Need insight into these strategy games!

Hey folks! A few weeks ago I asked for help sifting through a bunch of RPGs. I got some amazingly useful feedback, so I thought, why not try it again with a different genre? Sifting through my backlog continues to be a bear, and there are a number of strategy games on there that were very well received, yet I know almost nothing about. I typically like a good strategy game, but need help sorting these out!

That's where I'm asking for your help! For each of these games, could someone familiar with it explain a little about what makes it stand out among strategy games, assuming it does stand out? What's the hook for these games, and what could make them worth or not worth playing for someone who's pretty acquainted with strategy games in general? And for the older games, another question is how well do they hold up? Thanks in advance for any insight!

Star Wars: Empire at War
Offworld Trading Company
Distant Worlds
Anno series (any one in particular stand above the others?)
Frozen Synapse
Total Annihilation
Supreme Commander
World in Conflict
Master of Orion (or would one of the newer ones be more worth it?)
Stellaris (I haven't played any Paradox strategy games, and will start with an EU game or CK2... but how does Stellaris compare?)
Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak (is this a worthy follow-up to the originals?)

The only I've played meaningfully was Star Wars: Empire at War. A lot of people seemed to like that game at the time, but I really didn't at all. It just seemed really plodding and boring. The story seemed unusually dull for a star wars game too. I didn't think it looked all that great graphically, but that could have been stylistic. I just remember playing that and thinking Warcraft III felt thrice as fast, played a whole lot better and looked better. I imagine it looks like crap now, it didn't look great in 2006-7 ish.

I may not be the best person to ask as I suspect I might only really like Blizzard RTS games (I seem to end up liking the ones where you contol individual units instead of small squads) and I played Sw:EaW not too long after I discovered DotA. Haven't many RTS games since then tbh Starcraft 2 is it really) and DotA might be why

I think the hook of that game might have been Star Wars veneer, because it didn't seem to have any great unusual mechanics that I can remember. I take that back, there was a Risk like system in it I think where you could conquer planets to expand your reach I think. That was how it handled resource gathering I think. Halo Wars 2 looks like a better version of that style of game to me.

You would think a game where you get to play with all the cool Star Wars vehicles would be fun, but it just wasn't for me. Other mays and probably do feel differently.

Anno is more of a cuity builder and light economy sim than a strategy game. You can build troops and fight, but the games strength lie in setting up a network of outposts and trade routes so you can supply your main city with a steady stream of goods that are increasingly complicated to produce. I've played a lot of 1701 and 1404 and would recommend those. The older ones are probably hard to go back to now graphics and ui wise and the newer ones seem to have lost some of their charm with their slightly uninspired scifi setting.

Frozen Synapse is fantastic - my 29th favourite game of all time, and my second favourite turn-based tactics game (behind Terror From the Deep). In terms of mechanics though, it's number one; it can be very hard to get a grip on all the gameplay elements, but once you do, it's incredibly rewarding. Even though I say it's a turn-based tactics game, it's very different from most others - both you and the opponent plan out moves at the same time, so you really need to anticipate the other side's moves. It's daunting at first, but it's worth persevering.

Master of Orion - I can't speak for the newest game (but I've heard reasonably good things), but I can speak for the rest. AVOID Master of Orion 3. MoO 1 and MoO 2 are very good 4X games. MoO 1 is a little lacking compared to the second one, but is still fun once you get into it. MoO 2 is fantastic - my 32nd favourite game of all time. I suppose it doesn't exactly do anything in particular to 'stand out' amidst other 4X games, it just does what it does really well. Also, I repeat, do NOT play Master of Orion 3 - that game is a real mess.

Offworld Trading Company is an intense competitive non-combat investing simulator. You play on a hex playfield with X amount of opponents and each player is only allowed to access a very limited amount of hexes to build extractors, farms, factories etc on. There's a also a market mechanic to the game that reacts to what people are doing (so if a lot of people are buying iron, but no one is selling the price will skyrocket). The goal of the game is to grow faster than your opponents to fend off hostile takeovers and eventually be the one that buys out everyone else. It's a very interesting take on the frantic competitive multiplayer of something like Starcraft where the focus lies on strategy rather than execution.

@hans_maulwurf already did a good job of describing Anno, but I would add that my experience with them would indicate that you'd be fine starting with any of them. However the first game you play will be the one that you enjoy, and the rest will feel very much the same. They all have their different flaws and strengths, but none of them stand out as the best one. They all nail the best part of the series though, the management of production chains.

As for Stellaris (as well as EU) I'm probably not the best person to talk about it, but I would describe it as a territorial wargame. You seize control over star-systems to expand your influence and increase your army size. A very typical scenario is that you have a bigger neighboring empire on one side and a smaller on the other and you need to either ally or invade and occupy or in some way influence the smaller neighbor so you can use the combined power of both territories to take on the bigger neighbor. While there are elements of "base" building, research etc the main goal of the game is to grow your empire as big as possible, either through conflict or diplomacy. It's a lot about managing troop movements (not direct combat control) and applying power and pressure in the right proportions. It's a game that's perfect for you if you generally do domination victories in Civilization and find the minutia of carefully developing all your cities a chore.

Oh boy, a potential Paradox baby! I'll try my best to help. Feel free to ask more questions!

If you're new to the Paradox style of 4X games, I think Stellaris is a good place to start. While relatively new to the Paradox roster, and therefore lacking in features compared to the other games (which have a plethora of expansions and DLC to back them) Stellaris manages to include most of the key features that makes a Paradox game... well, a Paradox game. Someone diving fresh into Paradox 4X likely won't notice what's missing, and in fact might find the "simplicity" of the vanilla to be more welcoming than the smorgasbord that is CK2 and EU4.

To get a better understanding of what the game is about, I'll highlight some of the differences between Stellaris, CK2, and EU4.

Let's start with CK2, since its the fattiest tuna of the bunch. In CK2 the main "protagonist" (for lack of a better term) that the player focuses on is the current head of their chosen dynasty. Much of the game revolves around this character, which changes as time marches on, and a bulk of the choices the player makes is in service of improving this character. Since no single person exists within a vacuum, some of those choices branch out to include other characters - family, friends, allies, rivals, enemies, and so on. As a result, CK2 ends up becoming a strange hybrid of strategy and RPG, with an emphasis on simulating your own unique Alternate History sandbox version of earth. Its easy to get lost in your dynasty's story without worrying too much about what's going on in the rest of the world, hence why CK2 is often recommended as a jumping off point for those interested in trying out Paradox games.

EU4, on the other hand, is more traditional in its approach. The dynasty system is replaced with a government system, and the "leveling up" of character stats is replaced with various laws, tech trees, and resource management. That's not to say that CK2 ignores these systems entirely; rather, that EU4 focuses more on nations and less on individuals. As a result the win conditions here are more pronounced, the driving force of gameplay leaning more heavily towards empire building than it does character interaction. You can think of EU4 as a very complex version of Risk. Again, I'm speaking in broad terms, and its easy enough to decide to roleplay your nation much like you would your character in CK2 - and there are enough events and triggers with immersive flavor text to help you do so - but these features are not as robust and all-encompassing as they are in CK2.

As for Stellaris, it treads a middle ground between these two approaches. Emphasis is again placed on empire building, but here your "empire" takes on a personality of its own. The game encourages you to think of your empire as having a singular mindset, with its own unique morality and beliefs, and then pits you against other empires with conflicting, similar, or neutral beliefs. The Evil Slavers, the Galactic Peacekeepers, the Corrupt Businessmen, the Warrior Zealots - the races you encounter tend to fit into various archetypes that would be right at home in a typical sci-fi space opera. Empire management is more simplified than in EU4 (less resources to manage, easier bureaucratic and diplomatic management), and character interaction (between your various government officials, head scientists, military commanders, and planetary governors) is less fleshed out than in CK2. In its place are features and gameplay mechanics that can only fit in a grand space setting like Stellaris: alien abduction, genetic modification, robot uprisings, discovery of secrets left by long dead civilizations. I don't want to spoil some of the cooler events you can dig up, so I'll just say it gets pretty interesting!

