Civilization vs Total War

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

[Durango]

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.

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?

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.

[Beefy187]

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?

More historical accuracy, more factions, more units, increased difficulty.

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

[pevergreen]

More historical accuracy, more factions, more units, increased difficulty.

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.
Vanilla and EB is completely different game. Definitely worth it

Its kind of like Rome: Total Realism, but the SEGA version as opposed to the Nintendo version. (Megadrive vs. NES)

Just for reference, that area recruitment? AoR: Area of Recruitment.

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I
Its immersive, but...battles. I mean...come on! Civ 4 appeals to me more in only 2 ways:
1. borders change
2. the timespan

Heh, Rise of Nations has both.

[pevergreen]

I have rise of nations, but its just...not what I'm looking for. Maybe because I'm out of macro practice.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have rise of nations, but its just...not what I'm looking for. Maybe because I'm out of macro practice.

I think you just grown lazy, that is what. Turn based strategy has made you pampered and decadent . Either that or you need to use the "Pause" button more while playing RoN.

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.

[mlc82]

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?

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.

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.

[Ajax]

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!