whats better MTW or Civlization 3?

[jbmagic]

i am loving MTW..this game is awesome..


how is civilization 3 game?




thanks

[Sir Robin]

I like Civ3 but it can be overwhelming when you have all those units running around.

I really couldn't compare the games directly because they have different focuses. CIV3 on strategy and technology. MTW on tactics and crusading/jihading.

[Knight_Yellow]

u cant compare them

completely different.

[jadast]

I used to play civ 3 every day than I got MTW. I haven't played civ 3 since. Civ 3 seems to play slower than MTW. Civ's AI on the harder settings seem to be way ahead of me.

[vortex]

civ got boring really fast - have not played it in about 9 months

[Kanuni]

I think you can compare them because they have a similiar concept. In both games u move troops on a map, buil troops or buildings in cities etc... etc...

Both has better and worse sides when compared to each other. For example civ3 has a better diplomacy, but MTW's battles are awesome.

Overall IMO civ3 is somewhat a deeper and better game. It looks as more hard work was done while programming it.

BUT Yes a big but here. The MTW's awesome battle concept make this game better for me compared to Civ3. Not only a + vs Civilization though, MTW's battles are unique and the best available.

Civ3 was the game that had my attention longest. However with MTW, Civ3 is finished for me. My attention on MTW is dependant though. Dependant to the release date of RTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ChaosLord]

I'd say for the builders and the like Civ3 is better, though it does take awhile. M:TW is battle for people who like battle, or at least a better combat system. I'm really looking forward to R:TW as it seems they're including more Civ elements. A Civilization: Total War game would end in me never getting out of my chair.

There is one good thing about Civ3 though, Firaxis is dedicated to patching it to work out any remaining bugs. Too many companys abandon games after the intial patch these days.

[Kekvit Irae]

I hate CivIII because they changed one very important thing from CivII: You can no longer rush build Wonders of the World.
I'd much rather play Alpha Centauri

[econ21]

The Civilisation games are very polished games - I'd recommend trying them, but Civ2 is better than Civ3 IMHO. Can't quite put my finger on it, but Civ2 hooked me whilst Civ3 was like a pale imitation. If you like building up an Empire - with the emphasis on building - Civ is better than MTW. But if you like war and especially battles, MTW is far better. The military model in Civ is its weakest feature, in my opinion. It's kind of like trenchwarfare, moving vast numbers of weak units a hex at a time for decades. Boring. MTW is much better: you focus on a few key provinces and armies, then fight decisive encounters. Plus the battlefield model is simply superb. Oh, Civ also suffers from too much micromanagement. Imperialism 2 is a similar game, without the micromanagement and arguably superior in challenge/gameplay, if more limited in scope.

[Bushface]

Civ2 kept me happy for a long while. I found so many things wrong with Civ 3 that I only played it right through twice, by which time I had a three-page list of bugs/errors/stupidities which ruined it - the worst being the appalling loss to corruption further than about a dozen tiles from your capital.
MTW on the other hand is splendid. Yes it has flaws (kings die at 56, spies etc don't work properly if at all, too much reliance on foreign trade) but oh, the battles Even though experience shows that I'm a bad field-commander. And it's far more varied than Civ; lots of different factions, starting dates, strategies ... almost endless variation. I've been playing it for six months or so, and have still only scratched the surface.

[Nowake]

Conclusion: Mtw is somewhat better

[Old Bald Guy]

Good question, but a hard one. Civ was an original 4X game. For those who don't know what that is: eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate. While MTW is truly a unique game, comparing it to Civ 2 or 3 is like comparing Pepsi to Coke. Only one is the Original.

MTW has some great things which keep me playing. I don't like click-fest RT games. Yet, the battles in MTW keep the mundane feeling of building, building, building from getting repititious. Without the battles, MTW would pale in comparison.

Someone mentioned Imperialism 2. A very underrated 4X game, but it is on the level of MTW when compared to Civ.

Civ has one thing going for it which no game has EVER recreated for me: the game engenders feelings of paternalism approaching what it feels to be the Father.

You start with one tiny settler and build an entire civilization You grow it, nurture it, care for it, die with it, celebrate it. The ups and downs and great decisions and bad decisions, there's simply nothing that compares with it. The feeling does diminish as the hundred hours pass which it takes to complete an entire game, but it's still there for much, much longer than any other game I've ever played.

There are things we Civ players wish we could change. The micromanagement it requires when the civ gets huge can bore you to death. An hour to finish one turn is not unusual. Most players rarely complete an entire game, because of the micromgmt and the loss of the feeling described above. They simply start another game and recapture the feeling. From 4000 BC to about 1000 AD, there is no game ever made which succeeded to the degree with which Civ has done, versions 1, 2, and 3.

Risk the board game, Panzer General, Half Life, Civ2 (and 3), all other games I compare to these. We're all waiting for RomeTW because we enjoy MTW so much. We keep buying games like Imp and MTW, because we love Civ so much.

[Crandaeolon]

A new game, Rise of Nations, seems to offer a compromise between MTW and Civ. I got a brief look at it when a friend demoed it to me, and it certainly appears interesting, if too Age of Empires -like to my taste.

Brian Reynolds, designer of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, is the chief designer of RoN so it can't be _all_ bad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[FesterShinetop]

I just played a demo of Rise of NAtions. Was interesting for 2 hours or so and then it got boring really. But only because it's just like any other RTS game. It is VERY similar to Empire Earth and Age of empires and so on...

So if you never ever played a Age of Empires kinda game it might be interesting, otherwise it's just the same... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Balamir]

Civ3, MTW? I'd say forget that comparison and try comparing Civ1 to Civ3 or Medieval to Risk(sorry couldnt find a better one for that since STW really rocked too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) What I wanna say is , we really should be grateful for all these games and when I look back Im just left my mouth open noticing how much progress was made in these 3-4 years in strategical gaming. I tell ya, a few years more and we'll be fighting with our armies with an electronic stick and virtual world thing with the glasses and stuff hehe. So you better prepare your suncream for the future, you'll need plenty on the battlefield http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Cheers

[Crandaeolon]

Apache, I heard that the demo does a poor job representing the entire game. Here are some comments from chilliwilli, originally from the RoN thread in the Tavern (I'm not gonna quote properly, so much text in bold would look annoying);

Quote (chilliwilli):
---------------------------------
Using tactics such as attacking flanks severely effects outcome of the battle and you actually have cities rather than town centers making the game very interesting as you have to reduce fortifications and assimilate cities to control them. National borders also makes the game very interesting, effecting atrrition among other things. Raiding and diplomacy(yes thats right diplomacy in an RTS) also play a big part as you have allies and need to actually declare war and inversely make peace by paying up or demanding tribute. Trade routes between cities is also a very important part of the game.

Rushing and crap like that doesn't work in this game either and you can further discourage all the cheesy stuff about typical RTS games through the options menu before a game.

The game does do some What If? stuff in regard to history(Aztecs UU can get upgraded to the modern age as an assault infantry), but its not that bad. some of the stuff could have happened if certain things did or did not happen in history plus with all the varying cultures in the game you need to achieve some kind of balance. If The Aztecs are not allowed to advance past the time when Cortes came then what fun would that be?

Oh yeah this game is very modder friendly More so than any RTS ever made. You can mod anything Its not supported by developers right now, but the next patch will make it even easier making sure your modded files and scenarios don't interfere with Multiplayer games by keeping them in a seperate folder. Kind of like Civilization.

Infantry are 3 man units, the left and right units serve to represent flanks. Attacking units from the side on the flanks or from the rear will do much more damage than normal head on attacks. Cavarly and other larger units are represented as one troop per unit, but the grouping AI is great and you can organize larger forces like armies. Height also plays a role as archers are more deadly from higher ground and attacking downhill will give you an advantage. Oh and crossing rivers not only slows progress of your troops, but they also take more dmg if attacked. There are also other pleasing things in reference to battles. While the rock/paper/scissors thing is still there its not as gay as other RTS games since you can overcome armies of higher quality and number by planting ambushes and attacking flanks. Also while aging up is still a big part of the game, you can actually beat armies more advanced than yours if you are an age behind. The gap gets larger though, but I think its realistic how an army in the 2nd age(classical) can beat one in the 3rd age(middle ages), but one in the 3rd will struggle a little against one in 6th(Enlightenment). Generals are also cool since you can really use some cool tactics that aren't useless. You can plant ambushes making your troops unseen by the enemy for a little while so that you can surprise them. Generals can also use decoys to lure forces out of position and can entrench troops around them to give them a defensive bonus.

Other cool things during battle are getting plunder after sacking cities and capturing caravans(raiding can be very effective), attrition in enemy territory(this can be slowed if you have supply wagons though), and the fact that large battles actually take place rather than skirmishes and rushes. The one thing this game lacks in battles though is a morale feature and being able to rout troops like Total War. If this was added the game would really be cool.

I think resource gathering is actually rather easy in this game since your gathering rate depends more on what infrastructure you have and your industrial capacity than how many villies you assign. Villies are also REALLY smart, so you don't have to baby sit them.
-----------------------------------------
That's two posts actually. Maybe chilli should consider a career in PR. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[FesterShinetop]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Yeah, nice review. I haven't changed my mind though. All these nice things about the troops, it's just that you don't really notice it. When the sh*t hits the fan you just pour out unit after unit and send them to the enemy and cross your fingers.

I am not saying that it's bad or something, it's just very (too) similar to other games in this genre. So if you really like this sort of game you will propably have a ball, if you (like me) played a lot of these games before (and are fed up with them for a while) you won't.

But all this is of course only after playing the demo... so who knows what it's like when it's released http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Old Bald Guy]

While I really like most Brian Reynolds' games, I'll pass on this one, as I've passed on every RTS game starting with Age of Empires. All you have to do is say RTS and it's a pass for me. Clickfest. Yuck. No time to sit and think. Just build and click, click, click some more.

What makes MTW so good is you've got time to think, yet when the battle starts, you better be on your toes. What a great combination.

Yeah, I agree, computer gaming has come a long, long way. My very first game was a Tom Clancy submarine game on a DOS PC-XT. (Somewhere in my memory is the name, but I'm old and my instant recall is shot.) It was a very cool game, for it's time. A time that's long gone, I'm happy to say.

Civ2 was at one time the highest rated game in history. Civ3 doesn't go as far beyond 2 as 2 did one. Mostly in the graphics. The gameplay is pretty much unchanged, which is the good news since Civphiles would have revolted.

If you haven't played Civ3, I'd suggest you missed a really good game. I still play it, when I just want to kill a couple of hours and not worry about anything but killing the damn Zulus.

Wayne

[Portuguese Rebel]

I really dont think we should compare Civ3 and MTW... they are not in the same league. Its like asking what is better, command and conquer or quake... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

About the civ2 and civ3 issue i think civ3 is far superior (strategic resources, borders, more realistic warfare, way better diplomacy, more nations possible in a map, better graphics, no more rushing wonders with money, different ways to rush things according to goverment, more victory conditons wich you can choose from, it can go on and on...)

I think that most people that dislike civ3 n favour of civ2 really miss the little exploits they were used to (spies all over the place, rushing wonders, rushing to overpowering units, blitzkrieg wars wich were far too easy to do...). But i guess there are things that i miss of Civ2. That fake Elvis dude telling me that i needed to make people happy was unbeatable http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif