Yes disciples 3, a great game which really doesn't reach it's potential! It's sad that the company went bust or something? I was looking forward to a mountain clans DLC.

And when you actually look at that game from a programmers point of view, they done a really good job on it under the circumstances:)

It might be what you want, but I honestly wouldn't touch that.

RTS, no matter the implementation, just leaves me cold

Which is why when I play a game I want something different than what I do all day.

You hear that, Stardock? You're not serious!

I think it would be really cool to have a game like FE:LH in real-time mode. I guess tactical battles would pause or severely slow time down on the strategic scale though.

I'm not trying to have an argument with you, I honestly don't care if you love RTS.

I don't love RTS, I don't even like them.  Whether the gaming community needs more of less of them is irrelevant to me.  Whether they are better or worse or smarter or dumber or easier or harder, none of that matters remotely to me.

I like one thing, you like another thing.  You seemto speak for a large group as though you are the spokesman.  Maybe you are, maybe you're even right.

It still doesn't matter.  I speak for me.

However.

Is simply an incorrect statement.  Saying ridiculous things like that does disservice to the point you are trying to make.

I'm really enjoying AoW3.  It has a great Random Map Generator and I really enjoy the extensive tactical battles.  The patches have much improved the game I think.  I like to play XL two-layer maps against 7 Non-Allied Emperor AIs, with Starting Distance = Far, Medium armies, no roads, few Cities and Dwellings (there will still be enough), Many Treasure Sites (basically dungeons) and I like to build up a killer stack with my Leader and starting hero and 4 other troops and go dungeon crawling.  I also use the Advanced Settings: Heroes (and Leaders) start with Resurgence (will resurrect if you win the battle and their corpse hasn't been blown up or animated), and Racial Heroes (you are only offered heroes from races your leader is or that you have absorbed into your empire, unless there are none of those heroes left).  I also like to ally and share open borders with the first player or two I meet with a nice gold or mana bribe, and I don't mind if their empire gets a lot bigger than mine with time.

My favourite Leader at this time for the kind of game I like is Draconian Sorceror.  Draconian Apprentices have Fire Bomb (a ranged physical and fire damage attack that has no ranged or obstacle penalties and hits all hexes adjacent to target hex) and all support units (including Apprentices) can stun when you get the very expensive but well worth it School of Enchantment skill.

I am "Steven Aus" over at http://ageofwonders.com/forums/

I must give credit to the devs for the fantastic support of their new game.  A new race, new classes and new monsters are coming out soon (this might be a paid addition), and a lot of people think that the two included major patches so far have much improved the game, and it's being improved all the time.  Even without extra content on top of the 1.2 version it is a very attractive and playable game with great music and fantastic tactical battles.  The flanking mechanism I think is one of the standout new features in tactical combat, and the green, yellow, red zones for multiple hit attacks (3, 2 or 1 attack) are very easy to understand (you always get at least one attack or spell at the end of your movement, unless you have used up all your actions by retaliating three times last round).

I am in the "interested in deep tactical battles" camp, but I enjoy FE:LH every now and again too, and probably will be getting Elemental 2015 at some stage as well.

This statement is not ridiculous when you know how it is meant.  I am setting a standard of thought here.  Taken by itself you can say it is imperfect in many ways.  But that is not how this is meant at all.  

Further explanation to facilitate the annihilation of your ignorance:  Turn based games are a game design short cut to make game design easier(because good game design is really HARD).  That is why established, professional companies should be focusing on making RTS instead of trying to compete with(and therefore crush) Indy game companies and use their budgets to seize the opportunity of the RTS(they can farm turn based mechanics from indy games and incorporate them into their own RTS games as well). Real time strategy requires a higher level of resources to make, and a higher requirement of balance.  Game companies naturally want to marginalized RTS and go for an easier money maker due to the natural requirements of business: less resources in + greater $$ returns = great amount of profit/business as usual. Indy companies have smaller budgets (usually) and therefore will have a much harder time making RTS games that are worth playing(the competition is just too high for most companies).  Any serious developer, who has the money, the capability, should make an RTS because this is the time for them to make a come back.  Will they HAVE to be innovative? yes.  RTS are risky, yet I know one company right now that can afford to make a risk:  Stardock(the opinion I actually care about).  

Also, saying you do not care is irrelevant, if I cared about your feelings I would not even talk about this with you online.  You should assume that nobody cares that you don't care, caring is not relevant to online discussion(or any debate/argument either) because we don't know each other.  We use other forms of discussion to persuade, don't mistake that I am trying to persuade you when I am not(even if it seems like we are discussing something, this is after all, a discussion viewed by many).

