Civilization vs Total War

[GeneralHankerchief]

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.

[Don Esteban]

Usually I just end up setting my workers on auto and then cringing as I watch what they do.

NO!!!! never set your workers to Auto, it's the quick route to destroying your civilization!!

It is damn boring micromanaging them all though,, I must agree!

[GeneralHankerchief]

Well yeah, hence my adding in the "cringing" bit.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

[Beefy187]

NO!!!! never set your workers to Auto, it's the quick route to destroying your civilization!!

It is damn boring micromanaging them all though,, I must agree!

I set them on build trade network which doesn't seem to harm me.

But thats only after I get Railroads. Until then I Micro Manage.

4 workers are enough for me unless I am forced to have more after capturing a few cities.

[Owen Glyndwr]

I set them on build trade network which doesn't seem to harm me.

But thats only after I get Railroads. Until then I Micro Manage.

4 workers are enough for me unless I am forced to have more after capturing a few cities.

Actually there's a guy at the Civfanatics forums named The Me In Team who autos everything. He autos workers and uses the governor feature. He plays Emperor level I believe. His argument is that in the early game micro workers, but as the game gets along he autos them, and as long as you use it with the governor feature (i.e. emphasize x), then they'll work terrain how you want it. Also he's one of the fastest players around, completing the average game in about 2 to 3 hours.


Also, Civ 4 and EB are about the same for me. It really depends on what I want to do and how I'm feeling. They're two of the only games I actually play nowadays, so there's plenty of room for both of them.

[Beefy187]

Actually there's a guy at the Civfanatics forums named The Me In Team who autos everything. He autos workers and uses the governor feature. He plays Emperor level I believe. His argument is that in the early game micro workers, but as the game gets along he autos them, and as long as you use it with the governor feature (i.e. emphasize x), then they'll work terrain how you want it. Also he's one of the fastest players around, completing the average game in about 2 to 3 hours.


Also, Civ 4 and EB are about the same for me. It really depends on what I want to do and how I'm feeling. They're two of the only games I actually play nowadays, so there's plenty of room for both of them.

I never quite got if I should build a farm or a cottage. Most forums tells me theres a terrain where farms are completely useless if I build on them so its far better to build a cottage.

Maybe I should auto it

[Owen Glyndwr]

I never quite got if I should build a farm or a cottage. Most forums tells me theres a terrain where farms are completely useless if I build on them so its far better to build a cottage.

Maybe I should auto it

Well, that really depends on what you're doing. If you run a CE (Cottage Economy), i.e. you generate commerce in the cities which are run through multipliers and through the slider which converts to beakers, then you want to have just enough food to keep the city growing and just crank out the cottages. Ideal cities are FP (flood plain) for the +1 commerce and +1 Food, and riverside grassland tiles. Also in a CE you want one food heavy city (i.e. several food sources in the BFC) to serve as a Great Person Farm, which converts the food to specialists to crank out the Great People, especially scientists. Ideal trait is definitely the Financial Trait, and ideal civics are US and Emancipation (?). The benefit of the CE is that it creates the best research rate of the three, however it is very slow to shine through due to the long time it takes for cottages to mature into towns, and is easy to use. (The cottage is the worse upgrade, but town is the best)

If you run a SE (Specialist Economy), however, the strategy is to farm everything to get the cities as High pop as possible and covert the excess population into specialists which directly create beakers for your research, allowing you to run the slider at 100% wealth for the whole game. Here you look for food heavy areas and just farm. However, specialist the idea is to prioritize. If a city has a lot of hammers, you turn it into a prod city which churns out your units. You have science cities to generate beakers, and you usually have your best few science cities become commerce cities (or is it the other way around?) The ideal trait for SE is philosophical, and a good strategy is to get the Pyramids early (Unlocks all Gov. civics) to run representation early (All specialists earn beakers) Another good civic is Caste System (Unlimited Merchants, Artists and Engineers (?)). The Specialist economy is strong in that it is versatile, by altering specialists you can do what you want, however it is very weak until you get Representation, and the beaker output is slightly lower than a CE (The SE is slightly more popular among high level players)

The final major economy is the HE (Hammer Economy) In a hammer economy, your cities look for hammer heavy cities, and just workshop everything not a hill. Using the "build x" feature (Wealth, Research, or Culture), you convert hammers to your research. The Hammer economy doesn't really take off until you get the State Property civic with Communism, leading many HE advocates to play a CE or SE until Liberalism (Free tech for first to discover), and then beeline straight for Communism. If you have a heavy lead, you may even be able to take Comm. with Lib. The advantages of an HE is that it is very easy to set up, very easy to manage, and allows you to basically build whatever you want (Making you very strong on the military front). Also, there are some who assert that due to the nature of an HE, your economy is basically uncrashable (I.E. expand too quickly, dropping your slider to 10% or lower, sending your tech pace to a crawl) when in one. Because of it's ease of setup, a lot of players will play an HE in their late game gains through war. The disadvantages of an HE are that it's potency in terms of beaker output is the worst of the three, making it only truly viable on it's on in large empires, Also it is essentially horrendous until you get SP (Workshops earn food), and the fact that you're tech rate will drop when you transition into war as some of your cities are no longer generating beakers for you.

