Civ V vs. Shogun 2-Total War

[Revoran]

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.

I really think it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone on this forum to say that another forum is bad or lacks meaningful discussion. I mean seriously dude just don't even go there.

If anything this forum is over-moderated in all the wrong areas.

I certainly have my opinions on other forums for other topics / games (and many are far worse than CFC) but i'm not gonna go bad mouthing those communities, partly because it's not even relevant to what we're discussing here.

Civ5 is about as replayable in my opinion

I don't know, even if you account for all the things in either game which are basically the same stuff dressed up differently, Civ still has the procedurally generated maps, more diverse faction system, integrated mods / scenarios etc etc. Even the fact that Civ can dress up what is essentially the same campaign/game over and over again with a new map etc really makes a difference.

 

[Mikkow]

The Total War forums I have been on have mostly helpful, knowledgable people, in them. I think most activity is on www.twcenter.net and the community there is great. I post there often. Go there and search the forums for past posts, since there have been many questions answered and advice given over the months. If you cannot find it, make a new topic, accurately describe in the title what it is about, then clearly state what your issue is. I am sure there will be plenty of helpful responses.

I am gratified that some of you thought the write-up comparison was helpful.

 

[Hustapha Thool]

I bought shogun 2 about a month ago, it has not pulled me in yet.

 

[Mikkow]

It helps to have a personal interest in Japan, Japanese culture, the time period (16th century) and warfare of that era. Gunpowder weapons had just been starting to make appearances. Matchlock rifles, a precursor to the musket, can be had through trading with the European powers, or later by learning the art of building your own versions of them.

 

[Fabiano79]

When I bought Shogun 2, I thought that was way better them ciV. Now, 4 months after I still play ciV and forgot about shogun.

I really like japanese culture, but the game is always the same..only changing that my army has more infantry or cavalry..

But, I would like to see ciV with a more complex approach regard the combat. Shogun can create really epic batles, a felling that ciV is not able to give me.

 

[starrywisdom]

I really think it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone on this forum to say that another forum is bad or lacks meaningful discussion. I mean seriously dude just don't even go there.

Considering I've been here more then a year and only have 124 posts; you make it sound like I'm making some biased comment to make this forum seem better. I'm glad you have your own opinion(that apparently this site is badly moderated) and you're welcome to your opinion ; but stating that mine is any less relevant is absolutely hilarious. I visit a great many forums and it's quite easy for me to compare the general nature of the community, the staff, and other aspecs. I can say, without a doubt, that the 2K forums(especially for Civ 5) are exponentially worse then here for Civ 5.

 

[turtlefang]

I've played the Total War games - including the lastest Shogun version - and Civ games since the first ones came out.

Other than being turn based games, the games are very different.

Both share a few things in common. Whether called science, art or technology, you advance through a tech tree to obtain advantages on your path to victory. You also develop cities (or castles) along per determined paths based on the opening up that tree - as you advance further, you can build newer buildings or new type units. You then use these building and unit types to try and expand your empire.

In Civ 5, you usually have the ability to do this in a variety of ways, and have a new map every game. In Shogun, its always the same map - Japan - and cities (castles) are never destroyed completely. The warring factions don't start with the same resources, starting forces or equal strategic positions or advantages. You change factions for a "totally different experience". Which are much different that the different civs in Civ 5 - the differences in Civ 5 are relatively minor compared to these starting differences.

But unlike Civ 5, Shogun centers the game on warfare and you will win or lose depending your skill on the battlefield as well as how you can supply your army.

Shogun has two games. The grand strategy game allows you build up your castles, deploy your armies, and do diplomacy. Its is turn based.

The tactical game literally has you fight each battle on a tactical battlefield with what every troops you have at that battle. Archers, melee units and cavalry all have very different roles - and the battle done in real time, not turn based. The results of this battle are then translated to the grand strategy map, and you live with the results.


Civ 5 takes on a more grand strategy let's look at history from dawn to the end of the space race approach. Its a race game - either to science, culture, domination, etc.. - centered on getting to the victory conditions first. And you have multiple paths to victory centered around building an civilization that will include war but is not, necessary, centered on war. You can win in a lot of different ways.

Shogun's highly focused on Japan. You see a historical period in great detail and are immersed in that historical period. Time, unlike Civ 5, stands still. Its Medieval Japan. The additional technologies, units and positions make it more Japanese and you don't see new historical era's come into existence.

I find that Shogun gives you a totally different experience than Civ 5. And I don't mean better - as I enjoy both games, and both games have bugs. And we can sit here and discuss shortcoming for hours.

But the experience is different. And I haven't had any replay problems with Shogun since its come out.

But if your new to the Total War Series, you have to give it some time to get used to it. The game - like Civ 5 - not very well documented AND you have two games to learn - the strategy game and the tactical game.

As far as forums go, both Civ and the Total War series have good and bad forums. You will have to find ones that fit your particular taste. I like the

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php.

The people are usually polite and helpful, its realtively well moderated, and has some good advice on the game.

These two series are the only ones I've "followed" this long. Both offer, in my opinion, a good game and a lot of enjoyment.

 

[Babri]

I don't know, even if you account for all the things in either game which are basically the same stuff dressed up differently, Civ still has the procedurally generated maps, more diverse faction system, integrated mods / scenarios etc etc. Even the fact that Civ can dress up what is essentially the same campaign/game over and over again with a new map etc really makes a difference.

. Replaybilitiy wise ciV > Shogun II. Medieval II or Empire Total War can be comparable due to much larger area they cover. ciV has higher random factor which means it has more replayability. However in Total War you have a fixed position for a certain faction, same map etc.

 

[mattavich]

Civ V or Shogun 2? But which one is better? There's only one way to find out! FIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!

 

[Drawmeus]

. Replaybilitiy wise ciV > Shogun II. Medieval II or Empire Total War can be comparable due to much larger area they cover. ciV has higher random factor which means it has more replayability. However in Total War you have a fixed position for a certain faction, same map etc.

I agree. I like both games for what they are but I don't think they're even comparable for replay. Civ wins hands down. Medieval 2 was the most replayable of the Total War series; the last few really haven't even gotten close to that.

Of course, replay isn't everything and the series is very good overall. It's just in a totally different way.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I have to say that I've just bought Shogun 2 after short time playing the demo and so far I'm loving it.

It reminds me a lot about an oldie called Lords of Realm 2, but set in Japan. I could never get into Total War series, but after brainless fun for children that Civ5 is oozing I got a craving for something to bite my mind's teeth into - it's been a while since the last time I had to go through the tutorials to be more-or-less aware of what's going on in the game

I've played in Medieval Total War and couldn't really get into it. Shogun 2 seems to do it for me - I'm actually a big manga geek, and all those shouts in japanese, along with layout of the provinces, names and clans are drawing me in to no end.

Last night finally I was able to sort of command my units (thank goodnes for the hotkeys) and after I've started campaign (Normal) with Shimazu I couldn't stop playing until well into the night, in the end having only 4 hours of sleep.

Now I'm lulling my son to sleep and simply can't wait to get back into the game. Who knows, maybe in time I'll get back to Medieval:Total War but for now Shogun 2 seems to work for me

 

[blasto]

I bought and played CiV first and loved it. When I got Shogun 2 I played it exclusively, but burned myself out after a couple days and went back to CiV... CiV just never seems to get old.

 

[Homusubi]

It helps to have a personal interest in Japan, Japanese culture, the time period (16th century) and warfare of that era. Gunpowder weapons had just been starting to make appearances. Matchlock rifles, a precursor to the musket, can be had through trading with the European powers, or later by learning the art of building your own versions of them.

OK, so I'm a self-confessed Japanophile (that includes an interest in the Sengoku Jidai) with a love of the territorial politics from Civ5... does that mean I should get Shogun 2? I'm not a big RTS fan (does Monster Hunter count? I doubt it) but the campaign part sounds fun... should I get the thing or not?

 

[PhilBowles]

OK, so I'm a self-confessed Japanophile (that includes an interest in the Sengoku Jidai) with a love of the territorial politics from Civ5... does that mean I should get Shogun 2? I'm not a big RTS fan (does Monster Hunter count? I doubt it) but the campaign part sounds fun... should I get the thing or not?

Real time does not equal RTS. Although even Creative Assembly has taken to referring to Total War as an RTS (in Rome 2 previews), it isn't one.

The campaign is well-structured and, indeed, territorial politics are at the core of it - but as others have noted it plays very similarly every time. The AIs will always act in the same way and usually the same conflicts arise with the same victors (and historically accurate outcomes are all but impossible). Diplomacy is heavily-simplified and its only real purpose is to keep your enemies divided, or at least not fighting you, while you conquer them one by one.

