- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
Strategy Games General thread was merged with the 4X one by forum staff.
Last edited:
4X Games Thread. Expand Explore Exploit Exterminate.
- Thread starter Alexander Thaut
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2023
MoO didn't even peak with MoO 1, Battle of Anthares fucking ruled
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2024
For a low-end PC you should take a look at Armageddon Empires. It’s made on some sort of obsolete multimedia software so UI is pure shit but the gameplay is God-tier. Can’t recommend this game enough.
Smashed & Slamed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I see Shadow Empire has competition in the so shit it's actually good art. A screenie is not enough, what kind of game is it? Please not another card game.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2024
It is a card game. But not a deck-builder, it’s more like a board game. You create your deck from the get-go and can choose any card from a faction. It’s pretty hard to describe because how unorthodox it is. Enemy movement is invisible most of the time, detecting an enemy base/army is a big part of the gameplay. Map exploration in general is important. You can discover something like a nuclear warhead or a mech-factory, getting there first is a huge advantage. There is no end-game slog. Once you kill an enemy unit – it will never return (unit production is super limited) and a lot of the times it is all about discovering enemy base first and then sabotaging it, delivering a nuke there, just assaulting it with your army, etc.
There is just not much like it nowdays – fast and unpredictable. But UI is a dogshit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2022
I'm having an itch to play a Total War game again, but I've been out of the loop for so long & as far as strategy games go I usually stick to paradox or eugen systems games.
Which ones are worth playing nowadays? Mostly just for singleplayer sandbox/campaign.
I'd love to try the Warhammer trilogy but given the download size and my dogshit internet I'd have to be damn sure it's worth playing them.
Which ones are worth playing nowadays? Mostly just for singleplayer sandbox/campaign.
I'd love to try the Warhammer trilogy but given the download size and my dogshit internet I'd have to be damn sure it's worth playing them.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
Total Wawa 3 is worth a spin now I think, between the rework some of the base race got and mild improvement on both AI and usability. Can't recommend it at full price though. Get on hefty discount or yohoho.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2023
Since the TW formula is so strong, you can't go wrong with any game, really. But if WH3 is not an option try Medieval 2, Shogun 2, Napoleon, Rome 2 or Attila.
3K was the last big leap forward in terms of mechanics, Troy and Pharao are interesting for their campaigns but not battles.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2024
Started reading Shadow Empire manual today. Old World has a 200 pages guide and it was worth it. But 400 pages for Shadow Empire – and from the beginning it mentions shit like atmospherice moister affecting weapon efficiency. I am already scared.
Last edited:
Smashed & Slamed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
That stuff don't matta. Things that matta are the logistics. If you are familiar with Panzer Corps/Oder of Battle/Strategic Command and games like that then think of Shadow Empire as a free form sci fi take on the concept.
I am shit at the game but the game fits the Kiwi farms style of tism so I will make a little playthrough AAR in this thread so I can share the tism.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
Sort of kidding, I'm actually really excited for EL2, I loved EL1 and ES2.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2024
Nah. Endless Series is a disaster for 4x genre. They lure you by good presentation and music, but the gameplay is such a joyless slog. There are no interesting decisions, no risks, no fucking anything to hold you in. And on top of that – both endless space 2 and endless legends were left in a different state of broken.
I think endless space 2 is the worst among them. There are questionable game mechanics like:
1. Every citizen has a different bonus for a planet type. So every time you get a pop – enjoy scanning your planets to be sure that this spawned pop with +2 for ice planets will be moved on an ice planet. Also don’t forget – you can randomly get a Craver pop. And no - you can’t remove it, the game don’t have targeted pop deletion. There is a non intended way, but it’s another topic.
2. System improvement bloat. Like there is a farm with +X food per planet type/climate and a farm with +X food per pop. And you know – one is better than the other, but the game will not inform you which. So get use to using a calculator.
3. Combat is the worst. There are firing arcs on hard-points – I shit you not. It’s a vestige from an early access. So sometimes your ships will use only 10% of their firepower and you have pretty much zero ways to predict it.
4. My favorite part is how the Riftborn are balanced. They have bonus FIDSI output on dead planets and their terraforming tech is reversed – to make dead planets from lush ones. But they forget/didn’t bother to change how pop limit works for this type of planets so the Riftborn still have a low pop limit for dead planets. You better use a calculator again with this one.
5. Event system is bad. Especially in the end-game you will be spammed by such shit like “make a choice between +15 dust this turn or +5 dust for 4 turns” when your planets produce something like 1000 dust per turn each.
But hey! There is a funny YouTube nigger shilled this game, so now it’s the most popular space 4x game after stellaris.
I think endless space 2 is the worst among them. There are questionable game mechanics like:
1. Every citizen has a different bonus for a planet type. So every time you get a pop – enjoy scanning your planets to be sure that this spawned pop with +2 for ice planets will be moved on an ice planet. Also don’t forget – you can randomly get a Craver pop. And no - you can’t remove it, the game don’t have targeted pop deletion. There is a non intended way, but it’s another topic.
2. System improvement bloat. Like there is a farm with +X food per planet type/climate and a farm with +X food per pop. And you know – one is better than the other, but the game will not inform you which. So get use to using a calculator.
3. Combat is the worst. There are firing arcs on hard-points – I shit you not. It’s a vestige from an early access. So sometimes your ships will use only 10% of their firepower and you have pretty much zero ways to predict it.
4. My favorite part is how the Riftborn are balanced. They have bonus FIDSI output on dead planets and their terraforming tech is reversed – to make dead planets from lush ones. But they forget/didn’t bother to change how pop limit works for this type of planets so the Riftborn still have a low pop limit for dead planets. You better use a calculator again with this one.
5. Event system is bad. Especially in the end-game you will be spammed by such shit like “make a choice between +15 dust this turn or +5 dust for 4 turns” when your planets produce something like 1000 dust per turn each.
But hey! There is a funny YouTube nigger shilled this game, so now it’s the most popular space 4x game after stellaris.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2024
Any Old World enjoyers here? I've missed out on founding a world religion, what should I do? How risky is to take other nation religion? Taking divine rule law and becoming just full pagan feels gay - cathedrals and monasteries are too powerful to ignore them.
Also, is it me, or they've changed Mediterranean map generation? There is a giant landmass in the middle.
Also, is it me, or they've changed Mediterranean map generation? There is a giant landmass in the middle.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2021
Dont worry about that stuff, for some reason the game does actual hard science planet and atmosphere generation but in practice that only really matters for the basic info the game will just tell you (can humans breathe the atmosphere yes/no/envirosuit required). The basic gist of the game is actually pretty simple. Balancing what gets built with your industrial output, using your political points to play cards for bonuses,and raising troops to throw in a WW1/WW2/mad max/fallout new Vegas hex board game. On lower difficulties the AI is forgiving enough
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2024
Endless Legends 2 devlog is funny. They directly admitted changing a core game mechanic because of their "VIP's" complain - like it's a good thing. These retards have no idea what they are doing. As usual for them.
Checked some early game footage. There seems to be an obsession to have a character leader model being visible 100% of the time. It's sitting in the main UI in the corner, in pause menu, in main menu... Why?
Checked some early game footage. There seems to be an obsession to have a character leader model being visible 100% of the time. It's sitting in the main UI in the corner, in pause menu, in main menu... Why?
Jarolleon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
Last time I played Old World there wasn't much of a downside to letting every religion in because you could double dip on their religious buildings if you had enough tiles. It also becomes your religion if you conquer the holy city.
NiggerNiggerNigger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
Endless is only worthwhile if you plan to play multiplayer with the bros (it has no multiplayer tools/lobbies, so friends-not-included).
Their lack of developing AI is 10+ years past the benefit of the doubt.
Their games look great on the surface, AAA presentation and lore, but the game itself is a huge turd and its unlikely development will ever address any of it, NO ONE mains an Endless game. The biggest fans of the franchise speedrun through the lore, check out the content they thought was cool, maybe they'll play some MP with some of their clanmates that also picked it up -- but then everyone fucks off to play better games, because there's no point waiting for them to fix the turd. They'll just paint a new turd and make some money.
