After playing Civ4 I wonder: Will TW ever have competition?

[KRALLODHRIB]

I just picked up Civ4 recently and while the game has its moments, the battle map in TW is what draws me to comp gaming, for now. Civ4 has it all in terms of the eye candy and the upgrading,etc for empire builders out there but it does lack that tactical element in TW-which, really, can never be glossed over.

So, again, I'd like to ask, "Will the Total War series ever be challenged by other pc games?" Not, if CA continues to refine the already existing elements of the TW games.

Stay true to your fans CA and you will continue to have loyal support in the future.

[Bonusmalus]

Very true! I first played civ 3 for a while. But then I bought RTW and never played civ since then! RTW is just so much better.~:cheers:

[lilljonas]

Depends on what kind of player you are. To me, the empire-building part is the most appealing, so obviously there's other games that pulls that off either as well or better. None so well as to put me off from playing TW altogether, but well enough to make me see it's flaws. The strategical AI of TW is way too predictable and exploitable to be a challange compared to, say Galactic Civilizations of Civ, games that actually manages to kick my ass on the harder settings. TW couldn't kick my ass even if I tied both my hands behind my back. ~:rolleyes:

On the opposite end, I guess a lot of people who are only in it for the tactical aspect can be lured away by other franchises, especially those who are into single player (it's no secret that the battlefield AI of TW isn't the best on the market).

Yes, it is the combination of the two that makes TW actually carve out a niche of it's own, on their own none of the elements are really so good as to dominate their genres. If someone else managed to pull both parts off perfectly in the same game, then yes, TW would be truly threatened. A Galactic Civilizations diplomatic AI with the empirebuilding of Civ and the battlefield AI of a dedicated RTS? Mmm-mmm-mm. R:TW's disadvantage compared to these games is that it doesn't provide enough challenge. In that, the TW series can most definately be challanged in the future, and i cross my fingers that it will, since it would provide us with great gaming and hopefully competition enough for CA to improve their games even more! ~;)

[Kaldhore]

just got civ 4 yesterday

The jury is out at the moment

[Beelzebub]

Yes it can have competition. Lots of developers see the sales TW gets and are making their own copies, or at least shifting strategy/tactical games in the same direction. Currently the only clones out are worse than TW (imperial glory, EA"s lord of the rings game), but don't expect this to last forever. Supreme Commander is coming out easrly next year and that looks like a fantastic game, it looks like it will also be massive enough in scale and strategy to appeal to TW fans.

CA needs to get on the ball and remember what made MTW such a sucess, word of mouth spread by serious gamers about how awsome it was. RTW improved it, but was not as great a leap forward as it could've been and it some ways, was not so great at all (all the fantasy units and a lack of serious AI improvement in many glaring areas that were all thouroughly noted by MTW players). CA is sitting pretty now and is content to fix the crappy original releases with patching/expansions and player mods, but when they release their next game 12-24 months from now, there could be a lot more massive scale RTS/strategy games out and fans won't have to put up with a lack of polish and seriousness if they don't want to.

This isn't a bash CA post, it's just a warning that like you said, they need to stay true to their fans. In their next release they need to get back to their roots and give their core the serious, realistic strategy/army combat they want, because in a year and a half when there are more options on the market (good clone games), us TW fans who've been there since Shogun won't be in such a rush to grab it off the shelves if it's a supposed history game chock full of screaminging monkey warrior priestess units and the same mediocre AI that suicides elite cavalry and generals into pikemen and can't build up a city.

I don't just want to diss CA, maybe activision was the culprit for the RTW elements that were concentrating too hard on producing a shiny ad campaign and "interesting" units for 13 year olds. Hopefully Sega knows better, that large advertising budgets and explosions are never enough and any videogame relying on gimmicks but w/o substance will fail (as they have many times over the years). TW is fine now, but CA needs to keep up and please their core fans, because over the next few years there are going to be a lot more TW style games out there.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I never played any later civ game than version 2, but I disliked the "warrior 1.0" etc., not anything close to an attempt of historical accuracy. And the combat system was weird, it's more natural with CA's assembling of armies made up of many units. I'd not mind if CA improved the empire building parts of the TW games, but the things that made TW better than civ for me was tactical battles (but the AI isn't that good in R:TW or BI), and that the strategical elements are remniscent of how it worked back then, rather than the incredibly strange civ combat system which quickly scared me away from the game. I've heard though that civ 4 does a good job at making it hard to expand past a certain point, which is something the tw games need to work on - it's still too much of a snowball effect.

[KRALLODHRIB]

No question RTW sufers from "decrease the level of the game's sophistication in order to please the impulse shopper disease" (bla,bla,bla,etc) that some pc game companies suffer, and while I would definitely like to see, for example, the old formation menu return for the tactical screens (member' that ~:confused: )--among other things, LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix makes a great point here about Civ4 combat:


And the combat system was weird

The Civ combat system is basically a brief animation on the strat map--sort of like when an assassin attempts to knock off another unit in TW. Weird? Non-existent, imo. I find it difficult to believe so many have swallowed up this game, Civ4. Where's the joy of just waiting for the next upgrade to materialize. For me it comes down to the battles! WORK ON THAT CA!:duel:

[Beelzebub]

To each his own. Lots of people just like a plain strategy game with abstract combat. For what it is, it's a very good game that appeals to many players. It's a totally different ballgame than TW and obviously people here aren't going to like it as much (Im sure the opposite is true on civ forums).

[lilljonas]

To the people pointing out the civ combat system: it's not a game about tactical combat. Simple as that. To flip the coin, we could question the fact that there's almost no technological advances affecting the infrastructure of Europe between 1100 and 1450 in M:TW, and that the barbarians of R:TW can conquer the entire medieval area without figuring out how those damn greek and roman dudes manages to make roads out of stone. How realistic is that? ~:rolleyes: Both game caters different parts of strategy, and both do different things better. They both cover dimensions the other lacks completely. That's why I play both; if they didn't one of them would simply be "better".

[A.Saturnus]

I don´t play Civ 4. I´ve found that all Civ games are in essence just repetitions of the first one with some new ideas and better graphics. But that´s not the point here.
Civ 4 is not a competition to TW because it does not appeal to the same interests. It´s simply not the same genre. What makes TW distingt is the combination of a strategic level with epic battles. And in the field TW has no real competition. It´s strange but for most of the time CA was practically alone in that field. Now, other companies have seen the success of ROME and want to try the same. Until now, they all failed. There is certainly a danger that without competition, the genre will over time lack new impulses.

[Duke John]

Personally I find Imperial Glory not that big of a failure and it could have replaced R:TW for me if it was up to the same degree. The AI in both IG and R:TW do not challenge and graphicwise IG wins as the developers have succeeded much more in using it to create an atmosphere. Both M:TW and R:TW look IMO like the work of amateurs if you compare it to other topgames.

[Saracen_Warrior]

The only reason Imperial Glory wasn't fun was that there was no morale to speak of. I don't understand how you can possibly make a game based on Napoleonic warfare and not include morale. Thats all fighting was about back then. Napoleon used formations that in reality put his men in more danger(packing them close together), but it made them feel safer. Oh and you know how a lot of people are dieing for multiplayer for rome on the strategy map. Civilization 4 gives that experience.

[Kraxis]

I'm looking forward to theday when another company makes a viable game that can match the TW games. This will in turn force CA to do better, which can only be good for us.

[Sol Invictus]

I think Slitherine may give TW a run for the money when Legion II comes out next year. Slitherine already has a leg up in the realm of strategic play, imo, and with the new tactical engine that was developed for Arena, they just might get the mix right. The tactical graphics engine of Arena is not as sweet as TW, but I am more interested in the strategic gameplay and can let the tactical WOW factor slide a bit.

[Kraxis]

I think Slitherine may give TW a run for the money when Legion II comes out next year. Slitherine already has a leg up in the realm of strategic play, imo, and with the new tactical engine that was developed for Arena, they just might get the mix right. The tactical graphics engine of Arena is not as sweet as TW, but I am more interested in the strategic gameplay and can let the tactical WOW factor slide a bit.
Slitherine's games have always been interesting but very niche. Legion Arena is nice but it has several flaws that ensures the game will never be able to compete with the TWs. I doubt Legion II will be able to change much. Not until a competitor manages to sell very well will CA tighten up. THe competition can be as impressive as any, but 'bad' sales (remember, very subjective, bad CA sales might be very good Slitherine sales for instance) will not cause much consternation.

[demon rob]

Very different games but I reckon there are lots of fans of both of them here.
I've played both right from their beginnings (Civ on an Amiga), but Rome was just too easy, and BI hasn't been bothered with. Civ4 may just be too hard!
They are representing different things, imagine how long Civ would take if every battle was fought with the TW engine!

Lets hope the competition forces CA to a better product!

[antisocialmunky]

I'm eyeing AOE3. I need a new computer though, but if the gameplay looks as good as the game...

[Kekvit Irae]

http://www.kekvitirae.com/KekvitMod/movedg.gif

[Rodion Romanovich]

To the people pointing out the civ combat system: it's not a game about tactical combat. Simple as that.

It also lacks anything remniscent of strategic combat, which is why I disliked it. A well-made combination of Civ and TW would be an awesome game though, if the correct parts of each game is chosen ~D .

[Bartix]

I'm eyeing AOE3. I need a new computer though, but if the gameplay looks as good as the game...
It is looking good.
AOE games very silly for combat, and feeling unrealistic.
Make 1 Pike Man?
And awful Real Time Resource gathering!!
TW battle is difficult to keep track of all units. It is logical challenge for commander.

In AOE you control every man (unless grouping them) and then at same time in big battle make sure Peasant is gathering stone! ~:pissed:

[Mouzafphaerre]

http://www.kekvitirae.com/KekvitMod/movedg.gif
.
How did you do that? ~:eek:

http://www.thelib.com/gallery/albums/userpics/strqrtt.gif
.

[Alrowan]

i find Civ4 to be like the other civ games - simple, and kinda fun, though if you want depth id suggest looking elswhere, the fact the game breezes over 6000 years of history and tries to cram it all into one game, is its biggest downfall. When it comes to empire building, id suggest Europa Universalis 2, Victoria, Hearts of Iron 2 or Crusader Kings. Paradox plaza make the BEST and most IN DEPTH empire building games out on the market, and they are a joy to play, Europa Universalis 2 for example is still one of my most played and returned to games of all time, i might not play it for months, but i always come back and play it, and when i do, its hard to rouse me from my PC for hours, days and weeks on end, as i live through the trials and tribulations of my Empires

[doc_bean]

I've already had more fun with CivIV then with RTW. Opinions...

[Upxl]

I must say I always thought that Rtw was a perfect mix of Civ and Age of Empires.

Ever since CIV I and colonization I've been playing the Sid Meier's game's.
Same with AoE.

But if TW keeps this up they gained another life long fan.

I've been thinking about purchasing shogun and Mtw but don't want to be to disappointed about the loss of AI and graphics.

[Meneldil]

I've been thinking about purchasing shogun and Mtw but don't want to be to disappointed about the loss of AI and graphics.

Well, both MTW and STW AI are far better than what you'll find in RTW.

[Upxl]

Well, both MTW and STW AI are far better than what you'll find in RTW.

Well that's all I needed to know.

Though it doesn’t make much sense.

[BDC]

We need a CivIV game, with a Total War battles.

[DensterNY]

Well Upxl, you should pick up Medieval Total War w/ Viking Invasion package... the graphics aren't as shiny as RTW but the game is a lot of fun and the AI can fight a lot better than Rome's AI. Also there are other stragetic challenges that make the game fun including declaring Crusades to gain a province, sending inquisitors, etc...

As for the whole discussion about Total War... I agree that this game series stands in a class by itself because of the tactical battle aspect of it. For whatever reason other game makers give you little more than a click-attack-hope you have greater numbers or if calculations fall into your favor kind of battle scenes. The strategic map aspect of these games can be improved but I'd be much happier if they could just keep working on the AI in battles.

[NodachiSam]

We need a CivIV game, with a Total War battles.


I agree that would be very cool but perhaps on a smaller scale time wise so that it can be more realistic. I enjoy the TW idea of different factions and internal power struggles. Civ is idealisticly simple (example Germans are Germans, always have been and always will be). Carthage would never break off from Phoenicia in a Civ game. Mind you, TW doesn't have new factions showing up either, but at least it has re-emerging factions that can sort of be seen as new political movements. Maybe over 1000 years instead of 10 000. That is an arbitrary number, I know.

Europa Universalis 2 looks very interesting though. It looks more appealing visually than I earlier assumed and seems to have a good amount of depth on the campaign map. It doesn't seem to have tactical battles though. I havn't played it yet but perhaps ~it~ would be a better mix with TW.

[NodachiSam]

Thanks for the reccomendation, I'm downloading the demo now. :) The designer says this is a game for people with patience so I hope this isn't a clickfest. The screenshots had the byzantium empire and one had the option of restoring the papacy so that really go tmy attention :D I'll tell you what I think.

[NodachiSam]

I just spent over 3 hours playing and I'm pleased to say that it is tremendously satisfying. At first I thought it was incredibly dull but after I got used to it it started to get engaging. I haven't actually fought any battles myself but I will the next time I play. I really hope that they have morale involved!

The map has more detail and there are no rebels but a few dozen factions. I'm sure there is a way to zoom out (I've seen screenshots) but I don't know it yet. To lead armies, build things, trade with other nations, and spy on other countries and a maybe two other functions you have ten or 12 slots to fill with important men which seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction to me. You might have 5 commanders, and only three builders and two merchants for instance. Also worrisomely to me is that each commander seemed only able to lead a dozen units you can reinforce your men in battles already going though if you went into the battle personally I guess that wouldn't be an option but who knows. I expect the commander limit might be a major pain in the behind later in the game especially as you get bigger but I can't say yet.

Added to this is that the game isn't turn based but is real time. It is pretty slow and seems to be managable though. You can speed it up to 8X normal speed and slow it down to .5X normal speed to get through waiting periods. A good feature is that you can always see ships with armies and armies moving about in your lands so if you check the political map you're not as likely to get surprised by sea invasions. You can have garrisons without your hero leaders to defend your cities however, you just can't build new units or move them outside the city to quell rebellions. If you have some loyalists running around outside you can quickly hire a new commander at that city to deal with a threat if you have the money and if you have the free space in your hero leader slots.

The diplomacy is very good though, alliances can actually be long lasting and meaningful. Your relationship with a nation is on a scale that can improve to falter over time. I played the Scottish and had a very good relationship with both the French and the Irish. My relationship with the French was quite cogial, we were allies without too much trouble and he even married his daughter off to my prince (whom I accidentally killed in battle-leaving myself heirless) The dastardly English destroyed the French but I took most of Britain except Wales (who later became another ally) and the south western tip that Ireland took. I enrouraged the Irish to go to war with the English and they kicked them out of Ireland. Later all sorts of nations decalred war on me even and I think they were urged to do so by the English.

All and all I'm pretty pleased with the game. I'll probably pick this game up but you should probably try the demo too.

[Meneldil]

Well, I tried Civ4 demo, and it appeared to be quite entertaining. The possibilites are fairly limited (limit of 100 turns, with 4 players on a small map), but it looked like a better and turn per turn version of Empire Earth.

GC, I'm really thinking about buying Crusader Kings, is it somehow different from EU II ?

[econ21]

I've been playing Civ4 and find that is provides some competition for TW at least in one crucial respect - competition from the AI.

I've finished two full games of Civ4 (huge/epic) and lost the second, when I played on Prince (the first step up from a "fair" game with the AI). I did nothing dumb, just was pounded for a thousand years by four AI civs and beaten to the punch in the space race. It was thrilling in providing a threat from the AI which TW (esp. RTW) often does not provide.

I admit there is nothing remotely like the TW battles, which are the key to the series. But I quite liked the Civ4 combat with the unit upgrades and rock-scissor-paste mechanics - it seemed much more engaging than combat had been in earlier iterations of the game.

As to the original question - will TW ever have competition? - I think it depends one whether another bunch of grognards can ever get a big budget. That is what is special about TW - the game designers are old school wargamers who love the history and the detailed mechanics of wargaming, but have somehow produced something of mass market appeal and got the resources that come withit. No doubt some niche game designers will eventually provide something with comparable or better realism or AI. But it will probably look/feel so ugly by the standards of the day, that it will be hard to play. (Combat Mission might be the counterexample that invalidates my argument, but then again that game never grabbed me.)