If your interest in the period is more than casual, you will probably find yourself annoyed with the numerous historical anachronisms, made-up units (mostly as DLCs, but there are such things as matchlock warrior monks in the main game - less of an offense than bulletproof monks or warrior nuns to be sure, but still wrong), and some odd choices and omissions for playable clans, and probably also the 'realm divide' mechanic (however hard you try, you are not going to be able to form a stable Tokugawa-Oda alliance, or unify Japan any way other than physically conquering every province). And be warned: Since Medieval II Total War games have developed something of a tradition for comic accents (presumably intentionally since they're infamously bad and Creative Assembly hasn't improved them. Plus the English accent is as badly stereotyped as any, and it's an English studio). While I at least imagine these as a joke, one of my friends (another "Japanophile") considers them actively offensive in Shogun 2 (there are two voiceover actors - the girl sounds fairly good to my untrained ear, but the guy really is terrible).

Total War games are very much aimed at gamers rather than historians (though they've got better in that regard since they received a lot of flak over a much-derided element of the original Rome). If you want a game with the atmosphere of Sengoku-era Japan, it's ideal, but if you want a historical simulation it's no better than Civ.

A shout out should be given to Fall of the Samurai, which among other things has a much better realm divide mechanic which does allow permanent alliances and really gives the feel of a two-sided civil war rather than a patchwork of feudal conflicts - quite an achievement considering that the TW game engine is fundamentally geared towards the latter.

If you want something closer to the campaign game without the battles (you can play TW without the battles, by letting the AI fight them, but that consistently gives broken results), there's a game called Sengoku which has been compared with Crusader Kings in Japan, and by the same developer (Paradox Interactive). I haven't played Sengoku, but Crusader Kings is all about the politics of territory control (although judging by CK2, it will probably also play fast and loose with historical accuracy).

 

[Socratatus]

I play Civilization when I want to deal mostly with governing through the Ages and less worrying about how the battles themselves go, so more strategy, less tactics.

I play Shogun when I want to use tactics on the field of battle and see my troops and the enemy close - as well as the strategy.

To be honest, Shogun is my favourite of the two since it`s actually a bit more realistic than Civ5 and doesn`t feel like it`s been made by a kid.

 

[Homusubi]

@Phil Bowles: I'm not looking for an actual simulation of the Sengoku period, because that would mean that the Toks always win it. I'm a Takeda man myself, and I do NOT want the Battle of Nagashino to go the same way when I'm gaming than it did in history. Think about it this way: I didn't shout at the inaccuracy when playing Pokemon Conquest.

I've looked at the playable clan list and it seems OK to me, with the possible exception of the omission of the Kato and the rather strange addition of the Hattori, which is obviously there as a crowd pleaser. Don't get me wrong, I like ninjas as much as the next gamer, but I'd rather have Kato. And no, I don't mean Kato Fong either.

The two big holes on the map (north Kyushu and southern Hokuriku) are sorted by the Otomo and Ikko-ikki expansion packs respectively, and as for Tohoku... well, that was a bit of a gap historically as well. No offence intended to Tohoku residents, of course.

The idea of a civil war going more than two ways does not give me any barriers. There are enough 'remove Realm Divide' mods out there for Shogun 2, or at least there seem to be after one minute of googling. The shogun, in actual fact, didn't order realm divides, he shuffled the provincial cards... but that was in the Edo era, and I'm not going to complain about Shogun 2.

As for musket-wielding warrior monks, this was the Sengoku Jidai. Anything goes.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

I really think it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone on this forum to say that another forum is bad or lacks meaningful discussion. I mean seriously dude just don't even go there.

If anything this forum is over-moderated in all the wrong areas.

I certainly have my opinions on other forums for other topics / games (and many are far worse than CFC) but i'm not gonna go bad mouthing those communities, partly because it's not even relevant to what we're discussing here.

This forum is actually quite good compared to most but I'll agree that TWC is probably the best forum site I've ever come across.

As to the actual topic, I prefer Civ 5. It has a wider scope, more diversity and is a lot more straitforward as in you get faith, you get a religion. You build units, you have an army. S2TW is much more vague and therefore needs more thought which I'd be happy to give if it interested me more. I do generally prefer total war to civ, just civ 5 over most things.

