If Civilization IV counts as modern than it wins. Otherwise, Fallen Enchantress wins.

I never played the Civ games and never heard of most of the other fantasy games people talk about here.  I've mostly played RTS's and console shooters.  I was just never a turn-based guy.  But I wanted to play a fantasy strategy game newer than Battle for Middle Earth 2 and Fallen Enchantress was all i could find.  now i'm addicted to it so I think that says something (although, I also have to give credit to Sins for easing me into the 4x-ish genre with its hybrid style:).

The best recent strategy games (last year or two) are:

FTL (Faster than light) some called it a roguelike meets startrek, but essentially it is a really fun strategy game with a bit of RPG)

X-COM (first play through only) it doesn't have much in the way of different paths, although it has some RPG in it. The second playthrough is very much like the first. But it is very fun the first time.

Mike.

Europa Universalis 3 with it's 4 expansion packs is an incredible rich, ambitious and great game. EU4 is coming next year, and looks amazing so far. So there is still great strategy games being made.

The best game coming out this year is undoubtly Elemental; Fallen Enchantress. It will be an instant classic being one of the best strategy games ever made. I'll put it in the same class as the Civ-series, Galactic Civ-series and Europa Universalis-series. In my opinion no other strategy titles beats those. Stardock has a great new franchise going here.

I think in general most modern games are inferior in many ways to older games. Despite this I dont believe FE will ever be as purely strategic and balanced as say a game like Civ 4. Neither does it have the true sandbox feeling of a game like EU3 (although not TBS it is VERY close). Tactically or graphically this game doesn't have anything on Shogun Total War 2.

That being said, I believe FE will be a great game and as much fun to play as MoM.. whether it stands the test of time and truly becomes a grand strategy game depends on how well it can handle and encourage many and varied strategy. Right now, with its one correct tech path and continuous pioneer spam its a bit lite I feel but im sure it will develop.

True, but that game has the most hilarious and frequent MP desyncs in the history of MP desyncs. And since this game is moddable and that one is the same stale battles over and over at this point, FE wins overall for me. I can get some joy out of playing the terrible cheaty Shogun AI, but it mostly fun to watch as a movie, not for playing as a tactical or strategic game.

Did one of these in this thread here:

https://forums.elementalgame.com/427545

Though, I broke it down into the DOS 16-bit and the Windows 32-bit eras.

I'm still hoping FE takes Civ IV's place in the running.

Couldn't disagree with you more.

Ive played hundreds of online MP tactical battles in TW2 with maybe a handful of disconnects which are an element of playing online regardless. Granted the strategic AI is a bit cheaty but few games have matched the visceral joy that is charging a unit of heavy calvary into a group of peasants and watching them bleed out (with the blood patch enabled obviously!) and run before you... Stale repeated battles? Didn't notice them to be honest as every battle has its own flavor and unit composition add the online component and it has endless re playability.

FE battles seem simple in my opinion and haven't quite matched the tactical depth of a game like HOMM YET and certainly no way near something as complex and varied as TW2, although to be fair tactical battles are the focus of the TW series.

FE is a different game and a very good game... easily 85% + .. but the tactical battles are its weakest element IMO.

Im looking forward to 1.0 and giving your mod a shot tho...

Ya, they implemented a tactical battle only match up system that was an interesting idea. But I am referring to the real MP. The strategic MP was a sad state and despite all that DLC money, never once got a single update. I agree that Shogun 2 has a superior format graphics wise for tactical battles. Even using the same strategies over and over seems unique each time because of the complexities of unit formation and the amazing graphics. But the difference is that FE can change and mold itself to the user. To me, that trumps the nice tactical battle display. Game play over game aesthetics I always say.

That just about sums it up. Well said

Personally, I'd put Civilization V: Gods & Kings at least on par with Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword.

Alpha Centuri was Sid Meier's way of making a Civilization game during the brief period in his career when he didn't own the Civilization IP.  There's really no point in it now because they'd just be competing with themselves.

FE is a good game and I play it a lot, but best modern strategy game? Not yet.

1. Paradox games (CK2,VIC2,EU3 cannot decide the best)

2. Mount&Blade (Strategy?)

3. Civ5

4. Endless Space

5. Blood Bowl

6. XCOM

7. Distant Worlds

8. FE

9. Warlock

10. Shogun 2

I just checked my Rapt'r profile and it mostly agrees so this must be the truth There is no subjective thingies affecting the list

It's simpler than that.  Brian Reynolds (who'd just left the newly purchased Microprose, along with Meier) wanted to create a Civ game with more fully developed leaders, more distinctive playing styles, a science fiction futurist background, and new game mechanics.  It was very well received critically, but the audience for the Civ series found it too complex, and didn't care for the SF theme.  It sold much worse than either of the previous Civs.  Some of the ideas filtered into Civ IV, but the combination of poor sales and the fact that its producer, Brian Reynolds, and its lead designer, Timothy Train, had broken with Meier and left Firaxis, meant no SMAC II.

If many game companies can afford it, they have no problem in going head-to-head with their own products.  That's because the assumption is that Johnny and Jane have enough money to buy an inexhaustible stream of toys.  They only have to be convinced that they're missing out if they don't discard the last one, and get something new.  The actual trick isn't to make some toy that's different from the last, but to make them so much alike that the kids will buy them based on their previous "feel good" experience, without thinking about how little creativity and resources went into the clones.  If you've ever wondered why there are over a thousand hidden object puzzle games out there now, all of which sell, that's why.

My opinion on the original topic - no, it is not, not by far (based on 0.992). It still does too many things that don't quite work well together. Combat (which I consider one of the weakest parts of the game) is still bland without offering significant tactical dilemmas and choices - what you do is obvious 90 percent of the time. Building placement adds nothing significant to the game. The factions are still bland and derivative (standard fantasy stuff). The flow of the game is both tedious and random. Most of the time, you wait for some resource to accumulate while exploring, which depends on luck a lot. I am yet to see the new content like the campaign and such - if there is a strong story and engaging campaign, I would rise my evaluation quite a lot.

But as it is now, in my opinion, FE is an okay game. 

Examples of better games (again in my opinion, only turn base strategy games are eligible)

• Total War games that have much better combat, while being a bit weak on the strategic level
• Galciv 2 which, strangely enough, works much better overall on the engine, 
• Crusader Kings 1 and 2 (depth, complexity)
• Europa Universalis 3 (depth, complexity)
• Dwarf Fortress, the fortress mode
• Civ 4 and Civ 5 (yes, Civ 5 has gone a long way since the buggy launch, though it still loses a lot of points for the AI)
• Battle for Wesnoth (It does much less, but what it does it does extremely well, polish, maturity of the engine, editor, tons of usermade content, strategic and tactical richness)
• Warlock, Master of the Arcane

... and doubtless many other games I have not played.

On the other hand, FE's strong points are the art, captivating graphical style, atmosphere of the maps, to some extent, and the music is not bad either. What it could benefit the most, I feel, would be strong, well-written lore and background story (I have yet to see the campaign, but so far, I fail to spot anything that would indicate it will be present in the finished game).

I don't want to sound too critical, FE will be probably good, or even fantastic game for the players that seek what it offers (what is it exactly is still unclear to me), but being the best modern turn based strategy game?

Not by far, IMO.

On the other hand, FE's strong points are the art, captivating graphical style...

 

Actually, those things are by far the weakest elements of FE. It's the reason why I can't understand some of the glowing reviews I've seen here. I don't need the latest bleeding edge graphics or art style in my strategy games but the graphics/art in FE are the biggest reason why I'm not all that impressed with the game so far. I'm not even sure why the look of WoM was kept when a lot of people panned the graphic style of it. That being said, I have pre-purchased the game and hope to see past the game's visual shortcomings so that I may enjoy the other things it has to offer.