Would I recommend Stellaris for newcomers? Sure! Would I recommend it for a Paradox veteran? That's a bit tougher. It's a solid game to be sure, and if you're a fan of sci-fi I'd absolutely recommend it, but if you were looking for another meaty Paradox 4X to sink your fangs into, it might be better if you wait for another expansion or two.

I played a ton of World in Conflict and Total Annihilation when they released. I also played Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak from start to finish, but not much more than that.

World in Conflict is about a fictional Cold War scenario wherein the USSR launches a limited invasion of the United States in the 1980s. Neither side decides to use nuclear weapons and so this basically turns into a conventional WW3 once Europe gets involved/invaded. As for the game, it's what is sometimes called a Real Time Tactics game; there are no bases or base building, instead you directly deploy units to the battlefield and command them there. It's a great military strategy game because it doesn't get bogged down in realism, but it still manages to include a lot of realistic elements. Unit selection is a little limited but it's all about using what few forces you have very effectively; there's a lot of really, really cool fire support you can earn/use, including what has to be one of the most impressive nuclear weapons in any video game to date.

The Soviet Assault expansion adds some new maps and another campaign, which is basically the same war but from the red perspective. They're both good singleplayer experiences, and the multiplayer (when it was alive) was great fun as well. One of the best real-time strategy games of the last decade.

I have a lot more to say about Total Annihilation but I'll keep it brief; this is one of the most seminal PC games ever made. It pushed strategy gaming well beyond many of its traditional limits - there were a ton of units, it had physics simulation for projectiles/debris/objects, and it included a fully fleshed out land, air, and sea environment. TA had a phenomenal soundtrack, performed by a real orchestra and composed by Jeremy Soule. The game itself had a grim but fantastic setting; a war between mankind and machines had raged on so long that there were virtually no resources left in the galaxy after thousands of years, and you start the game right as continued existence seems unlikely for either side. Arguably the most innovative single part of the game's design, though, was the ultra-powerful "commander" unit each side starts with. It's literally the only thing you begin with, and it can destroy anything else - even another commander - with a single shot... but it's slow, and its primary purpose is to actually build your base to carry on the war effort. It was like a King and Queen from chess rolled into one since typically losing your commander also immediately lost you the game.

There were a ton of cool ideas in TA and they were all really well executed. It had some expansions which added a bunch more units and campaign content - it was also the inspiration for Supreme Commander 1 and 2, along with the kickstarted Planetary Annihilation (all of these games play fairly similar to TA).

Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak is a very good game, it just isn't as original or impressive as Homeworld 1 or even Homeworld 2. It's very similar in a lot of superficial ways, like having a single massive vehicle as your main base, but things like terrain really change the tactical conduct of battles. Strongest points are the music, plot, and general feel/style of the game. It's also visually stunning once in a while, in a way that even the remastered Homeworld titles simply aren't anymore. But as an actual game I'd say it's third among what is, collectively, a really strong series overall. Multiplayer's okay but last I heard it was basically dead, I only dabbled in a couple matches. The main campaign is the real treat anyway.

I might write in later about Supreme Commander and the new Master of Orion but I really don't feel as strongly about those games as the three above.

I can talk a little about Frozen Synapse. It's a very unique title, where the turns take place simultaneously. You'll take each of your soldiers and give them orders to carry out over the next 5 seconds of battle. You might tell a soldier to aim his gun to the south, walk east a few feet, then crouch-walk below a window to the north, then aim his gun north and stand up to shoot anyone inside the window.

You can simulate the turn over and over, try to guess what your opponent might do and ideally make a battle plan that would account for anything.

The singleplayer is good enough, I got about 2/3 of the way through. The real treat is the multiplayer. The matches take a long time to play, you won't finish a match in one sitting. Each player has 3-4 days to plan out their turn so it's not a ton of pressure, I'd typically have two matches going and after work I'd check on each of them and play a couple turns. It was a lot of fun.

I can't speak to the recent reboot, but Master of Orion 2 holds up remarkably well for a 4X game that came out more than 20 years ago. The interface is pretty clean, everything has a tooltip when you right-click it, and it still has a lot of personality. That said, if you're asking what makes it "stand out" that might be a bit of a "Seinfeld is unfunny" kind of thing, since pretty much every space 4X game that has come out since has borrowed in some way or another from MoO 2's playbook in the same way every fantasy 4X borrows from either Master of Magic or Heroes of Might and Magic. It also has slog-y combat, gets notoriously micromanagement-heavy by the end, and has some pretty ridiculous balance issues where some traits and research paths are blatantly more useful than others, especially if you make a custom race. Absolutely still worth looking at, even if it might not be a great long term strategy game.

The only other game on this list I've played any serious amount of is Frozen Synapse, which I thought was very cool right up until I realized my brain was not well-equipped for the kind of crazy predictive tactical stuff that game's asynchronous multiplayer demands. I imagine anyone left playing at this point is very good, but maybe the single player is good enough to compensate.

@slag: Thanks for the feedback Slag! Sounds like the draw on this one is that it's Star Wars, and the game itself may be pretty rote by genre standards? That's good to know :)

@beachthunder: Thanks for the info! Does Frozen Synapse explain its mechanics well? It sounds like it's one of the more confusing games here mechanically, but I'm curious if that's because it struggles to convey the proper info, or if it's just always going to be confusing for the ideas it has.

@hans_maulwurf: @ares42: Thanks for the Anno feedback! I've been curious about these for a while, and that's some good info on the differences (or lack thereof) between them. Do you feel they compare favorably as far as city builder/economy sims go? Also, do games have an end/victory condition (like a Civ game or something), or do you just build to your heart's content (like Cities: Skylines or something)?

@onlykris: @umhyuk: Thanks to you both for the detailed breakdown of Paradox games! I have been a big Civ fan over the years, and have always wanted to try Paradox's stuff, as I think I would like their games too. I've just never found the time (they appear to all be huge time sinks, is that accurate?), and also never knew where to start. I appreciate all your information, gives me a lot to chew on :)

@giantstalker: Wow, thanks for all the detailed feedback on these, that's extremely helpful! Do you think Total Annihilation would hold up well today? And as for Deserts of Kharak, I plan on playing the Homeworld remasters first (I only tried them a little back in the day). Is it a fair assumption to say if I play those and don't have a strong desire for more, that Deserts of Kharak isn't going to be different/better enough to be a high priority?

@l33t_haxor: That sounds really interesting, if also potentially really confusing :) Thanks for the feedback! Any particular reason you didn't finish it? Was it long, challenging, just got bored of it, etc.

@arbitrarywater: Thanks for the feedback and clarifications on MoO 2- definitely sounds like that's the one to check out for that series. Even if I don't stick with it long term, I'm interested in taking a look at it given how influential it sounds like it was in the day, and that it hopefully holds up well enough (even if newer games have borrowed/improved a lot from it). As for Frozen Synapse, and why it got too crazy for you near the end, do you think the game does a good enough job at explaining its concepts and laying things out in the UI? Or is it more that the base concept is just hard to wrap your head around, regardless of how well the tutorials/UI are done?

@majormitch: I have played countless hours of Total Annihilation and less bit still a decent amount of Supreme Commander (which is the spiritual successor to it) and yeah, I would say they completely hold up. They are about proper resource management so you can create a constant unrelenting force of units. In something like StarCraft, it is more about positioning and map control, then using small forces of units to get the job done. You often hear commentators say: 'Oh, he is building a fifth Immortal!? That's highly unusual!' In Total Annihilation you have 50 units pushing and you will build an additional 100 to follow them up, which will be followed up by another 200 and so on.

