Whats a good strategy game for beginners?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Build orders aren't APM intensive, in fact, you are juggling much less at the start and it's a lot easier to keep tabs on everything. Look at X/Y and tell me how you need high APM. Count out the total amount of actions needed.

Lets take an in depth look at a 6 min (6:20 is the actual timing) 4 warpgate rush.

24 Units is 48 actions
lets say you have 10 buildings at a generous 5 actions per building (select b building location return) - 50 actions
8 chronoboosts at 3 actions is 24 actions
Research warpgate is 2 actions
apply warpgate is 4 actions

The amount of actual mouseclicks required for this is incredibly low, much lower than 50% with proper keybinding.

That's 128 actions over the course of 6 min allowing ~50% more actions for additional moving/rallying/keybinding for a low 30 APM.

You have to think fast, but it doesn't take that many actions.

That build alone can get you into Gold easily. Getting out macro'd or rushed doesn't mean they clicked faster and there is strategy in both of those.

I dunno, this post is probably over the top, but the fact is there are TONS of diamond/plat players with 30-45 APM and mouse clicking abilities don't matter anywhere near as much as thinking fast does.


But it does matter. If click speed didn't matter, then why can't people who are the best strategiests in a TBS game beat those in a top tier RTS games? What sets those 2 games apart? The clicking and micromanagement with speed requried to overrun an opponent.

This is exactly why SC became a huge esport. Because it requried the click "skill" and not just intellect.

Also you are only using SC2 as an example, while our gripe is with RTS overall. Maybe SC2 does it better as a new design. But overall RTS does require fast clicking, whether you believe it or not. (Look it up, I googled some info and found that this is generally true/accepeted as a fact)
 

Nvidiaguy07

Platinum Member
Feb 22, 2008
2,844
4
81
hmm, point taken re: chess.

New suggestion: Plants vs Zombies

Purely PvE strategy though.
I should have mentioned that i played that game. I wouldnt put it in the same category as any of the strategy games mentioned here though. Its defintely easier, but a little too easy.

I do love the way they "teach" you the game in the adventure mode though. Thats something that i would really like in whatever strategy game i play.

Im so pissed i can no longer play PvZ at all anymore. Bought it on steam - put like 25 hours into it, and then i decided to play it on my macbook. Once i started with the zen garden, the game would crash randomly. Now when i play, i just get "file read error" when the game boots up. :( Emailed steam, emailed EA, no one had answers, and i dont even know how to just delete my save and start over again. (steam cloud)

I decided to buy it for my phone because i could no longer play on the computer, and now i cant even play on my phone since i upgraded to the galaxy nexus. Thank you popcap!
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
But it does matter. If click speed didn't matter, then why can't people who are the best strategiests in a TBS game beat those in a top tier RTS games? What sets those 2 games apart? The clicking and micromanagement with speed requried to overrun an opponent.

This is exactly why SC became a huge esport. Because it requried the click "skill" and not just intellect.

Also you are only using SC2 as an example, while our gripe is with RTS overall. Maybe SC2 does it better as a new design. But overall RTS does require fast clicking, whether you believe it or not. (Look it up, I googled some info and found that this is generally true/accepeted as a fact)

At the end of the day, timing (either click speed or thinking speed) is a factor in RTS. that is why it is called 'Real time' strategy. and as such, time has to have a factor in the strategy element.

A good comparison vehicle might be Xcom Apocalypse. That game came out with both a real time and turn based mode. Same engine. Same physics. But if you played both, you very quickly realized the difference.
 

Iron Wolf

Member
Jul 27, 2010
185
0
0
PvZ is a Tower Defense game, which I suppose you could say is a sub-genre of strategy, I guess.

I like RTS games, but only those that I can pause in SP. I know that is an anathema to you RTS purists, especially since Blizz (and IRC the C&C series) don't do it that way. I like being able to just stop and think every once in a while, and to be able to pause and issue build orders and orders to the troops. My fav RTS of all time was the Warlords Battlecry series, and of course you can also pause DoW and CoH, which are also squad-based, with less of a focus on base building and more on combat. Even the AoE series allows pausing, but of course you can't in AoE Online.
 

Pia

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,563
0
0
SC2 at the pro level (think 1%) does require inhuman ability to click on shit, but that is of no consequence to the vast majority of people who just want to play a good game.

You can sit and click slowly on stuff, and as long as you make the right decisions and are able to keep track of what's happening around the map, you will be at least a top 10% player, middlish diamond league. And thanks to the ladder, you'll be facing people your level all the time you play. Only time that doesn't quite work out is at the very beginning, which is more random because the people at the bottom are pretty random.

