Civ V vs. Shogun 2-Total War
- Thread starter corrin
- Start date
Hmmm... I wonder if anyone has played Tetris and Bioshock 2, I'm curious how they compare.
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Skwink
FRIIIIIIIIIITZ
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 5,683
It's like apples and oranges.
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I just finished Amnesia the Dark Descent and I wondered how people felt about it compared to Modern Warfare 2. Any thoughts?
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I recently ate an apple and an orange, and the orange was far superior.
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
binhthuy71
Emperor
Masters of Magic or Machiavelli, which has more replay value?
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Eating or sleeping, which is better?
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please don't unnecessarily spam around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
TW_Honorius
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 278
I own both and played both for a while. Total war is more about killing lots of men. The sp part is okay, pretty same every campaign, but I feel more into the game of CiV. War on the other hand is all Total War. Thousands of soldiers in rich detail dying at my hand, beautiful. MP is where Total War shines, I get really into the game, but both games are so different. Total War is speed and beauty, CiV is calculated and more deep. These are the only games I have bought in the past 2 years.
Okay guys, it's getting a bit old now lol. 
corrin: Essentially they're right. The games are both turn based strategy but that's where the similarities end.
Civ 5: You expand dynamically across a procedurally generated map consisting of hexes - each of which represents a different terrain type. You develop technology through the ages and develop your empire in multiple areas: militarily, scientifically, production/industrial, culturally. Warring is carried out on the main game map. The game doesn't really have a single gameplay focus but city management is probably the most important element.
Shogun: Players compete for power and build their forces across a carefully balanced, historically accurate game map, employing grand strategy to annex and control pre-determined territories and cities. When fighting enemies the game changes completely into a much smaller-scale semi real time battle where you position and control regiments of troops. The overall focus of the game is on warfare.
corrin: Essentially they're right. The games are both turn based strategy but that's where the similarities end.
Civ 5: You expand dynamically across a procedurally generated map consisting of hexes - each of which represents a different terrain type. You develop technology through the ages and develop your empire in multiple areas: militarily, scientifically, production/industrial, culturally. Warring is carried out on the main game map. The game doesn't really have a single gameplay focus but city management is probably the most important element.
Shogun: Players compete for power and build their forces across a carefully balanced, historically accurate game map, employing grand strategy to annex and control pre-determined territories and cities. When fighting enemies the game changes completely into a much smaller-scale semi real time battle where you position and control regiments of troops. The overall focus of the game is on warfare.
I play both. I have almost 300 hours of Civ5 and 600 hours of Shogun 2.
Interface & Micromanagement
Shogun 2 has similarities in being very slick and streamlined in gameplay and interface (both games have areas that are lacking badly. Using the interface to find/control air power in Civ5 is a chaotic confusing cumbersome mess. Shogun 2's ship building, movement and ceued end-of-turn movement actions are all a pain to deal with. Civ5 is a chaotic mess in late game with many cities and units that cannot be renamed or grouped into armies (no stacking allowed etc). Shogun 2 is smooth sailing in comparison.
Shogun 2 requires only a fraction of the micromanagement of Civ5. The economy is much more transparent and easy to understand. There is no "CHOOSE PRODUCTION" or "UNIT NEEDS ORDERS" popping up every turn. It is instead 'on demand' - you go and recruit units somewhere if you need to. Trading is also cleverly done in Shogun 2, with mininal interaction needed from the player. Civ5's constant requirement to renew all types of trade, and to do it manually for each resource, open borders, pacts... A pain. Denouncements and Declarations of Friendship also constantly need to be renewed.
During battles it is a different story, where one micromanages a formation of units. Not as intensely as Starcraft 2 though, it is more peaceful.
Both games have problems with transparency. They hide mechanics and important information from the player, such as how many turns are left for this deal, and what are the consequences for breaking this deal within this amount of time, etc.
The advisors of Civ5 are a nice idea but they are flooded with excessive unwanted information, drowning out the few things that would be of value. Often the info of the military advisor is the same thing stated in different words, over and over. I don't know why they didn't make the advisors appear (unprompted) to tell different things the player wants to hear about.
General
Shogun 2 consists of two 'games' in one in a sense. A campaign strategy (like civ5) mode and a battle (Rea Time Strategy) mode. I thought such a combo would cause a loss of focus and quality, with one or both being shoddy. But rather the opposite, both are of exceedingly high quality. They tie into each other in a brilliant way. What happens on each mode carries into the other seamlessly. Some people play only head to head multiplayer battles, forgoing the campaign mode. There is a cooperative multiplayer campaign mode, as well as an adversial one (which is like the normal singleplayer campaign, but with two humans instead of one). Many clever ways to have humans replace the AI during battles during campaigns. There is the 'drop-in' mode where one can join others' campaigns as the AI during a battle, and vice versa.
Shogun 2 has a narrow focus (location, time period, units, objective) while civ5 is more epic. Both are a bit like "a really good board game". Shogun 2 almost looks like it on its campaign map.
Shogun 2 of course has the same map, every time. Same starting year. Same conditions. But the geopolitical & clan difference makes for very different game experiences depending on what clan one chooses. Every province is already laid out and cannot be changed. It belongs to a clan or rebels. Provinces have a single 'castle town' (like a city) each that cannot be destroyed, only change owner (and developed, of course). Provinces also have variying levels of fertility for their crops (which affects how weathy it is) and may have a harbour or not. Provinces have different types of specialties, which is like having bonus buildings or wonders in Civ5.
Shogun 2 has religions. More elaborate and detailed than Civ4, yet easier to manage and not as 'religion determines if we can be friends or enemies' as it was in Civ4. It plays a major part in diplomacy, economically and for the military. It is intricate and great fun.
Diplomacy
The diplomacy in Shogun 2 is exceptionally well thought out and implemented. It is vivid, alive, entertaining, mostly logical and stimulating. Almost every turn it is worthwhile to go 'read the news' of the latest happenings in Japan, and see how the clan relationships are developing. Cunning and forethought highly rewarded. Much manipulation to be made, but not excessive. Civ5's diplomacy, while easy to understand (mostly), plays only a minor part and there is little players can do (and it gets worse the later in the game one gets).
Shogun 2 also has minors and majors. But the difference between them is nothing like Civ5. All playable clans are majors. They have unique units & clan traits. Minor clans often become super powers. The interaction between clans makes no distinction between them.
Misc
Shogun 2 has loads of beautifully rendered movies playing now and then, nicely narrated. When using ninja agents on missions, it plays clips lasting about a minute, detailing the ninja's mission. Different settings, characters and methods. He can succeed or fail at various stages, and they rendered movie clips for each such possibility. There's tons of them, and even after a long, long time of gaming, the movies are still refreshing, exciting and often pretty funny (example: Samurai retainer sleeping in a field grabs the ninja's leg and dreams of cuddling with a geisha. Ninja tries to get loose and then it may or may not succeed...).
Bugs
Both games suffer from bugs. Civ5 is the worse offender with multiplayer being, well, a joke, especially when AI civs are involved. Latest patch supposed to fix the AI for MP, but it remains to be seen. The courthouse bug in Civ5 (old yet alive) is taking away much enjoyment from my games (the bug is that courhouses remove not only the occupied penalties, but also the -3 unhappiness that a city should generate. Annexing thus generates VERY HAPPY cities, much happier than one can build oneself, while puppeting generates more unhappiness, completely opposite to game description and intent).
Performance
Performance wise, Shogun 2 runs better, but has extremely long load times. On my high end computer, Civ5 scrolls choppily along the map no matter what settings, while zooming close to the ground or not moving the view is smooth even at the highest of high settings.
Summary
I like them both. Shogun 2 is the better game with more replayability, variation in tactics and strategy (unexpected, due to the narrower focus) and overall more stimulating and satisfying. For me it is the finest game ever made (I have a long gaming career - since 1985. I own the original Civ1 on the Amiga, with the nice big black manual and everything). But Civ5 is a terrific game as well. If the MP was fixed up to SP standard and the courthouse bug fixed, it would surpass Civ4 easily and equal Shogun 2.
Interface & Micromanagement
Shogun 2 has similarities in being very slick and streamlined in gameplay and interface (both games have areas that are lacking badly. Using the interface to find/control air power in Civ5 is a chaotic confusing cumbersome mess. Shogun 2's ship building, movement and ceued end-of-turn movement actions are all a pain to deal with. Civ5 is a chaotic mess in late game with many cities and units that cannot be renamed or grouped into armies (no stacking allowed etc). Shogun 2 is smooth sailing in comparison.
Shogun 2 requires only a fraction of the micromanagement of Civ5. The economy is much more transparent and easy to understand. There is no "CHOOSE PRODUCTION" or "UNIT NEEDS ORDERS" popping up every turn. It is instead 'on demand' - you go and recruit units somewhere if you need to. Trading is also cleverly done in Shogun 2, with mininal interaction needed from the player. Civ5's constant requirement to renew all types of trade, and to do it manually for each resource, open borders, pacts... A pain. Denouncements and Declarations of Friendship also constantly need to be renewed.
During battles it is a different story, where one micromanages a formation of units. Not as intensely as Starcraft 2 though, it is more peaceful.
Both games have problems with transparency. They hide mechanics and important information from the player, such as how many turns are left for this deal, and what are the consequences for breaking this deal within this amount of time, etc.
The advisors of Civ5 are a nice idea but they are flooded with excessive unwanted information, drowning out the few things that would be of value. Often the info of the military advisor is the same thing stated in different words, over and over. I don't know why they didn't make the advisors appear (unprompted) to tell different things the player wants to hear about.
General
Shogun 2 consists of two 'games' in one in a sense. A campaign strategy (like civ5) mode and a battle (Rea Time Strategy) mode. I thought such a combo would cause a loss of focus and quality, with one or both being shoddy. But rather the opposite, both are of exceedingly high quality. They tie into each other in a brilliant way. What happens on each mode carries into the other seamlessly. Some people play only head to head multiplayer battles, forgoing the campaign mode. There is a cooperative multiplayer campaign mode, as well as an adversial one (which is like the normal singleplayer campaign, but with two humans instead of one). Many clever ways to have humans replace the AI during battles during campaigns. There is the 'drop-in' mode where one can join others' campaigns as the AI during a battle, and vice versa.
Shogun 2 has a narrow focus (location, time period, units, objective) while civ5 is more epic. Both are a bit like "a really good board game". Shogun 2 almost looks like it on its campaign map.
Shogun 2 of course has the same map, every time. Same starting year. Same conditions. But the geopolitical & clan difference makes for very different game experiences depending on what clan one chooses. Every province is already laid out and cannot be changed. It belongs to a clan or rebels. Provinces have a single 'castle town' (like a city) each that cannot be destroyed, only change owner (and developed, of course). Provinces also have variying levels of fertility for their crops (which affects how weathy it is) and may have a harbour or not. Provinces have different types of specialties, which is like having bonus buildings or wonders in Civ5.
Shogun 2 has religions. More elaborate and detailed than Civ4, yet easier to manage and not as 'religion determines if we can be friends or enemies' as it was in Civ4. It plays a major part in diplomacy, economically and for the military. It is intricate and great fun.
Diplomacy
The diplomacy in Shogun 2 is exceptionally well thought out and implemented. It is vivid, alive, entertaining, mostly logical and stimulating. Almost every turn it is worthwhile to go 'read the news' of the latest happenings in Japan, and see how the clan relationships are developing. Cunning and forethought highly rewarded. Much manipulation to be made, but not excessive. Civ5's diplomacy, while easy to understand (mostly), plays only a minor part and there is little players can do (and it gets worse the later in the game one gets).
Shogun 2 also has minors and majors. But the difference between them is nothing like Civ5. All playable clans are majors. They have unique units & clan traits. Minor clans often become super powers. The interaction between clans makes no distinction between them.
Misc
Shogun 2 has loads of beautifully rendered movies playing now and then, nicely narrated. When using ninja agents on missions, it plays clips lasting about a minute, detailing the ninja's mission. Different settings, characters and methods. He can succeed or fail at various stages, and they rendered movie clips for each such possibility. There's tons of them, and even after a long, long time of gaming, the movies are still refreshing, exciting and often pretty funny (example: Samurai retainer sleeping in a field grabs the ninja's leg and dreams of cuddling with a geisha. Ninja tries to get loose and then it may or may not succeed...).
Bugs
Both games suffer from bugs. Civ5 is the worse offender with multiplayer being, well, a joke, especially when AI civs are involved. Latest patch supposed to fix the AI for MP, but it remains to be seen. The courthouse bug in Civ5 (old yet alive) is taking away much enjoyment from my games (the bug is that courhouses remove not only the occupied penalties, but also the -3 unhappiness that a city should generate. Annexing thus generates VERY HAPPY cities, much happier than one can build oneself, while puppeting generates more unhappiness, completely opposite to game description and intent).
Performance
Performance wise, Shogun 2 runs better, but has extremely long load times. On my high end computer, Civ5 scrolls choppily along the map no matter what settings, while zooming close to the ground or not moving the view is smooth even at the highest of high settings.
Summary
I like them both. Shogun 2 is the better game with more replayability, variation in tactics and strategy (unexpected, due to the narrower focus) and overall more stimulating and satisfying. For me it is the finest game ever made (I have a long gaming career - since 1985. I own the original Civ1 on the Amiga, with the nice big black manual and everything). But Civ5 is a terrific game as well. If the MP was fixed up to SP standard and the courthouse bug fixed, it would surpass Civ4 easily and equal Shogun 2.
Callonia
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2,180
Shogun 2, Map's always the same. Diplomacy becomes fubar'd when the current ashikage shogunate calls all of japan to take you down when you're becoming too powerful. Everyone in japan will unite to take you down barring the rebels. Even vassals. Never again I will purposely create vassals unless i really have to. Scrolling on the map is very nice and smooth and doesn't cause graphic lag of death. No offensive red/white checkerboards to see.
civ 5 have advantage in replayable value via always making you a new map. You get to play with modern units. Well. Issue of civ 5 being uncomplete. You cannot save games in multiplayer for example few days ago me and a friend played together in civ 5 multiplayer, crashed once and finally played. And when it was time for us to go, we couldn't save, wtf man.
civ 5 have advantage in replayable value via always making you a new map. You get to play with modern units. Well. Issue of civ 5 being uncomplete. You cannot save games in multiplayer for example few days ago me and a friend played together in civ 5 multiplayer, crashed once and finally played. And when it was time for us to go, we couldn't save, wtf man.
I've disagree with the replayability point. Shogun II lacks it compared to ciV because of its smaller scope (Japan Vs Earth). Most of the Shogun II fans complain about replayability. Otherwise it is a great game. Both are quite different games & have their strengths & weaknesses.
Civ5 is different only in that the maps can be different. In other aspects they are very similar. Shogun 2 has tons of arts (the equivalent of Civ5's techs) with many interesting bonuses. There are something like 85 different buildings in Shogun 2, easily comparable to Civ5's large selection. The clans play vastly different depending on starting location. The trade system and complex diplomatic game, agent system (vast, with bonuses/penalties/abilities that apply to every aspect of the game's systems), economy, units, abilities, and the very interesting random events & dilemmas. Family management is fun, too and plays out randomly.
Civ5 contains about as much stuff as Shogun 2, just things are renamed and dressed up to cover 4000BC to future era. The narrower focus of Shogun 2 does not mean less content. If counting Civ5 mods & scenarios however, it gains clear superiority.
Some Shogun 2 people complain about replayability, just as many don't. Civ5 is about as replayable in my opinion. The more one understands the game mechanics, the more options one sees. Many in Shogun 2 cannot comprehend how to deal with being a vassal of Imagawa when playing as Tokugawa and see no other option than to quickly declare war on them to break free. A very foolish thing, since there are so many other better options that they just have not discovered. Shogun 2's game mechanics are sometimes badly explained, making players unable to use them. Heck I don't even know what the command stars for generals really does, or what morale shock really does. Stuff that Shogun 2 talks about to the left and right in the game documentation while not explaining what it is.
Both are fun and strategy and both are wargames at heart. Shogun 2 is about detailed tactical war and growth of agents and generals. Civ 5 is more about operational war made tactical.
Oh and for the guy complaining about vassals, if you make them AFTER realm Divide they remain loyal.
Oh and for the guy complaining about vassals, if you make them AFTER realm Divide they remain loyal.
I have Shogun 2 but haven't invested much time in it. It's my first Total War game and I'm having trouble getting the hang of it. It seems like in order to have an army you need to expand to get the money. Everytime you expand you need more soldiers to protect yourself, so it's just a never-ending cycle of having either not enough money or not enough soldiers until everyone DoWs on you all at once and you're dead.
The only real comparison I can make is in the communities. With Civ, if you're a newbie you'll find lots of people willing to help pull you into the game. With Shogun 2, the best advice I can find is "kill yourself."
The only real comparison I can make is in the communities. With Civ, if you're a newbie you'll find lots of people willing to help pull you into the game. With Shogun 2, the best advice I can find is "kill yourself."
You better sign up in TWC Forums. You can get lots of help from there.
starrywisdom
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 205
Are you comparing the top 2 community sites; or the official forums? The Civ forums(or any 2K forum for that matter) is utter scum to say the least, lol. It's unmoderated beyond belief and there is no actual discussion. The total war series has quite a few large communities that are well moderated and have great advanced discussions, lol.
You're right, as Babri pointed out to me, it's not all bad. That was just my experienced from TW fans when I googled some things that were confusing me and saw that those were the replies they were giving to other people asking the same questions. I hadn't seen TWC.
I still have no idea how to solve that money/soldier issue though.
crashcrush
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34
I appreciate the write up too. I've been curious how the two compared (I downloaded the Total War trial but never really got into it). Thanks.
Similar threads
