When I play my favourite strategy games and feel like a conqueror(it doesn't come with the side effect of guilt and bad press mind you) taking over a map, it feels good and satisfying. No shame in admitting that... although that's not to say I'm a secret megalomaniac or something. Hey, it's good fun! Besides, it's good practise for real life. As long as you don't end up being a megalomaniac.
Shogun Total War
The first Total War featured a board game like campaign map with regions separated as a single battle map. I could move troops across Japan from a port to another port without the use of ships, leading to some hotly contested territories. One of the earliest grand strategy games I have played, different regions have different values. Some for having fertile lands that had incredible rice yields(which gained you money from tax), some for having gold deposits, some for being regions that trained veteran versions of particular units. Holding on to territory and striking at valuable ones were a key strategy. I really felt like a Daimyo plotting his next move. Diplomacy could have been better, but for a first game from Creative Assembly, it was pretty incredibleRome Total War
In Rome Total War, I came, I saw, I conquered... it also conquered my life. I spent nearly two years playing Rome Total War exclusively. Sad... but I was completely immersed in the Roman antiquity setting. Never mind the super fast speed at which your centurions ran. Despite feeling like Rome battles moved a lot faster than the previous Medieval Total War, it took the grand campaign to a whole new height. 3D campaign map meant you fought where you attacked or defended and the battle map would, somewhat, represent the geographic look of the location(the battle maps were generated). Always playing the Julii, I painted the map red and moved towards the British Isles which made battles interesting. Druids and chariots always were a shock unit in the game, troops that caused fear in your lines. But Romans always prevailed. And then there is the civil war back in Rome when things got hot... always ended up in a mess.Empire: Total War
How about upping the ante? How about offering gamers almost the entire known world? Europe, America, East Indies, North Africa, and India. Empire Total War explodes the campaign map with trade theatres and new continents. And add naval battles, holding forts and conquering town and pillaging farms, complicated the game more than it needed to. Painting the map your colour just made a bit more troublesome with the addition of buildings outside of your settlement.Europa Universalis III
Europa Universalis III isn't my most play game in the series. I played the first Europa Universalis so much, it was the only game to grab me away from Rome Total War. Unlike Total War, conquering was made... ermmm... a little more complicated. What's this with this Casus Beli and all that? What? You say I need a reason to go to war? How... unwar-like! But that is not all, I can compete in trade centres with my merchants. Not happy with the conquest game, make a tonne of money instead. Alliances mattered and knowing who was allied to whom was crucial. You didn't want to pick on tiny Frankfurt only to have the whole Holy Roman Empire knock on your door.Crusader Kings II
The latest entry from Paradox takes the Europa Universalis game and throws in a bunch of people... many, many people. You see, conquering territories weren't enough but knowing who your brother in law was in a pissing match against and that you just angered your cousin, whose father is the duke of so and so and was pals with the mighty French royalty... ouch!Rise Of Legends
Perhaps not the most popular(let's face it, it didn't sell as well as Rise of Nations) game to come out of Big Huge Games, but certainly had a lot of charm and brilliance to be a follow up to the classic Rise of Nations. The story and the setting might have seemed a bit, unconventional(steam punk setting with lots of funky factions) but it retained the core of what made Rise of Nations great, while... I'll admit it... streamlining the game to make it a lot faster and easier to manage. The campaign map, like in Rise of Nations consisted of regions that gave you resources and you had access to cards and building improvements on them that enabled you to research new units, gain wealth and even upgrade heroes that you get from completing levels.Sid Meier's Civilization IV
The fourth in the Civilization series is quite possibly the best. While it still inherited the stack of doom(stacking a single square with a tonne of units that steam roll cities) issue... or maybe you don't consider it as an issue, but it was rather cheesy. Conquering Civ's often meant destroying them to their very last city. Not as easy as it sounds as captured cities might rebel and they needed you to place some military units in them to pacify them. Not to mention, the nuclear wars that happened when the first Civ starts using them. Mutually Assured Destruction in action, in video game form.Hearts of Iron III
Not exactly taking over the world, but near modern times conflict just got complicated. Take note of the weather, time of day, terrain as these variables would play a crucial role in battles. Countries are divided into districts that are divided into smaller regions which meant that having a defensive or offensive line that spanned across them to be the order of the day. Taking over a territory often meant pushing on forth with a line of units so that you avoid encirclement.We need more strategy games where we're taking over the world. I'm quite sick of RTS's and MOBA games that just focus on the localised conflict. The big picture is a lot more enticing. Being king is awesome and very satisfying. Now if only they did a proper strategy game on revolutions that overthrew the monarch or a despot. Victoria II doesn't count since it is a game that surrounds itself in the time period of revolutions. What games make you feel like a badass ruler? Do you like taking over the world in video games and what games have I missed out?
No comments:
Post a Comment