EL2 and ES3 will be well-painted turds too.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
My impressions (mixed with what other people say).
Rome 2: A giant bloated mess. Tons of content. Hate its agent system. Opaque political system. Meh.
Atilla; All the problems of Rome 2, but it did something utterly unique in creating survival strategy as a genre. The theming/thoughtful design of the campaign based around different experiences, and its commitment to its theme, is remarkable. That said, it is utterly brutally difficult; you can't really come to grips with playing it unless you're already good at Rome 2.
Shogun 2: A gold standard. It's the most simplistic and refined Total War; it has, by design, very similar factions defined more or less by unit specializations (like old-school RTS games) and a very simple and straightforward approach to economy/provincial development. It is all polished to a sheen. This is basically the best Total War ever made because it was so elegantly and carefully designed.
Empire: Is broken, requiring mods (like Darthmod) to even make it worth touching. It has far and away the most interesting and varied campaign. Many nations have very complicated geopolitical situations right out of the gate; you are, after all, fighting essentially up to three campaigns simultaneously through three theaters.
Napoleon: Is boring as hell due to its very dull setting. I like the Napoleonic Wars IRL, but having a campaign confined to continental Europe (not even the Middle East is included) in an era of global war and five basically identical gunpowder armies is AIDS.
Fall of the Samurai: I don't like it. I really wanted to like it because I'm specifically interested in the Meiji Restoration, but I don't like it. It has a novelty of being a The Last Samurai simulator, but I would just rather not.
Also consider that, though it isn't a Total War game by franchise, there's Grand Tactician: Civil War (I haven't played it), which is supposed to be very in-depth (to the point of having things like order delay at a strategic and tactical level, HOI-like micromanaging of what guns you issue your troops, etc.).
Overall, you can think of Total War as coming in pairs of a broader main game and a narrower but expanded/refined side game (although Pharaoh and Troy reverse this: Troy, the narrow one, came first). Rome-Atilla. Empire-Napoleon. Shogun-FOTS. Pharaoh-Troy.
Atilla, Empire and Shogun offer the best, I think, in their own pairs, and are also all very distinctive, unique experiences that each tell an interesting story, with interesting grand strategic gameplay, in them.
Learn Total War through Shogun. Rome and Napoleon are probably going to be better introductions to how to actually play this shit in pre-gunpowder and gunpowder respectively, but they're less interesting than Atilla and Empire. Shogun is a mixture of both gunpowder and pre-gunpowder, but for all purposes it is a pre-gunpowder game and you just wrap your head around the distinction between how you wield direct fire (musketry) and indirect fire (bows). It has very little in common with the play of Empire-Napoleon where it's about setting up lines of fire, understanding bayonet charges, etc. Basically, you can use Shogun to learn Rome-Atilla, but it's kind of useless for Empire-Napoleon.
Edit: To clarify, if you are not already familiar with playing wargames like these, gunpowder and pre-gunpowder are so fundamentally different that they're like different skills/rulesets to learn. I grokked gunpowder before I did pre-gunpowder. Gunpowder is going to revolve more around understanding that you aren't engaging units with units, you're setting up lines to shoot at a certain area. Overlapping fire. The decision to go in for bayonets and cavalry charges and such is part of the rhythm of combat. All infantry is ranged, but some is relatively good at melee, has a comparative advantage in melee. Light infantry win in straight gunfights but they can't hold anything; grenadiers, conversely, are as good at shooting as anything, but relatively speaking they're melee specialists. In musket warfare every single infantryman (except the light infantry/rifles) is a potential anti-cavalry polearm. Charging, by bayonet or cavalry, is a terror tactic meant to break a wavering force. It's a gamble and if it fails to break the enemy outright it was probably a giant mistake. Pre-gunpowder is more about counters and knowing how to maneuver well to get your counters where you want them. An understanding of cavalry goes with both.
Last edited: