View Full Version : Empire Earth VS CIV3= Battle of the Century


Fayadi
Nov 04, 2001, 12:20 AM
Empire Earth is said to be the most ambitious strategy game ever .It is like civ ,500 000 years of history with over 200 units but it is in RTS from stone age to nano age.it is definitely more ambious with 200 over units whereas civ3 is only 65.I have seen Empire Earth website it looks very very ambitious!I have always love Civilisation series no matter what!But comparing is a good thing (who knows Civ3 is better and we all feel happy together?)and for those of you who is disapponted with Civ3 there is Empire Earth.Is there anybody going to defend for civ3?By the way I go this website of Empire Earth check it out!!http://empireearth.sierra.com/overview/
Is Civ3 series going to die with the upcoming of Empire Earth,I certainly not hope so ,U may think I am stupid for comparing turn based and RTS but they are nearly about the same .Guys how do ya think Civ3 can be better that Empire Earth given so many complaints about Civ3??Where as Empire Earth is so ambitious?

Setsuna
Nov 04, 2001, 12:34 AM
I played the demo a bit.. it's sort of interesting, but I couldn't stand the combat.

Essentially, it's like Rock-Paper-Scissors. Only the units don't have easy to remember references of little things. You know, unimportant stuff like what type of unit they are.

The first time I had to attempt to get the right unit to fight the corresponding unit while keeping the other enemy units from attacking that particular unit while keeping the other two types of units and their - AH FARK IT. The point is it was a disaster. The game didn't really elaborate very much on how to do this successfully. Eventually I just bunch up all of the units into one blob and hoped for the best. It worked marginally better.
I also thought it was neat that the WWI portion is seen through the eyes of the.. Germans?? :confused: (For the confused, contemporary American culture seems to regard them as such, even though WWI was about as as grey as it gets. And America did end up fighting against them, so that automatically makes them bad :rolleyes: )

Having 14 eras sure was nifty, though.

kittenOFchaos
Nov 04, 2001, 12:57 AM
The Germans (you should see their interpretations of Darwin back then, oh-ho) in WW1 the black...anyone who goes invading Belgium and France and causing millions to die is bad.

The essential of the start of WW1 is germany gave Austria aa blank cheque of support which austria spent on an ultimatum to Serbia that was unacceptable in virtually every point. The Serbs accepted -because of duress- all but one point -which would have allowed Austrian troops to station themselves ANYWHERE in Serbia...the Austrians invade because their unacceptable ultimatum was not accepted.

To even stand a chance in a war the Russians had to mobilise early, and the Germans use this as an excuse to invade France VIA Belgium...so Britain as a guardian of Belgian neutrality and soverienty intervened on the French side...note that the French, Russians and English HAD an entente vs an alliance, the Germans threw them together.


Now who were to blame? The German Leaders who said to Austrian leaders that if Russia took offence at the ultimatum presented and fought against the Austrians ALONGSIDE the Serbs then Germany would fight Russia.


Now: what have I said that is wrong?

Setsuna
Nov 04, 2001, 01:24 AM
That's just how the war ignited. You ommited the details about how things had gotten so bad in the first place - and everyone shares part of that blame.

And avoid the generalizations please. I'm sure I could find a part of history that doesn't reflect kindly on british people as well.

CurtSibling
Nov 04, 2001, 04:15 AM
Setsuna has point!

WW1 is what happens when European Imperialism gets out of hand!

All sides played a nastyl part in WW1!

:(

Da Drunken Fish
Nov 04, 2001, 04:26 AM
EMPIRE EARTH ABSOLUTELY s*c*s

its awful, the combat is terrible, thats the worse, your never going to reach the nano age, it will just stay in the roman age were u can kill each other with considerable ease.

My god, empire earth, its so uninspiring, if ANYONE dissagree's then its time we have a full on war.

Civ3 rocks, my friend in america says its awesome

CurtSibling
Nov 04, 2001, 05:54 AM
Fayadi,

Thru history there have been many pretender's to CIV's crown!
but none have been up to the job.

Many have tried...and many have died!

SID and CIV are the kings!:king:

CurtSibling
Nov 04, 2001, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by Da Drunken Fish

Civ3 rocks, my friend in america says its awesome

Your friend in Scotland also agrees!!!

ChrTh
Nov 04, 2001, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Setsuna
That's just how the war ignited. You ommited the details about how things had gotten so bad in the first place - and everyone shares part of that blame.

And avoid the generalizations please. I'm sure I could find a part of history that doesn't reflect kindly on british people as well.

I won't jump in this argument, all I got to say is this:

read Robert K. Massie's DREADNOUGHT. Amazing book, explains everything about how WWI happened, starting from the ascension of Victoria.

Fayadi
Nov 04, 2001, 07:06 AM
IT IS GOOD CIV3 IS STILL THE BEST.But beware the creater of Empire Earth is the same of Age of Empire.Have you seen age of empire success??Yeah they sold millions of copies too.Empire Earth although loses to Civ3 which some of u think here,they got 200 over units,that proves they are more ambitious than Civ3.I am not supporting Empire Earth,I have been FANS ONLY TO CIVILISATIONS (no other game else)but I just wanna hear ur opinion!

Alc0p0pz
Nov 04, 2001, 07:15 AM
First, I'm in the UK. Ergo, I haven't got Civ3 yet. :(

I d/loaded and played the EE demo about two hours after it became available. It bored me. I uninstalled it. There are far better RTS games available.

I really, really doubt that Civ3 will bore me.
Infact, despite all the complaints I'm hearing, I'm almost certain I'll love it.


:)

Fayadi
Nov 04, 2001, 07:52 AM
Dont tell me Age of Empires are still better than Empire Earth??Thats crazy!!No real efforts being done,200 over units are waste of units I suppose??

The General
Nov 04, 2001, 09:18 AM
Different strokes for different folks.

This isn't really a fair comparison. Empire Earth is a "real time strategy" (RTS), whereas Civ 3 is a turn based strategy (TBS). Empire Earth favors those who like more direct action and more direct control over wars, whereas Civ 3 caters to those who like diplomacy and dealing with things on a larger scale.

Its like comparing micro to macro. Empire Earth is micro, Civ 3 is macro. Civ 3 looks at the big picture. Sure they may cover the same time span (actually Empire Earth dwells into the future slightly), but the actions and wars in Civ 3 are more of a representation (each turn represents 2 to 10 years passing), whereas in Empire Earth, the action is real time, and there really is no measurement to how fast time passes (ages just seem to pass once you research the advance).

In Civ 3, one longbowmen unit is a representation of many longbowmen, whereas in Empire Earth each unit is exactly that, one unit.

Honestly I'm gonna get both games. They're the best of both worlds. If they could somehow merge the games, to include the deep diplomacy engine and macro scale strategy of Civ 3 and combine it with the direct control over warfare as Empire Earth, then you'd have one hell of a game. Unfortunately, this wouldn't work because the ways things occur in Civ 3, it just couldn't happen in real time, especially if you ever intend on finishing the game. For example, if you send in an airstrike to attack a civilization, it basically takes a year or two to perform in Civ 3. Each move represents a few years passing, how would you incorporate real time into that? If you had to deal with each war and action in real time, you'd never finish the game.

The truth is, I've always wanted to see some of the actions occuring in Civ 3. It just isn't as gratifying, winning a war without actually physically observing the attack. I'd like to see my bombers let it loose on the factories of my enemy, I'd like to see my longbowmen let loose a ton of arrows into my helpless enemies or 30 knights rush in and attack their archers. How do you combine large scale strategy with small scale strategy? Are you moving the armies from one continent to another? (Civ 3) Or are you asking them to travel a few metres around a few trees to flank the enemy? (Empire Earth) In Empire Earth you can pull some neat war strategies, like sending in your longbowmen, and upon seeing a rush of knights, you can pull them back, and lead them into a wall of pikemen. If you've ever seen movies like Braveheart or Gladiator, you can sense how exhilirating this kind of tactical warfare can really be, especially in real time.

With games like Age of Empires and Empire Earth, I've always wished for a little bit more diplomacy (like in Civ 3), unfortunately it wouldn't work because you couldn't very well stop in the middle of all the action in Empire Earth, and just start negotiating some kind of alliance, it just doesn't work. By the time you've discussed terms, you probably wouldn't have noticed that your economy is going to craps because you never controlled the villagers (you left them idle) and your enemy just ran over your city while you were negotiating. There just is no time in RTS, to stop and discuss diplomacy. It is strictly an "action game". That's the difference. It caters to those who like quicker action games. It depends more on reflexes & skill(how fast you can move and click the mouse properly) than actually strategy.

Just enjoy both games for what they have to offer.

The Ripper
Nov 04, 2001, 09:59 AM
I have great expectations for Crusader, the sequel of Shogun..
No so diplomatic,but a great representation in real time of middle ages battles..
I think I will enjoy it even more than the beautiful Age of Kings
Anyway I think they are a different stuff from civ series..
so I'll buy them all..:cool:

bulletsponge
Nov 04, 2001, 10:52 AM
Ripper, whats that you say about the sequel to shogun? Crusader? where can i find more info on it?

The Ripper
Nov 04, 2001, 11:12 AM
I found the preview on a magazine with the preview of civ3
expected for spring 2002
from Creative Assembly,try to see if they have a website...
I've not searched the inernet for Crusader,I was looking for Civ3...
At least look for it in newspaper in your country
Now stop or the mod will crunch us all....:king:
Tell me via pm if u find somethink,I will,in case.

Dearmad
Nov 04, 2001, 11:29 AM
No comparison- Empire Earth doesn't even let you go from the beginning of history to the future- only across 5 spans I think (in any one game)- and its just another RTS game as far as I experienced- Civ3 is so much better...

however EE may outsell Civ3 all the same- the masses have no taste.:lol:

Da Drunken Fish
Nov 04, 2001, 11:30 AM
First, it doesnt if Em. Earth is RTS and Civ TBS, because comparisons can still be made. Namely one sucks and the other doesnt.
Crusader total war is being released in spring, I am a great fan a look foward to this, I still think Civ rocks more though:goodjob:
Also, unrelated so the administrator may get p*****
Anyone ever played Black and White, that is so cool, its so new and refreshing.
Soz if its unrelated, if u wanna comment to me on Black n White just add it as a postscript

Da Drunken Fish
Nov 04, 2001, 11:33 AM
Age of Em's are very depressing, and Im an expert on them, I used to play it but it only took a little Shogun here and a little BnW there to make me relise how mundane and boring it is.
Arghhh

Papa Lazarou
Nov 04, 2001, 02:54 PM
the only thing i liked about empire earth was the way you could change the direction your regiment is facing by selecting, right clicking and draging the arrow and then releasing... genius! shame about the rest of the game...

if they implimented that into shogun or crusader(?) then that would rule! i always got stressed when i'd order my archers up on the hill and the end up in a long line facing the wrong direction...
nevermind, you probably dont know what i mean :p

Dell19
Nov 05, 2001, 12:19 PM
Crusader is one of the games I am lloking forward to although I think its released in the summer. I haven't got the original Shogun but I should be getting the pack with Shogun total war and the expansion in a pack sometime soon.

iLiAS
Nov 29, 2001, 01:13 AM
I played Empire Earth.. I returned it the second day.. this game is *very* shallow. As the years pass, the AI becomes totally wacky. It's a game that won't have your interest long. If you care more about quantity vs. quality, or more about looks than gameplay, then it's your game.

I played Civ3.. well.. you know the problems.. cartoonish compared to Civ2.. Civ2 had a more serious, epic feel.

And then I played Europa Universalis II. And I found strategy gaming paradise. This is what a deep, epic strategy title should be like. Civ3 and *especially* Empire Earth feel like cheap toys compared to it.

ilias

Dell19
Nov 29, 2001, 01:59 PM
I should be getting Shogun Total War: Warlords edition soon! :goodjob: It contains the original game and the add on.

It should be coming in the post soon but the most important game imo has just arrived today: CIV 3 :D :cool: :goodjob: