Civilization vs Total War

[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

[Pannonian]

I'd like to see the social engineering concept in SMAC present in more games. The switch between different societies was such an integral part of the gameplay, and the choices made it enjoyably flexible, as well as suggesting such a detailed background that inspired so many great fanfics. The unit workshop was nice too, although MOO2 did it better. Speaking of MOO2, I liked the faction attributes that started every game, and the hireable merc leaders.

[wumpus]

Civ vs. TW? You may have your own opinion, but I say there's no comparison. Civ is worlds away down there--I got almost all Civ versions (except ver 1) but I seldom play them. TW games, I play very often. That's how I enjoy TW games. And that's in the many versions and mods (like the latest AmazonTW and TroyTW). Now, maybe if you compare Civ games with Age of Empires, I'll say AOE games are slightly better than Civ; but Total War games is way, way better than AOE games. For just one point (and there are many) about it, why should I suffer to micromanage the units in Civ who are stupid in war anyway? And if I have a Phallanx unit (sic), I send it with several other units in a stack, the stupid beings would attack the enemy (or defend, for that matter) ONE UNIT AT A TIME!! You won't have that in a real battle. If I had a real army of, say, 15 Hoplite companies, of course all 15 units (except those which I'll hold in reserve) would fight at the same time. I would be a terribly idiotic general to send only one unit first, then when it has been annihilated (yes, because Civ units ARE annihilated, each in its turn), I would send my next unit alone to its death, and so on until my last company. Or the gameplay would sometimes send a cavalry unit to attack a pikeman (!?!) Or the player would have a monarchy one turn, to easily turn into some other political system the next (???) Or build a Pyramid beside the Taj Mahal surrounded by the Great Wall (??)
Well, the only reason that I still have Civ games in my PC is because I bought them, and it'd be a waste to throw them away. If somebody had given me a Civ game without cost, I would have uninstalled it long ago and threw away the install disk.
And then you say you play Civ because you have already been fed up with battles when you play TW? Well, if you don't like the battles, why not get mesmerized with a game of Zuma or Free Cell? Civ also has an element of combat in the game, doesn't it?
Be happy and have a nice day.
Hawooh.

[Aemilius Paulus]

How about Mount&Blade vs TW? Both have strategy maps and relatively large battles for their own genre. I am currently playing M&B, so I thought it would be fitting (not really) to bring this up.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Mount & Blade is good at individual level, but it sorely lacks the kind of unit and formation work essential for a big battle, so all you have are big brawls instead.