Master of Magic comes real close but it has its stupid bugs and problems. Civ4 I didn't enjoy as much as I found too much focus and power in religion and culture mechanics. I actually liked Civ 5 more. I didn't play Civ4 with expansion and mods. 

I am hoping the 1.0 version of FE will be able to surpass at least AoW:SM, I doubt it can surpass BotF. 

I commend Frogboy and his staff for having the chutzpah to take the kick to the nuts that was WOM and come back swinging with FE. I have deep respect for all 5? surviving major publishers that still produce meaningful strategy games specifically designed for the PC. They all tend to excel at certain aspects while remaining competant with others.

All of the major publishers have had their failures..Empire: Total War, Hearts of Iron II, SOTS 2, etc. But, in those cases with Stardock, Creative Assembly/Sega, Paradox & Kerberos, they quickly and pro-actively attempted to redeem themslves by both repairing the damage of a botched launch and following up with heavy patching and/or follow-up products that surpassed expectations.

The fact of the matter is, from a commercial standpoint, pure (non RTS) strategy gaming is now, and always will be, a niche market. In the era of RTS strategy games where a players' "skill" is measured by a "clicks per minute" meter, pure strategy games tend to appeal to an older and more sophisticated & cerebral breed of gamer. So, without intrinsic mass appeal there is a very thin margin of error in terms of development quality. A mediocre niche game is going to be a financial failure, guarenteed. Whereas, a mediocre FPS or RTS game has the mass appeal to still succeed financially. So, it's, by its' very nature, a very risky under-taking to develop pure strategy games at all.

So, I believe in FE and can really appreciate what Frogboy did right after the WOM debacle when he recognized his personal limitations and went out and snapped up the exceptional talent required to back him up with the single-minded goal of making us all forget the WOM failure. In that respect FE has succeeded. Whether it out sells game X, Y or Z or whether it's metacritic score is 70,80 or 90. It has succeeded in its' primary objective, which was to re-instill our wavering faith in Stardock as a competant developer/publisher specifically and in the PC strategy genre in general.

Very different engine. This one is on Kumquat, that one was called pear or some such thing.

NO.

That is all

Didn't Birth of the Federation suffer from a complete lack of borders?  My memories of it are admittedly hazy, but from what I can recall any faction could literally go anywhere in an opponent's territory and grab a planet.  Kind of a mess.  In other respects, it was interesting, and in at least one--individual planets offering races that provided unique benefits--a nicely different take on a standard.

But there is plenty of competition in the field, and limiting the strategy games to the last year, as the OP did (except for Disciples II, an eleven year old game he decided for some reason to include), is both arbitrary and unhelpful.  I'd rather find out the all time TBS favorites, and your choice is unique.  Can't say I've seen it before, and that's not a criticism.

For myself, I'd put SMAC up towards the top of the list, Crusader Kings II, Europa Universalis III, Civ IV, and Forge of Freedom.  Also Master of Magic with the latest unofficial Insecticide patch.

I feel as though you and I have played a different game.  I happen to think that FE's art direction is wonderful, and the engine is rock solid from a technical standpoint.  Of all the things to complain about, the visual presentation is certainly not one of them.

you know, I also don't have a particular liking for this graphics style but it's so much improved over WoM that it doesn't detract from the experience now. back then it looked like a childish game, now it has a nice dark atmosphere to it that really makes a lot of difference.

It used to be that the graphics were suspect. But they have done a ton of work on perfecting that storytime shaded textures feel. It's really quite nice. But hey, not everyone has to agree. That is what art is all about. Games too.

I'm not a fan of the Aesthetic style chosen. The art it self is quite good, just not a fan of the style. That said... I'll take it over the the current fad  where devs use so much bloom and/or other methods of post processing  that I wanna stab myself in the eye to make it stop.