It is a lot of fun.

SWEAW: I remember liking this game quite a bit, although I was a huge Star Wars fan when I was younger. It's significantly different than other strategy games, though, so it's definitely a different taste. I remember liking that the factions actually played quite differently. For example, the Empire gets resources in pretty standard ways - they get money from planets and have research facilities to go up the tech tree. If you play the Rebels, you need to steal all that stuff. But you also know where the Empire is all the time while the Empire needs to send out probe droids to find you.

MOO: If you're going to play one, play MOO2. One of my all time favorites since all the mechanics fit together pretty well. There are balance problems, though, as prior posters touched on. I think it's on sale on GOG.

The newest one is OK, but its significantly more Civilization than it is MOO. A lot of visual charm, but gameplay wise I didn't find it very enjoyable. They sort of missed on all the things that made the series great originally.

Stellaris: I love this game, but it's definitely an acquired taste. Can be pretty slow at the start, the art style is pretty abstract, and you're going to need to come up with your own story. It's a great "high-level" strategy game if you like that kind of stuff though. It's bar far my favorite Paradox game. Since they aren't trying to do history in this one, they don't need to be tied down trying to replicate WWII with the systems.

@majormitch: I like em a lot better than tropico, and I personally also prefer them to sim city, but I also never really got into those (with the exception of sc3000). The kinda quaint, family-friendly style of 1701/1404 has a special kind of charm, and I think it strikes a good balance in not being overwhelming while always giving you enough to do so you don't get bored. And yes, you can set win conditions (like reach a certain population, defeat the pirates, earn a certain amount of money etc.).

@majormitch said:

Absolutely, you're very welcome! Since you've played Civ you'll definitely be familiar with how time sinky these games can be. It might take you awhile to fully immerse yourself, since you'll probably be spending your first few hours learning the game's mechanics, but once you've got a handle on it it's terrifyingly easy to fall into that "One More Turn" mindset.

@majormitch: Some combination of it got hard and I got bored.

@majormitch: Yeah, that is how I felt about it. The Risk aspect of the game was the only part that stood out and I didn't care for it. The rest seemed mediocre or bad.

The game was pretty loved at the time though, so you may wish to hear second opinions.

@majormitch: There's tutorialisation, but I still ended up looking up stuff online. There's also a lot of mechanics that you rarely need to engage with; once you get the core mechanics, it's pretty smooth sailing. Basically, 90% of what you need to know is how to move a character and how to face the direction you want to shoot.

@majormitch: Re: Frozen Synapse. The basic mechanics are pretty straightforward and explained well enough, but there's a lot of nuance about movement and positioning that I never quite managed to come to grips with (because I'm impatient), which led to a long string of losses online. Keep in mind I never really played the single player campaign all that much, and I imagine a lot of that is far less demanding than playing against actual humans.

@majormitch: While there are people that play the Anno games like city builders, at the core they are economy sims, sorta.. Most of them have both campaigns (which gives you goals to complete) and free-play modes. I believe it's only the latest one that doesn't offer both modes. But even in free play mode you can put in victory conditions and AI, to make it sorta like playing a civ game.

As for how they compare to other games it's hard to make comparisons, it's sorta its own thing. The best comparison I can think of would be that they're Factorio "light" with better "dressing". They share the same core gameplay of "I have this resource here, and I need to move it over there to produce this thing that I need to combine with two other things to make the thing I want", but while Factorio has a very plain layout and straight forward goals Anno games have more mechanics and features that also factor in.

Personally I find the games to maybe not quite live up to their potential (as already hinted). But there's something very compelling about the core idea and the constructs around it makes the games feel more like a complete package, unlike how something like Factorio can feel like it's good up to a certain point but then lacking new and interesting things as you move along. I remember enjoying Banished quite a lot, but after a while I wished desperately it had the citizen upgrade mechanic and extra layers of buildings and needs that Anno games offer.