You can choose to not care and be ignorant, that is your choice.  I haven't posted this just for you.  

That's similar to me saying something like... "RTS games are for people with no thought process, and can't handle in-depth strategy." Do I really think that, no, but it is just as insulting as the crap you are spewing. Do you seriously believe that crap, or are you just trolling for a good argument?

Guess someone should tell the maker's of the Civ series that they have just been an indie developer all these years.

In my opinion, many of us here, obviously not all, probably not even most, but many of us wouldn't buy the best RTS of all time were it to come out. Even if it were to come from Stardock, a company many of us love to support. To some, RTS just isn't fun.

Frogboy, I play the following when I want to do 4x or strategy games:

• Gal Civ III (Alpha) Coming along very nicely.
• Gal Civ II Ultimate pack. (Classic space 4x, never loses its luster.)
• Distant Worlds (All expacs except the latest 'universe'. Great game.)
• Fallen Enchantress, Legendary Heroes. (I learned of this game via this website. I love the game, and purchased several DLC's for it.)
• Civ V (all expansions, great graphix, could really use a 64 bit engine. Loved IV which I also play.)
• Endless Space (base game, was a shock to be told I can only travel along star lanes and not able to move in any direction. Play is predictable and I rarely play anymore.)
• Heroes of Might and Magic III (My very first exposure to PC gaming was this game. It never gets old)
• X2 (Great game but can take hours just to get anywhere and do anything.)
• Xcom Enemy Within. (I highly recommend all to try this amazing game by Firaxis. Great Great game. Hoping for more content.)

I also put in 2 hours a night and 12 on the weekend playing an MMO. My current MMO I am enjoying is Star Wars the Old Republic. The following MMO's are ones I have invested at least 1 year or more in:

• Star Wars the Old Republic (Currently playing everyday. I have 7 real life friends who joined me from EQ2)
• Everquest (99-2003)
• Everquest II (7-10 years played. Left it again for Star Wars. I feel SOE has just gone to the dogs and its 'Free to Play Your Way' is absolute crap, I have no hope for EQnext but will keep an eye on it.)
• The Secret World, (2 years, excellent game. Tough learning curve, lack of solo stuff at end game.)
• Elder Scrolls Online, Played Beta and 1 month. Great game I like Star Wars graphix better.)
• Aion. (6 months, great graphix difficult lvl advancement not for Western MMO players.)

Hmm, that is all I can think of at the moment but I am sure there are more. 

Please keep your brilliant games going!

Actually your statement and mine are not similar at all.  Game design is far different from game playing.  You decide to take it personally, that is your own issue and not connected in any way to my statement.  I wrote this statement precisely, your attempts to misconstrue the statements without reading them are obvious and do you no credit.

Civilization and the Total War Series are notable exceptions, I'm talking about the glut of turn based games coming out from indy developers right now.  If you read critically you will notice that I have not made any concrete statements about game companies, because of this kind of obvious troll response.

If you read critically, you will notice that the core of my statements have NOTHING to do with how fun RTS games are(mainly because that is subjective and therefore a moot point) and everything to do with how little RTS is represented in the marketplace.  You and I can and will enjoy turn based games, yet I will always think turn based games are inferior creations to RTS games because they require so much less talented engineering(this is why serious game studios should focus on this, because they are best equipped to fill the void).  

Our perspectives on this differ between game design and game playing.

I don't have time to satisfy your lack of intellectual rigor.

Beyond the scope of this conversation, I am not discussing commercial failures at all.  You should really play sins of a solar empire.  If you play it and you do not see how RTS can be redesigned fundamentally just from an overall design then you need to upgrade your perspective on game design.

Uh, or buy it now that it is one package under the "Universe" name on Steam and through their website?

$50 for all the expansions and the new additions? Well worth it. Best Space 4X out there right now. 

Surprised to see this debate about RTS vs Turn based games. Like many others, I don't get into RTS games that much. I hate the feeling of "racing against the clock", plus, now that I'm older (57) I have much less time for gaming and like to relax and take my time when I do. Most of the RTS games I've played get me all revved up and hyper as I'm all caught up in what the AI is doing and trying to race against their moves. The computer will always think much faster than I can so I just prefer turn based. I'm able to get up and do other things in the middle of my gaming session without losing any ground.

Maybe one of the reasons there aren't more RTS games out there is because they don't sell as well? The companies don't find them as profitable to make? I pose these as questions because I don't know the answer. But for me, logic seems to indicate that there must be some reason that companies aren't churning out tons of these types of games if good money were to be made doing so. Few companies put out games because they love the concept idea of their game, it's because they want to make money.