CIV Total War

[Great Est.]

I was just wondering if anybody else out there also plays CIV. Can you imagine a game with the empire/city management and the battles of MTW?
It would take forever to play just a turn, sure, but talk about a deep, immersive game!
You would send your stack of 2 archers and 1 spear against an enemy city with two spears, for example, and it would trigger a TW battle between said units. That would be awesome.

[Cowhead418]

I was playing Civ the other day and I was surprised at how much I like the Diplomacy. I was at war with the Romans when they approached me for a ceasefire after I had conquered several of their cities. Going into it I had no intention of ending the war but they offered me such a sweet deal that I had to take it. At least in Civ, your rivals can actually be reasonable in your dealings, and trading is very fun. The only way for TW Diplomacy to get up to a decent level would be lots of expansion to what could be offered. Hey, and just maybe that nation you just spent a decade destroying might actually accept a ceasefire and want to live!

[Great Est.]

Yes, I hate how the AI refuses to accept a ceasefire when you clearly have the upper hand. As the Hungarians, I took Constantinople and Nicea from the Byz the other day and left them with their islands and Trebizond. Did they accept a ceasfire? Nope. All I wanted was to keep Constantinople, but they forced me to destroy them. It's nearly impossible in MTW to wage wars with limited goals, as it is in CIV. There should be a way to negotiate peace in MTW. That would make the game much more interesting.

[The Unknown Guy]

Isn't Rome: TW pretty much like that?

Master of Magic too, for that matter, but the combat was turn based.

edit: and it already takes forever to play just a turn. Three pitched battles can eat a whole hour.

[Martok]

Isn't Rome: TW pretty much like that?

Heh. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Of course, there's at least one major difference between Rome and Civ on the empire/campaign side of the game (besides the battles), which is diplomacy. By most accounts (even not counting Cowhead418's personal experience), diplomacy in the Civ games is generally more rational than we can hope for in any of the existing Total War titles. Aside from the empire-management AI, I feel diplomacy is still the most broken/underdeveloped aspect of the TW series.

[Maloncanth]

edit: and it already takes forever to play just a turn. Three pitched battles can eat a whole hour.

An hour? Hah!

Let's just say that unlike the sun outside my window, the sun in an MTW tactical does not set.

[Great Est.]

Isn't Rome: TW pretty much like that?

Master of Magic too, for that matter, but the combat was turn based.

edit: and it already takes forever to play just a turn. Three pitched battles can eat a whole hour.

I've had RTW for months now and have yet to even install it because I'm still not "bored" or "through" with MTW. This is one of the "drawbacks" of MTW being so engrosing, I guess.
Maybe when I get back into the inevitable heavy CIV phase and come back to TW, I'll enter Rome.

[seireikhaan]

I really like both games. In fact, right now they're probably my two favorite games. However, I don't think that Total War games will ever get too in depth with diplomacy. Keep in mind, we are talking about games titled "total war".

Civilization is another favorite of mine, but for different reasons. Certainly it's got much better diplomacy. Sometimes it still makes some mind boggling decisions, though. An example was when I played the "Earth 18 civs" scenario as Japan. I put a city in southern china and defended it with a couple of archers. The Mongols actually went THROUGH Chinese territory in order to take my city. That just seems absurd to me that anyone would do that.