Printable View
Whats your views?
Played out civilization 4 awhile back (minus the expansions), it misses the epic batttle feel of a total war game. Armies were to costly to produce and maintain. It needed a realistic battle interface letting one fight a battle similar to a total war game. Civ incorporates an extensive research field. Etw moves in a similar direction to the research factor found in civ. On a side note sid meirs f19 was fun.
In terms of difficulty and addictiveness, I say Civ 4 wins.
While I can quite easily win a campeign in TW series (Not Shogun or MTW... I never played and it sounded hard..), I can barely win Noble on Civ 4.. Theres no way I'm going to try Deity..
And if you have crappy laptop like I do, I can barely play TW (I play EB/RTW) without crashing for hours while I can play about 4 hours on Civ 4 without a crash
And Civ 4 is easily moddable. That adds more fun.
Civilization and TW are too different to compare in my opinion. A comparison of a normal RTS game and TW would be OK for me, but Civ and TW is too much. Civilization games have the complex empire building and management aspect that I adore, but TW has the traits system, the long RPG-type campaign, the epic battles with realistic tactics, mechanics, and graphics.
It is hard to choose between un-modded RTW (my favourite vanilla TW game) and Civilization IV. However, when presented the choice of Europa Barbarorum and Civilization IV, I would not even so much as blink or hesitate for a second before choosing EB. EB is my absolute favourite game of all time. I spend more time playing it than anything else. The funniest thing is, I played EB for year and a half, and all this time, I have been playing a single Romani campaign that I am still not finished with. I plan to conquer the world (199 provinces). I currently have 143.
For someone who didn't like Rome in its vanilla state, is EB worth a try? What are its greatest changes and merits in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
As for Civ4 vs TW, the battles will always make the Total Wars series more immersive for me, as well as more fair in a way. I never like autocalcing battles, it feels cheap and unreliable making Civ an incomplete game from the standpoint of simulating and focusing on war.
Civilisation does not indeed focus on conflict, in contrast to the Total War series, so the comparison is not a favourable one.
More historical accuracy, more factions, more units, increased difficulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durango
And Factions gets different units depending on the area they are at where as in vanilla they get same old unit no matter where they go to.
And traits are very well done and it adds another dimention of role playing. For example when you play Koinon Hellenion, you get traits like "Athenian" or "Kretan" and stuff. Also restriction trais like Olympics which reduces your movement during the olympics.
Vanilla and EB is completely different game. Definitely worth it :yes:
Its kind of like Rome: Total Realism, but the SEGA version as opposed to the Nintendo version. (Megadrive vs. NES)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy187
Just for reference, that area recruitment? AoR: Area of Recruitment. :grin2:
Now for TW vs Civ.
I've played all TW from Med onwards, but only Civ 4. But a lot of Civ 4, especially at Beefy's house.
Its immersive, but...battles. I mean...come on! Civ 4 appeals to me more in only 2 ways:
1. borders change
2. the timespan
If there was a Total War game that does the timespam that Civ can do...best. game. ever.
Heh, Rise of Nations has both.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
I have rise of nations, but its just...not what I'm looking for. Maybe because I'm out of macro practice. :sweatdrop:
I think you just grown lazy, that is what. Turn based strategy has made you pampered and decadent :clown:. Either that or you need to use the "Pause" button more while playing RoN.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Seriously, you have not played RTS until you have tried RoN, just as you have not played RTT until you have tried TW. The two simply define each genre.
Rise of Nations is one of the best RTS games ever, and one of my favourite games. I just to do mods for it some time ago, including a "slowdown" mod to make it play more like civilisation actually (as well as adding new units, houses, apartments, factions and rebalancing). Fantastic game!
Civ is probably the ultimate TBS game though, and it would be interesting to play it with fluid borders.
I'm surprised that it's this close due to this being a Total War forum and all. :laugh4:
That said, my allegience definitely lies with TW, mainly because of the separate battles. Civ doesn't really account for the possibility of against-the-odds victories that definitely change up the state of things.
Well, technically it does. It is just that you have to "beat the odds" before the actual battle starts, by choosing the right strategy that balances economy, technology, happiness, and military. Not to mention there are various tile bonuses in Civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
But yes, I do know what you are talking about, and I agree that it is a major TW advantage over the vast majority of other games. Then again, TW is RTT, while Civilization is TBS and most other similar games are RTS. These comparisons are between completely different things. Of course TW is better in the Battle Mode. It is supposed to be. It is a Real-Time Tactics game. It has to have such battles.
Yeah, Civ tops TBS, Starcraft still tops RTS, TW tops RTT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durango
RoN was fun, but Empire Earth is the same kind of thing. Not as good though.
I always found the Civilization series boring an linear, but I've only played Civ, Civ2 and Civ3. Is Civ4 that much better?
:bow:
Its a huge leap from the previous series. Especially with Beyond the Sword expansion, the game can be enjoyed over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
Although if you didn't like the previous series, I wouldn't recommend it as the game concept isn't vastly different.
Yes I find Civ games involve too much micromanagement and racing against the AI. I've heard some good stuff about Civ4 before though, so I might give it a go one day.
:bow:
Oldschool TW (STW/MTW) hands down for me.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
The formula of the early TW games is just right - strategic decisions without having to think like an accountant.
Bingo, i still laugh to tears with those MTW reviewers that they were complaining it had no *information scrolls*Quote:
Originally posted by Durango
strategic decisions without having to think like an accountant.
:laugh4:
The big problem with CIV 4 (and all other CIV titles) is how they often either lead to winning really early and steamrollering the oposition or, if you get to the Modern age seem to end in stalemate.
I love both TW and CIV but for me the winner is still MTW
I'm your classic micromanager (in Empire midgames I've been known to take an hour to play one turn) but even Civ is a bit too much. Usually I just end up setting my workers on auto and then cringing as I watch what they do. :wall:
NO!!!! never set your workers to Auto, it's the quick route to destroying your civilization!!Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
It is damn boring micromanaging them all though,, I must agree!
Well yeah, hence my adding in the "cringing" bit. :tongue:
I don't know you guys. I love micromanaging those workers. I love micro-ing anything. That is what I do. I spend 2-3 hours each turn in EB, and that is not counting the battles.
Good god yes! I thought RTW was a total disappointment, I was a big fan of Medieval TW and to me Rome was a massive letdown in every department but the graphics and (horribly represented) time period. EB has since turned RTW from a waste of money into a favorite game for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durango
I'd probably have to take Civ 4 over any Total War game. Now...TW is great in the battles, but it seems to me like it falls short in the economic parts of the game. I'm not sure about ETW since I haven't played it yet, but the diplomacy and economic options seemed pretty lacking in past TW games. I'll take Civ 4!
Not for me. For me, the comparison depends on what games we're talking about. MTW and Civ IV are very, very close for me, probably a tie. Civ IV easily beats RTW and M2, as I no longer found the battles to be any fun. My views on Empire are still rather incomplete.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
And btw, I AM an accounting student for a reason... I want control over every single worker in Civ... :laugh4:
Some cannot stand anyone being unacccounted for...:laugh4:
Darn right! I'm just glad that Civ IV is a bit more macro than Civ III. Those old civ III: complete games took forever...Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
Vanity of vanities, everything is vanity:laugh4: