Yesterday I had a hankering for a good old turn-based strategy game. I tried playing Gorky 17 and sadly, got trounced 3-4 battles in. It wasn't even a close. My squad got torn to absolute shreds. This sort of thing is pretty common in the strategy games I play. Final Fantasy Tactics, X-Coms Age of Fear: The Undead King, and now Gorky. I'm OK, however, at Civilization, though I can only win by normal conquest. And Fallout Tactics doesn't seem too bad, but I'm only a quarter of the way in. So other than those exceptions, what might I be doing wrong? Do you think playing on the easy setting helps more than just giving you an extended tutorial? Also, do you have a recommendation for strategy games I can cut my teeth on? Or should I just give the genre a rest?

How do you think II feel, I suck at all genres!

the difficulty in fft is a bit all over the place. like it can be kind of difficult starting out if you're new, but since there are a lot of ways to break things it gets easier after chapter 2 outside of some rough places like riovannes castle or some of the random battles.

I'd say maybe try something simpler like Shining Force, nintendo wars, or Fire Emblem I guess. Though you have to stomach a lot of rng with FE.

If you want to improve, start by identifying your mistakes in detail. Did you bring an underpowered force to the battle, such that even an expert at the game would have lost? If you were outmatched, why did that happen? Are you less effective than the enemy at building an army? Do you tend to lose units more rapidly, so that your army shrinks faster than your enemy's army? In some games, minimizing your losses over a series of battles is very important, because replacing lost units is expensive in time or resources. In others, you should prioritize fighting and winning as many battles as you can, even with moderate to severe losses, because losses are easily replaced, but the resources you capture from those extra battles become critical.

Did you not make effective use of the units you had, such as by not activating special abilities when they would be most helpful (or worse, not using them at all)? Watch what special abilities the enemy used, and note how much the ability impacted the outcome of the battle. In some games, but not all, you can use the computer player's choices as hints about how you should have played.

As for other games, Heroes of Might and Magic 3 seems to routinely be a bestseller on GOG. It is a turn-based fantasy strategy game, with turn-based combat.

Just watch the start of some let's play. Some content creators, actually take the time to explain the game mechanics and useful strategies and tricks. You'll have an easier time to start your playthrough, once you have an idea about what to expect.

About giving the genre a rest, that's entirely dependent on you. If you are willing to try so many game, it's clear that you're enjoying the genre. It's ridiculous to abandon it, if it give joy.

About Final Fantasy Tactics, while I haven't played the game, unless I'm mistaken it's a strategy RPG, so I'd imagine the old adage of jRPGs should remain true. When you can't get past a battle, just grind some levels and overpower your opposition.

Order of Battle is a good intermediate-level strategy game. More complex than something like Advance Wars but simpler than a 4X or hardcore wargame. And if you want it even simpler, get the Morning Sun DLC which doesn't have the same unit complexity as the base campaign. I had no real problems with it on medium difficulty.

If instead you want a 4X, there's Stars in Shadow which forgoes frills and cryptic combat mechanics (yes, that means you, Endless Space) in favor of being a more modern Master of Orion.

I play video games since around 1982 and I play strategy and/or wargames games since 1987.
Strategy is my favorite genre.
Gorky 17 is more of a RPG than strategy.
I haven't played FF Tactics and I am not aware of Age of Fear.
Which X-Com games have you played? The Firaxis made X-Com games are much easier than the original ones. If you haven't played the Firaxis X-Com games, perhaps you should start with them as they are easier than the classic ones.

In general there is only one way of getting good at strategy games. Playing strategy games a lot.

I can recommend strategy games but it does depend what you are willing to play. I am talking about platform/system and generation.

If we are talking about PC games and more specifically games released in the last 12 or so years then for someone who finds it hard to win in them I recommend the following.

Blue and Grey North and South. You can get it from Gamersgate and perhaps Steam. From GG it is DRM free. The game is a remake/reboot of the original North and South released by Infogrames in 1989 ish. I don't remember who released this version. Similar but different. Either way it is a relatively easy to get into game with some options which should make it easier for someone like you. It's a fun game too. There are action elements in it, but you can choose to play with them disabled.


I have to go now, something came up, but I will post more later.

Gorky 17 is one of the harder turn-based combat games I've played (until you get a solid grasp of things).

Classic turn-based stuff includes King' Bounty (the new ones are more accessible), Heroes of Might&Magic (any of them really but the series plateaus at HoM&M V) or if you are in the mood for a grim, depressing setting, there is also Disciples (2 is much better than 1). They all have various difficulty settings so you can go lower if you feel it's too much.

I'm much more experienced with RTS but your question pertains to TBS. Just ask if you want RTS recommendations too :).

If you want to shake it up a bit, have a play of Jagged Alliance 2, it's strategy with an RNG element. Similar to the XCOM games.

Apart from that, I'd second the suggestion above for King's Bounty. I've just completed a playthrough of Crossworlds, and did like the fact that you can effectively choose the difficulty level that you're willing to fight. If you look around enough you'll always be able to find an enemy weaker than you (if you play Warrior), but if you want to challenge yourself then you can throw yourself into the stronger opponents.

I'd argue Gorky 17 is a special case, because you have to figure out first, which weapons are able to damage which enemies.
That's essential.
Because if you use the "wrong" weapon on opponent "X", it won't do shit...while "X" (and all its cronies) is/(are) having no such problems.
I usually suck at playing strategy games, but I absolutely loved Gorky 17. That tells something.

I love analysis.
Play game and save gameplay footage
Identify different phases; for example with supcom there's initial build order setup, first expansion, enemy localization and refiinement of strategy, holding the line grind, end game.
You would identify what stage you suffer the critical flaw.
Are there any ways to change starting build order to be more efficient.
Am I over extending or not locking out the enemies expansion.
What are the general force makeups I'm having sent at me and is it worthwhile holding back from engagement to rush build a more general counter (artillery).
Do I spend too much time focused on the battle when I need to exponentially increase my bases capabilities.
These are just general theories you can come up with just by breaking things down.

Then you can get into the maths.
(time spent creating squad x resources spent creating squad) = Allocation cost
(whole opponent squads destroyed / whole squads applied) = combat effect
allocation cost / combat effect = unit combat efficiency
You then change some of the variables (units involved) to identify which force does the most that can be brought into play the most thus giving you an edge.