around, Disgaea is pretty much one of the best s-rpg's ever and funny as hell.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
I liked 1701 a lot as well. The Anno series plays more like SimCity than anything else, but with a focus on building not just one city but a group of cities and setting up trade routes between them. You'll need to lay roads and place buildings and walls, but there are different resources (spices, iron, coffee, stone, whatever) you need to control and the real trick is laying out your empire so you can provide your citizens with all of those resources as cost efficiently as possible.

It's not trivial to learn unfortunately, and the combat is much more in line with Civ (3 armies beats 2 armies) then the Total War series where you actually influence the battle. I play Civ 4(BTS), Empire: Total War and Dawn of Discovery about equally lately.

My problem with the Anno series that you have to obsessively micromanage.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: WildW
My thread lives. . . . it should probably die, but never mind.

Am currently playing Anno 1404 (Dawn of Discovery). . . and loving it. No multiplayer mind you. Why did nobody tell me that the people who made the original Settlers had crossed it with Imperialism 2.

Still not managed to find a game with play with the GF. As for games without combat I guess I was thinking economic competition instead. Heck, a game with combat would be fine if we could just get similar levels of ability going on. . . or a game in which combat does not come down to one decisive game-ending battle. Alas, she didn't like Sins of a Solar Empire.

Sigh.

I hate to say this, but Cities XL just came out (10/10/09 U.S.) and it's a City Builder with Economic aspects.

It has Single player mode, but they really changed gears and made it into an MMO

. . . . a City Builder MMO (with subscription fees) . . . I'm at a loss here folks . . . .

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: LuckzIt's not about micromanagement or lack thereof either. But okay, if you're desperately bored, you can go scroll down on http://www.xfire.com/profile/kopfab/videos/ , look at my SoaSE videos, and tell me what I did wrong to make the game so unenjoyable.

It's impossible to tell much from a video; I'd need the replay files (.record), but it's doubtful that they would run under the most updated version of the game. If I had to guess, I'd say that you were playing it at slower speeds and against the AI. If it becomes boring against the AI and you can manhandle it, then you need to try it in online multiplayer against human opponents.

 

[atran5e]

Commandos 1,2

 

[Luckz]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
Sigh.

I hate to say this, but Cities XL just came out (10/10/09 U.S.) and it's a City Builder with Economic aspects.

It has Single player mode, but they really changed gears and made it into an MMO

. . . . a City Builder MMO (with subscription fees) . . . I'm at a loss here folks . . . .

I played the beta. The point was that you trade the excessive "resources" you have (offices, cheap labour, etc) with other players for ones you need but don't have or can't get (only some places can have farm land, have underground oil deposits, etc).
I wanted to check it out, but not for multiplayer. The MP aspect didn't strike me as very intriguing. That still leaves the previously-mentioned SimCity 2K Network Edition as the only real multiplayer city building game, as it doesn't have you play on separate maps or any such nonsense.