Now a lot of people don't like to get into discussions about which economy is the best as they are all equally viable, and very strong when used in the right situation. A growing mentality in the CFC is to simply not be identified by the type of economy you play. A lot of people will run a mixed economy, and build improvements in cities based on what they perceive would be the best route in each city.

I really hope this helps as this is a very general overview, and if you go to the CFC, you'd see strategy articles on each type of economy which run in the tens of pages.

[Beefy187]

Never quite got how to do great person farm till now.

Thanks heaps Owen Glyndwr

[seireikhaan]

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.

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.

And btw, I AM an accounting student for a reason... I want control over every single worker in Civ...

[gollum]

Some cannot stand anyone being unacccounted for...

[seireikhaan]

Some cannot stand anyone being unacccounted for...

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...

[gollum]

Vanity of vanities, everything is vanity

[gollum]

Originally posted by Durango
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?

Yes and no. The mod has many features that are perceived as pluses by certain people and as minuses by certain other people.

For example its true that its richly detailed and immersive, yet also of cumbersome slow pace, but these are the two sides of the same coin.

In the end you really have to try for yourself and see.

[ShadesWolf]

Civ was one of the first game i really got into back in the 80/90's.

I have always loved the game and the later versions. Some of sids games are my all time favourite, Pirates and Colonization spring to mind :)

However, I must say that no series of games can come anywhere close to the TW collection. I have one small fault with them though, its you have no control over where the cities are sited. This for me is a nice feature and is a very minor drawback with TW.

but apart from that TW all the way

[Mediteran]

yeah it would be nice if you could colonize in tw!

as for me, i only play tw games nowadays

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

What about EB? Have you tried it? You should, it is obviously free, so you have nothing to lose but your chains...ermh, sorry, that was my inner Lenin speaking in me. What I mean to say was that you have nothing but a bit of your time to lose to try out EB.

[gollum]

Yeah, EB fans qualify as communists in mentality at least...

[seireikhaan]

What about EB? Have you tried it? You should, it is obviously free, so you have nothing to lose but your chains...ermh, sorry, that was my inner Lenin speaking in me. What I mean to say was that you have nothing but a bit of your time to lose to try out EB.

Yes, I did give it a brief stint. However, it came back to the same thing- I simply couldn't lose battles, period. Plus, the AI is still so nonsensical on the strategic level its baffling. This is not the fault of the EB team at all- I commend them for doing so much with so little and having such commitment to a project of which they do not charge money. Fact is, the core of Rome was totally rotten for me- just not enough to work with to make a game I could enjoy.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Shinseikhan
Yes, I did give it a brief stint. However, it came back to the same thing- I simply couldn't lose battles, period.

Thats because EB balance on the battlefield wasnt made for this purpose. RTW in fact is not completely beyond redemption even from a MTW perspective in SP. However i agree with you the game is far far inferior from the first two incarnations.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yes, I did give it a brief stint. However, it came back to the same thing- I simply couldn't lose battles, period. Plus, the AI is still so nonsensical on the strategic level its baffling. This is not the fault of the EB team at all- I commend them for doing so much with so little and having such commitment to a project of which they do not charge money. Fact is, the core of Rome was totally rotten for me- just not enough to work with to make a game I could enjoy.

Heh. You sound just like me when I am critiquing M2TW or ETW. RTW is my favourite however.

[Axalon]

Ever since some freaking stone-age boy defeated my aircraft-carrier (or was it battleship?) I stopped playing the game that instant. I have never played Civilization since after that incident (this was Civ. 1 or 2 mind you - it matters little to me). I am just unable to take any of it seriously after that little miracle. I just cant....

It's as serious as Tom & Jerry being presidents of China or calling yourself "Darth hamburger" or something of the like that... So, for me there is nothing to discuss in regards to the stipultated topic of this thread. To me, Civilization have always been just a lot of Mickey-mouse after that event.


- Cheers
----------
I did however have great time with Alfa-Centauri thou, which is essentially
is the same thing in concept.

[Beefy187]

Ever since some freaking stone-age boy defeated my aircraft-carrier (or was it battleship?) I stopped playing the game that instant. I have never played Civilization since after that incident (this was Civ. 1 or 2 mind you - it matters little to me). I am just unable to take any of it seriously after that little miracle. I just cant....

It's as serious as Tom & Jerry being presidents of China or calling yourself "Darth hamburger" or something of the like that... So, for me there is nothing to discuss in regards to the stipultated topic of this thread. To me, Civilization have always been just a lot of Mickey-mouse after that event.


- Cheers
----------
I did however have great time with Alfa-Centauri thou, which is essentially
is the same thing in concept.

I would bet for the Stone Age boy if he gets on the Air Craft carrier for rampage.

I never played Civ 1 or 2 but I'm guessing land units gets bonus against navy if they are right next to each other.

In Civ IV you don't get to attack navy with the land force so don't worry

[Aemilius Paulus]

Ever since some freaking stone-age boy defeated my aircraft-carrier (or was it battleship?) I stopped playing the game that instant. I have never played Civilization since after that incident (this was Civ. 1 or 2 mind you - it matters little to me). I am just unable to take any of it seriously after that little miracle. I just cant....

Yeah, they fixed that issue with the ancient units being able to defeat modern units in Civilization IV. Still, even with that glitch, I liked the Civilization games. That is what made them unique, was that provided you were smart enough, you could win with a weaker army, provided enough defensive bonuses pile up.

[mlc82]

Yes, I did give it a brief stint. However, it came back to the same thing- I simply couldn't lose battles, period. Plus, the AI is still so nonsensical on the strategic level its baffling. This is not the fault of the EB team at all- I commend them for doing so much with so little and having such commitment to a project of which they do not charge money. Fact is, the core of Rome was totally rotten for me- just not enough to work with to make a game I could enjoy.

A few things:

If you happen to have RTW Alexander laying around, the "Alex" mods for EB improve the AI a LOT! It can still be pretty stupid at times, but nowhere near it's usual level, and has at times given me battles that felt like playing Medieval 1 again.

2. Try out the "Darth Formations" minimod for EB. In my experience it helps the AI maintain their formation at least until contact in battle, instead of tending to attack piecemeal. The EB formations do this decently as well, but from my experience the Darth formations make it even tighter.

3. EB is a must-roleplay kind of mod. There are hordes of threads about this on the EB board, and it REALLY makes a big difference in the fun factor, along with providing some challenge vs the lackluster AI that feels a little less like deliberately handicapping yourself. Things such as low-end generals can only lead a single legion (as Rome of course, and there is a breakdown on the EB forum as well of what units a single roman legion should consist of, it's nowhere near a full stack). I've even worked on a set of rules for an "extended general cam" mode, just haven't posted or put them in practice yet, but trying to make EB play a little more like the "Take Command" tactical games, though you'd need some serious self discipline to stick to it!

[seireikhaan]

A few things:

If you happen to have RTW Alexander laying around, the "Alex" mods for EB improve the AI a LOT! It can still be pretty stupid at times, but nowhere near it's usual level, and has at times given me battles that felt like playing Medieval 1 again.

2. Try out the "Darth Formations" minimod for EB. In my experience it helps the AI maintain their formation at least until contact in battle, instead of tending to attack piecemeal. The EB formations do this decently as well, but from my experience the Darth formations make it even tighter.

3. EB is a must-roleplay kind of mod. There are hordes of threads about this on the EB board, and it REALLY makes a big difference in the fun factor, along with providing some challenge vs the lackluster AI that feels a little less like deliberately handicapping yourself. Things such as low-end generals can only lead a single legion (as Rome of course, and there is a breakdown on the EB forum as well of what units a single roman legion should consist of, it's nowhere near a full stack). I've even worked on a set of rules for an "extended general cam" mode, just haven't posted or put them in practice yet, but trying to make EB play a little more like the "Take Command" tactical games, though you'd need some serious self discipline to stick to it!

1. No, I never got the Alexander expansion. Only BI.

2. Never heard of that particular mini-mod, but the "piecemeal" attacking was not my top concern. My top concern is the fact that the AI runs itself to death going around in circles whenever I'm attacking, and defending is so easy it wouldn't matter if they did or didn't either way. Fighting fatigued troops with fresh ones every single battle got ridiculous.

3. That, unfortunately, is just not my kind of thing. I don't get much satisfaction from a war game by role playing it. I do not get attached to my generals or emissaries or any of the such. For me, they are simply tools. That's just the kind of person I am when it comes to games.

Again, I commend the effort put forth by the EB team; I simply can't imagine how much research, development, testing, and creativity it takes to make such a mod. However, the restrictions put in place by the Rome engine simply make it impossible for me to enjoy the game. Equally a pity is the fact that the time period really is quite interesting.

[White_eyes:D]

I AM an accounting student for a reason...

Funny....I am too and Civilization 2...back in the day...I think it was 1998? or was it 1999? was my favorite game....problem because back then, I had never played such a complex game....Now days..(Civilization 4) after finishing said accounting courses...I feel something is wrong if there is no money-crunching

Overall, I love both games about the same....Total war series, is more battles with nice grapichics...Civilization games are more about tech races and LONG-term managing.....(I think I had one game on there, toke me about....one year to finish.... yeah...should have set that map to a large land mass...rather then a whole bunch of Islands....takes a lot longer to win if you let the Island Nations build up on World Domination...)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hmmm, so no one cares about Mount and Blade, huh? Well, from what I observed, great amounts of people here play EU-type games (Europa Universalis, no the other EU, for all you smartasses). How about comparing EU and TW?

[johnhughthom]

Hmmm, so no one cares about Mount and Blade, huh?

Check out the Arena, there is a 50 odd page thread on Mount & Blade.