Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Runewars» Forums » General

Subject: how does this game compare to starcraft? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Don Johnson
Germany
Stade
Nds
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
iam just trying to decide which game i should get.

i think starcraft sounds very good with resource gathering + area control + nice combat like in the rts.

but i hate the backround ( everything stolen from wh40k, i have to buy horus heresy ^^).

runewars seems to have all the above mentioned parts either+ heros?


any other tips for boardgames that are comparable to rts games?


thx in advance
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcin Mikołajczak
Poland
Poznań
flag msg tools
badge
I would like to translate Your game to Polish!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Starcraft is not like Runewars.
I have both of them, and i prefer Runewars over SC.

They feel diffirent. SC is more about fight and developing. SC i can compare to Game of Thronew when it comes to "flavor". Runewars is more like Twiligh Imperium IMO.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex H.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
welcome your reptilian overlords!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I prefer SC over RW but it needs the expansion. I (personally) think that SC is the deeper game that requires more brain-drain while RW can be played in a somewhat more casual way but that may be just me. The theme is part of the game experience so if you hate the SC theme I would recommend you get RW. Do yourself a favor, though, and check some of the reviews here on BGG in order to make sure you know about the very different imapacts this game has made on different players.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They are very different games, and it's hard to compare them, really. The mechanics and general strategies really don't cross over well.

I like both, but I prefer Runewars because it tends to play "quicker" than Starcraft, and you generally have more options in the game. Starcraft definitely has choices to make, but it's also much more fighting-oriented, and your point-to-point maneuvering is a lot more limited.

Both are good games, though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don Johnson
Germany
Stade
Nds
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
They are very different games, and it's hard to compare them, really. The mechanics and general strategies really don't cross over well.

I like both, but I prefer Runewars because it tends to play "quicker" than Starcraft, and you generally have more options in the game. Starcraft definitely has choices to make, but it's also much more fighting-oriented, and your point-to-point maneuvering is a lot more limited.

Both are good games, though.



thx for the answers. as i said iam looking for a game with a rts feeling.

esp with resource gathering, research and combat (area control). i think both games have these aspects, so its usefull to compare em.

iam indeed tending to rw so far, since i dont really like the sc flavour.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex H.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
welcome your reptilian overlords!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dosto wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
They are very different games, and it's hard to compare them, really. The mechanics and general strategies really don't cross over well.

I like both, but I prefer Runewars because it tends to play "quicker" than Starcraft, and you generally have more options in the game. Starcraft definitely has choices to make, but it's also much more fighting-oriented, and your point-to-point maneuvering is a lot more limited.

Both are good games, though.



thx for the answers. as i said iam looking for a game with a rts feeling.

esp with resource gathering, research and combat (area control). i think both games have these aspects, so its usefull to compare em.


Ok, let's see:
RW:
- resource gathering: yes but you might want to have a look at the corresponding section of the rules. The system is a little special since you don't have to gather/manage your resources every turn but "score" them and usually don't really spend them unless you willingly chose to do so or you are forced by some events or you build fortifications and expansions. Units don't need you to spend resources, you just have to have the necessary resources.
- research: No
- combat: Yes, against neutrals and against other players (how much of it depends on the event/season cards and on play style; some plays see very little direct conflict, some see a lot).

RW:
- resource gathering: managing resources is a constant and very important element of a successful strategy. You gather/lose resources evey single turn
- research: yes, quite important and boosts different strategies
- combat: core of the game and sometimes very brutal

Still, if you really don not like SC's theme I think you are right to have a look at RW first.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don Johnson
Germany
Stade
Nds
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
well i might have to overcome my negative feelings about the starcraft franchise guess i just like the wh40k backround too much.

anyways, how do the 2 combat system compare, which one is more strategic/fun?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex H.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
welcome your reptilian overlords!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is very much a matter of personal taste which combat system is more fun. Just a quick comparison:

RW: Each faction has 5 different units IIRC. They differ in hitpoints and initiative rating and "power level". Hitpoints range from 1 to 4. Initiative defines the order in which units are able to attack (basically inversally related to their hitpoints meaning that strong units have low initiative - though there are exceptions). Strength is defined by attributing each units to one of four groups of units. When you have the unit engage and it comes to its initiative phase you will draw a card for each unit and check the amount of damage by looking up its corresponding symbol on that card. Thus strong units will hit more often and do more damage/rout more enemies while weaker units will miss more often and do less damage. The effects of a hit can be
- pure damage
- routing enemy units
- activate special skill (varies by unit)
Army-building becomes quite important because you need to create good combinations of initiative, strength and survivability. Depending on who you are going against, different compositions may make sense although I think that for each race there is one ideal way to go for (if your resources allow for it).

SC:
You have about 9 different units for each race and it is basically impossible to field every single unit during a single game. Units differ in hitpoints and strength. They also differ in the amount of technologies that you can research in order to boost them up. New technologies are basically combat cards that you will add to your deck of combatcards and they will increase hitpoints, strength or allow for additional effects (like "splash damage", additional damage against flying units, etc.). Army-building is challenging and will depend very much on the races you are fighting against but also on their technological advances.
In combat units are matched up in skirmishes and try to eliminate each other by each playing a maximum of two cards. Initiative is no element here but engagements have a tactical nature because matching up the right units against each other can be critical.

Bottom line: Combat in RW is a little more laid back. Losses can be severe but a lost battle is usually not a desaster. In Starcraft, losses can be severe. The destruction of the expensive units is always a very bad thing and that is part of the reason why I wrote that I think SC is more of a brain burner.
Again, the fun aspect is hard to generalize. I have had some really good games of RW and some not so good ones. Some with plenty of conflict and some with almost none direct confrontation between players because the game ended too soon and the winner successfully focused on a heroes-based strategy (check out the heroes in RW, they do not fight with their armies in combat but are sort of an adventure metagame; make sure you know about this before buying the game since you may be disappointed by this aspect - other have been though I am not one of them).

SC, on the other hand has always been a winner when hitting the table. Well, I should qualify this statement: it has always been a winner when playing in teams 2vs2 with the expansion. When playing "free for all" I find it to be at times somewhat less satisfying.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don Johnson
Germany
Stade
Nds
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thx for this detailed answer!


Have you played both games in 1:1 either?

I read rw does scale very good, how about sc?

ah and btw: can you somehow play the base game of sc with the obviously better updated rules of broodwars?



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex H.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
welcome your reptilian overlords!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dosto wrote:
Thx for this detailed answer!


Have you played both games in 1:1 either?

Only SC, RW never with less than 3. Both should work fine with 1vs1, though. Personally, I'd rather pull out one of my real 2player games (Horus Heresy, Twilight Struggle, etc.) instead but SC does work with just 2 players and I can't see why RW would not.

dosto wrote:

I read rw does scale very good, how about sc?


RW with 4 is better than with 3 players, IMHO. Starcraft with 4 is great. They both scale quite well, I'd say. I am just a fan of playing games with the ideal number of players, so I am somewhat conservative here.

dosto wrote:

ah and btw: can you somehow play the base game of sc with the obviously better updated rules of broodwars?

No, it's not about the rules. It's about the increase of components that allow you to diversify your strategies and to develop better counter-strategies. Basically, choices become more interesting. So you would not be able to get that without buying that second box.
Have you had a look at FantasyFlightGames' Starcraft video?

You will easily find both positive and negative reviews of each game here on BGG and together they will help you understanding why some people have been rather disappointed by each of them.
Both games are rather expensive... SC shows up once in a while for less than 50 euros in different shops, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TTorres
United States
Roseville
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From my play experience, the other difference between SC and RW is in smoothness.

Both games are designed by the same person, and there are similarities to the basic core mechanics. How the mechanics actually feel in play though, is very different. I have the feeling that RW takes elements from SC and distills them down to their essence. Resources, orders and card combat feel less clunky in RW.

I enjoy both games, but find Starcraft to be more of a brain burner. Also, I find its combat mechanics are more of a chore to resolve due to less clear graphics and more complexity. They are great though, with a group willing to work through the initial inevitable learning game or two.

Runewars adds a small element of diplomacy and negotiation to the game, while playing a bit more smoothly. However, I feel there is a bit more luck involved, which can be a positive or negative depending on your group.

For me, they have both been incredibly satisfying and enjoyable games with the right group. In general, Runewars has more swing than Starcraft, and Starcraft is more dense than Runewars.

Is that any help? If not, please keep asking more specific questions.

Best,
A
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don Johnson
Germany
Stade
Nds
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
alex352 wrote:
dosto wrote:
Thx for this detailed answer!


Have you played both games in 1:1 either?

Only SC, RW never with less than 3. Both should work fine with 1vs1, though. Personally, I'd rather pull out one of my real 2player games (Horus Heresy, Twilight Struggle, etc.) instead but SC does work with just 2 players and I can't see why RW would not.

dosto wrote:

I read rw does scale very good, how about sc?




Thx again,

Btw would you advice me to get the original version or is the german translation any good?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex H.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
welcome your reptilian overlords!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have not seen (unboxed) nor played the German version. So no advice on this question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klaudius Kalcher
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
Lynx
badge
Lynx
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I recommend getting the english version.

Heidelberger Spieleverlag chose to alter some of the rules of the game in their translated version (see this thread on the changes in Brood War), so unless you want to play a modified version of the game, the english version is the way to go.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don Johnson
Germany
Stade
Nds
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thx.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Freelance Police
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another difference is the role selection mechanics in RW that's not in SC. SC, OTOH, has "tech trees" that force you to make tough long-term decisions in spending your resources. I also like RW's alternate "secret" ways to gain VP's. It prevents the game from being too much of a "gang up on the leader" game. OTOH, RW events can sometimes shutdown your entire turn -- I guess planning a fight in winter *was* a bad idea!

As for the license, the theme's kinda thin, for an Ameritrash game. SC the computer game is micro-management. SC the boardgame is planetwide conquest.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.