It's not necessary to train by burning through AIs. Just get a feel for all races (in skirmish and/or single player), pick a race that is not zerg, pick a "normal" solid build that isn't an all-in rush - I can suggest one when you have picked a race - and go 1v1, start trying to do that build vs people. In between you can watch some of Day9's webcasts, especially Newbie Tuesday episodes. For a while you'll often lose to some kind of rush, but you don't have to pay much attention to them. Most of them are bad and later on you'll crush them without trying; it's a waste of time to think "strategy" before you can tell which of them are actually dangerous. If you lose to the same thing several times, it's maybe time to look at what it is, and think about how to stop it (with minimum effort, so your own plans aren't disrupted).
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
Another good strategy game, although it isn't what you call a traditional strategy game is Baldur's gate. The combats are VERY strategic, particularly in BG2 and in TOB. And the build up/learning curve is very appropriate. Just saying.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
How about Company of Heroes? It basically walks you through of what to do in the beginning.
 

Mandres

Senior member
Jun 8, 2011
944
58
91
exactly what i was looking for. Im pretty sure i saw Starcraft 2 selling for 30 bucks at walmart, and i have to make a stop there sometime today anyway, so ill probably pick it up.

Being that it seems simpler than Civ5, and i already have a little experience with it, its probably one of the easier games that i can learn.

I was hoping there would be some indie game that is like a dumbed down warcraft, but playing SC2 vs the computer should be easy enough to learn. What about any android strategy games? Are there any out that are like mini versions or bigger games?

But the thing is that they're totally different genres. Playing SC will not help you learn "strategy" games in general. All you will learn is how to play Starcraft. And by the time your friends are sick of Civ5 you'll still have no idea how to play with them. You might as well play call of duty since it has "strategic" elements.

If you're really looking for Civilization with training wheels then you could start with Civ2, but so much changed by #5 (including the basic arrangement of the play field) that even that won't really help you.

Just play Civ5 on the lowest difficulty and read about the units, buildings, strategies, etc. until you get the hang of it. There is really no other game that will prepare you to play Civilization.
 

Pia

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,563
0
0
But the thing is that they're totally different genres. Playing SC will not help you learn "strategy" games in general. All you will learn is how to play Starcraft.
There's a lot of overlap between good Starcraft players, chess players, poker players. SC absolutely does teach you strategy and give you transferable skills if you get decent at it. If I had to pick a favorite for a competition where gamers play a bunch of random never-before-seen videogames, a high level Starcraft player would be an easy pick for me.

Here's some blog posts summarizing a part of the UC Berkeley Starcraft class lectures. A lot of the concepts discussed transfer easily to other games.
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/category/starcraft-class

That said, playing SC in order to get to Civ V is like climbing a tree upside down in scuba gear. SC is a much harder game to get decent at.
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Most of these games have already been suggested, but my suggestions would be Rise of Nations, the Age of Empires series, SCII, Dawn of War. I might also add the Battle for Middle Earth 2 series and Supreme Commander. If you play these in skirmish mode on the easiest difficulty, you dont get rushed too heavily, and you can learn how to harvest resources and build up your tech tree. Then you can move up to higher difficlulties where you will get rushed.

Personally, I found WC3 frustrating on even lowest difficulty, as well as most turn based games and the total war series. Galactic Civ especially I found brutally difficult. The Civ games are fun, but I always seem to end up with a stalemate, able to defend my territory but not to get a victory. There are also a dizzying array of optional upgrade paths.
 

Edge1

Senior member
Feb 17, 2007
439
0
0
My very first foray into strategy games was with LOTR Battle For Middle Earth. Very fun, very easy to get into. There is a BFME2 which is even better apparently, although I've not played it. Company of Heroes is great. I really enjoy the Total War series (you might try Rome). Pausing during battle is a key feature for me as I'm no fast twitch clicker.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
But the thing is that they're totally different genres. Playing SC will not help you learn "strategy" games in general. All you will learn is how to play Starcraft. And by the time your friends are sick of Civ5 you'll still have no idea how to play with them. You might as well play call of duty since it has "strategic" elements.

If you're really looking for Civilization with training wheels then you could start with Civ2, but so much changed by #5 (including the basic arrangement of the play field) that even that won't really help you.

Just play Civ5 on the lowest difficulty and read about the units, buildings, strategies, etc. until you get the hang of it. There is really no other game that will prepare you to play Civilization.

I gotta disagree with you here. Learning any strategy game will show you what kinds of things to look for in other strategy games. Plus the sense of progression that is unique to strategy games in general is often best expressed on 'lighter' strategy games.

Playing any strategy game will teach you the types of lift you can expect from strategies. And learning the tech trees can show you how taking one path might be a strength or a weakness against a given strategy.

Sure, you aren't learning the individual tech trees, nor the unique strategies specific to Civ5, but then if you are intimidated by how complex Civ5 is, you will never learn them anyway. Gotta learn to walk before you can run.

It's like learning to play checkers before you play chess. Yes, they are significantly different games, but checkers introduces you to the board in general. And the take turns structure of the game. And how you have to consider limited pieces. And sacrifices. Plus learning how to take a more long term view of the board. so even though these games are dramatically different in execution, they have common elements that you can learn from.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
My very first foray into strategy games was with LOTR Battle For Middle Earth. Very fun, very easy to get into. There is a BFME2 which is even better apparently, although I've not played it. Company of Heroes is great. I really enjoy the Total War series (you might try Rome). Pausing during battle is a key feature for me as I'm no fast twitch clicker.

BFME2 allows more flexibility in where to build. You are not limited to those encampment things. But they are very similar. I played both, and enjoyed them, but preferred BFME2. BFME2 also allowed you to build custom heroes, which I cant remember if you could do in the first game. Up until not too long ago there were some great online custom maps, but sadly I believe the servers are not running now.

Edit: I also enjoyed company of Heroes, but just could never get the hang of the Total War games. I really wanted to like them, but just got trampled almost before I got started.
 
Last edited:

bado

Junior Member
Aug 13, 2012
7
0
0
no one don't try those games you will became something expert called "booring people"
 

Nvidiaguy07

Platinum Member
Feb 22, 2008
2,844
4
81
havent had a chance to get to walmart yet - where i saw sc2 selling for $30, but i did pick up company of heroes a while back for really cheap on steam, so im gonna give that a shot tonight based on reviews here.

Tried playing civ5 earlier for a bit, honestly that game is so overwhelming. I dont know whether to treat it more like simcity or starcraft. Even attacking when i do get in a battle is confusing. This is kinda why i just had more experience in that type of game in general because i just feel lost, wherein as if i played sc2, it think id at least have a general idea of what to do since i played it a LONG time ago.

Yea i probably should take a few hours and read some guides, but i feel like most people who play civ5 have played earlier games in the series, and its almost like im learning a new language or something. Maybe ill pick up an earlier civ and give that a shot first.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
I weep for the future.

alas, our civilization is doomed. I fear that movie Idiocracy wasn't fiction but a movie shot 200+ years into our future.

Another post from the same person in a different thread (No lie)

"to be honest I don't know a thing about Minecraft in fact I heat this type of games , even that they shouldn't be called games but they should be called "work"

Sigh I weep for humanity.
 
Last edited:

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
havent had a chance to get to walmart yet - where i saw sc2 selling for $30, but i did pick up company of heroes a while back for really cheap on steam, so im gonna give that a shot tonight based on reviews here.

Tried playing civ5 earlier for a bit, honestly that game is so overwhelming. I dont know whether to treat it more like simcity or starcraft. Even attacking when i do get in a battle is confusing. This is kinda why i just had more experience in that type of game in general because i just feel lost, wherein as if i played sc2, it think id at least have a general idea of what to do since i played it a LONG time ago.

Yea i probably should take a few hours and read some guides, but i feel like most people who play civ5 have played earlier games in the series, and its almost like im learning a new language or something. Maybe ill pick up an earlier civ and give that a shot first.

It is neither simcity or sc2. But there is plenty that makes it difficult, though it is easier than a previous version.

I read 0 guides, just play a whole game or 2 through and get a feel for what and how things should be done. And decide early on in the game which victory condition you would like to aim for, and focus on that.
 

Pia

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,563
0
0
Tried playing civ5 earlier for a bit, honestly that game is so overwhelming. I dont know whether to treat it more like simcity or starcraft. Even attacking when i do get in a battle is confusing. This is kinda why i just had more experience in that type of game in general because i just feel lost, wherein as if i played sc2, it think id at least have a general idea of what to do since i played it a LONG time ago.
I haven't played Civ V, so others will have to fill in specifics - but as with economy games in general, success comes through greed. You want to be always building up as much economy (in a broad sense - including research, etc.) as possible. When you start fighting (there's either a profitable opportunity to conquer something, or you are forced to defend yourself), you transition your production and social policy to "battle mode", and do everything you can (with force, diplomacy, etc.) so that the war is over with quickly and you can go back to "economy mode". Prolonged fighting is bad. Having lots of army over time is bad.