 

[PhilBowles]

@Phil Bowles: I'm not looking for an actual simulation of the Sengoku period, because that would mean that the Toks always win it. I'm a Takeda man myself, and I do NOT want the Battle of Nagashino to go the same way when I'm gaming than it did in history. Think about it this way: I didn't shout at the inaccuracy when playing Pokemon Conquest.

An issue I have is that the way the setup works, the Tokugawa are always the first clan to be destroyed (with the occasional exception of the Otomo, since the AI struggles to deal with the religion diplomatic penalty) - so it's not just that historical outcomes don't always happen, the game is actively set up to prevent them happening. Realm divide is a similar case.

This is a common issue in TW games - in Empire it's not possible for the Persians to halt Maratha expansion, for example, meaning that there will always be a unified Maratha India, which never happened in reality. Because the games always play the same way AI-wise, consistent patterns should I feel approximate what actually happened more often than not, without direct input from the player to change the outcome. Or at the very least the historical outcome should be realistically achievable.

Contrast with Crusader Kings - it's not actually a common result with the 1066 start for Harold to win the Battle of Stamford Bridge (although I've seen it happen once). But most of the time the Normans, rather than the Saxons or Norwegians, do take England - in fact my current game is quite a remarkable exception in that the Norman Conquest was beaten by England under the House of Wessex (which had defeated the usurper Harald Hardrada). But there is an awful lot of variety in possible outcomes, much more than in Total War.

On the subject of Takeda, at least the way the AI plays there's little need for pitched battles, and cavalry is not particularly useful in siege warfare. Total War campaigns tend to be very much about sieges and sometimes small army engagements (the latter mainly earlier in the game).

Personally, I favour the Otomo, and the game does feel more complete being able to play from the start as any of the three religions in the game, although all clans ultimately play in a fairly similar way.

I've looked at the playable clan list and it seems OK to me, with the possible exception of the omission of the Kato and the rather strange addition of the Hattori, which is obviously there as a crowd pleaser. Don't get me wrong, I like ninjas as much as the next gamer, but I'd rather have Kato. And no, I don't mean Kato Fong either.

I had a recollection that there was a significant clan omitted from Shikoku, but I can't find it in a quick google search. There's also the Imagawa. The way the Ikko-Ikki work (as a clan) is thoroughly anti-historical as well. The Mori are also somewhat odd to consider a major clan, but I suspect were needed because they needed a clan with a naval focus.

The idea of a civil war going more than two ways does not give me any barriers.

The issue is more the impossibility of stable long-term alliances of the sort that in reality characterised the period. Certainly backstabbing and shifting alliances are equally characteristic, but the Sengoku Jidai was won by a major alliance, not by one clan subsuming all others.

Thematically realm divide is also extremely awkward - it's justified in-game as the shogun declaring war on you, but occurs even if (as is commonly the case) you're Shogun when the territory threshold is met. If you are Shogun, it's also thoroughly anti-historical to have the whole of Japan rising up against the military leader appointed by the Emperor - taking the Shogunate ended the Sengoku Jidai, it didn't cause it to escalate.

On the other hand you can technically win the game without ever becoming Shogun at all, since the game is won when you meet a set territory threshold. Kyoto is a required victory territory for all clans, but if it's among the last territories you take you can quite easily win the game without having occupied Kyoto for long enough (4 turns) to be declared Shogun.

There are enough 'remove Realm Divide' mods out there for Shogun 2, or at least there seem to be after one minute of googling.

This has problems of its own - realm divide is an extremely "gamey" mechanic that makes no sense, but it was added for a reason: the AI can't compete without it. Older TW games have nothing equivalent, and have long been criticised for being too easy.

As for musket-wielding warrior monks, this was the Sengoku Jidai. Anything goes.

Actually, the sohei were apparently fairly rigidly formalised during the Sengoku Jidai, and only the Ikko-Ikki were notable for their use of gunpowder weapons if Wikipedia is to be believed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sōhei

 

[Socratatus]

I really think it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone on this forum to say that another forum is bad or lacks meaningful discussion. I mean seriously dude just don't even go there.

If anything this forum is over-moderated in all the wrong areas.

I certainly have my opinions on other forums for other topics / games (and many are far worse than CFC) but i'm not gonna go bad mouthing those communities, partly because it's not even relevant to what we're discussing here.

.

Pretty much have to agree. TWC is rare . They`re great at discernment.