Hello, I'm a N00b! I'm currently a Total War series player!

[Dahir]

And I was wondering if any of you "Vets" could teach a Civ rookie a few lessons.

Firstly, I've been playing Total War games since I was ten years of age, I'm not very old if you can't tell...

But, um, Total War games are known for EXTREMELY robust battles, spectacular, quite possibly the best for any known turn-based strategy game. And the graphics in the latest installment are so good they hurt my system -- to the point that it bugs up a lot, so I've put it down for the moment.

I'm currently thinking about buying Civilization IV, but the grahpics look like total crap compared to good ol' Total War, especially Medieval 2. Here's the thing:

-Are there any live player battles in the game, like in Total War, unit vs. unit, just battlefield battles or seiges? And if so, can you post any pictures, that would be appreciated.

-Since this game has gotten better overall reviews than Total War series games, what aspects of this game are better than Total War games?


Since I'm making the purchase online this week, that's it I guess. Any imputs would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Thrallia]

First, Welcome!

Second, no, there are no live battles...basically, you tell a unit to attack an enemy, and they shoot/slice each other a bit then one of them dies.

Third, yes, the graphics are bad compared to Medieval 2 or to Rome, but as this is the first 3-D Civ game, and as the graphics in this type of game are not really the focal point, they are good enough for their purpose(and extremely good compared to the previous Civilization game)

Finally, pretty much every aspect of Civilization 4 beats out its counterpart in a Total War game except for the Actual combat. I play both series' and have to say I've found Civ4 to be the most addictive game I've ever played, along with the most enjoyable(although I dearly wish for Total War style battles-that would make it the perfect game)

Basically it is a much more epic game than any Total War game, and it has much more replay value since no game will ever play out the same way, even if you played the exact same original game repeatedly, it could turn out differently each time.

Finally, an expansion pack is coming out in June that should greatly improve every aspect of the game, including the AI, which is one area that Total War has a distinct advantage in.

 

[Dahir]

Alright, thanks. Its just that earlier, I saw some naval battles, at least ships near each other and blowing up, but it sounds good enough for me.

I'll buy it, thanks for the helping heap of words though.

 

[Thrallia]

that was probably footage from the opening movie...it shows a bunch of live battles as it zooms in from an orbital view...a pretty nice video, too bad the battles don't actually play out that way though

 

[bardolph]

And I was wondering if any of you "Vets" could teach a Civ rookie a few lessons.

Civilization is a TURN-BASED game, like chess. There is no real-time element at all. You can make a move, leave your computer on and go out to see a movie, then come back, and your game will be exactly as you left it.

The graphics are mediocre, but it doesn't matter. Civilization is a GREAT game. Where else can you build an empire starting in the stone age, and take it all the way through history to modern times? You won't get a more epic story anywhere else.

 

[Quintillus]

As for the graphics - they aren't the best of any game, but if they were significantly better, the game couldn't run on many computers at all. Especially on larger maps, there are so many variables that have to be stored in memory that exceptional graphics would, well, hurt the system. When you are playing the game, though, the graphics aren't going to be the main concern. Much more important will be, "How am I going to take away that iron from Rome before they have too many Praetorians?"

One of the great things about Civilization games is that you have to balance everything. You can be a military superpower, but if you are technologically backwards you may eventually find yourself facing tanks while you have just riflemen. Similarly, you may have an excellent economy, but if you aren't producing a lot of manufactured goods it may be very difficult to defend your economy. Diplomacy also is a major factor, both in terms of war allies, and just as importantly with peacetime trading.

The turn-based factor also is great. You'll soon find yourself playing just two more turns to finish Gunpowder, then another to defeat those invading Macemen, and after that another two turns to attack St. Petersburg. Once you finally do hit Save and Quit, it will be much later than you intended to stay up.

 

[kristopherb]

And even better if you don't like one or two things you mod them out

 

[Sisiutil]

Just to give you an idea how little the graphics matter to Civ veterans, there is a large contingent of players who want to see the game go back to 2D graphics!

I'm not familiar with Total War, but a buddy of mine who plays Age of Empires was impressed by the depth and breadth of Civilization. AoE, he said, is pretty much just a war game, whereas Civ can be a war game, but you also can (and need to) focus on other elements like your economy, research, diplomatic relations, culture, and so on. It's possible to go through an entire game without fighting a single war.

 

[Bushface]

I was deeply addicted to MTW, but wasn't much good at controlling my forces on the battlefield (found it difficult to judge distances, so often sent my men to where they couldn't take part in the battle). Fortunately, there was the auto-resolve option ! And on the campaign map you could shuffle men and armies about as you wished until hitting the "end year" button, whereas in Civ4 once you've moved something that's it. True, on the campaign map your armies were like cardboard cutouts, but this had an advantage over the stacks in Civ4: there was indication of how many men the army contained, whereas in Civ 4 the campaign screen shows only the top man in a stack; to see what's in the stack in Civ4 you have to mouse over it.
So I prefer Civ4. There is far more variation from game to game, since each one uses a different map (unless you choose the "real" world) and many more buildings to choose from according to your wishes of the moment and your long-term strategy. Combat is simple; one of your units fights one of the enemy's. There is, in my opinion, more than enough "eye candy" ; workers swing hammers, mines puff smoke, and so on. And the game covers more than 6000 years, not just a few hundred.

 

[Chose]

I was deeply addicted to MTW, but wasn't much good at controlling my forces on the battlefield (found it difficult to judge distances, so often sent my men to where they couldn't take part in the battle). Fortunately, there was the auto-resolve option ! And on the campaign map you could shuffle men and armies about as you wished until hitting the "end year" button, whereas in Civ4 once you've moved something that's it. True, on the campaign map your armies were like cardboard cutouts, but this had an advantage over the stacks in Civ4: there was indication of how many men the army contained, whereas in Civ 4 the campaign screen shows only the top man in a stack; to see what's in the stack in Civ4 you have to mouse over it.
So I prefer Civ4. There is far more variation from game to game, since each one uses a different map (unless you choose the "real" world) and many more buildings to choose from according to your wishes of the moment and your long-term strategy. Combat is simple; one of your units fights one of the enemy's. There is, in my opinion, more than enough "eye candy" ; workers swing hammers, mines puff smoke, and so on. And the game covers more than 6000 years, not just a few hundred.

i think that what you said is mostly a big fat lie

 

[Chose]

Alright, thanks. Its just that earlier, I saw some naval battles, at least ships near each other and blowing up, but it sounds good enough for me.

I'll buy it, thanks for the helping heap of words though.

what ever!

 

[datachasm]

i have M2TW, and i have to say, Civ4 looks a ton better than M2TW on the Campaign map imo. the Total War skirmishes are completely different and the games really do not compare.

Civ4 is more of a boardgame feel... like in Risk, roll a d6 and add any bonuses or penalties and thats it for combat.

where M2TW totally suffers... is that after they have made Shogun, Medieval 1 + expansion, Rome + 2 expansions, and now M2TW with a expansion looming, the Campaign mode is still single player only. when i bought the game i was kinda stunned and extremely disappointed.

the skirmishes are really fun multiplayer in M2TW, but i find Civ4 superior if you want a good multiplayer game.

 

[Dahir]

Man, its really bumming be out that there are no live battles. That was THE point of Total War games. I especially thought that tanks and modern warfare on a turn-based strategy game would be uber cool.

But, the depth, or lack-thereof, in Total War games, was the real hit. Diplomacy was awful. Hopefully this game will be better.

 

[Duraska]

And I was wondering if any of you "Vets" could teach a Civ rookie a few lessons.

Firstly, I've been playing Total War games since I was ten years of age, I'm not very old if you can't tell...

But, um, Total War games are known for EXTREMELY robust battles, spectacular, quite possibly the best for any known turn-based strategy game. And the graphics in the latest installment are so good they hurt my system -- to the point that it bugs up a lot, so I've put it down for the moment.

I'm currently thinking about buying Civilization IV, but the grahpics look like total crap compared to good ol' Total War, especially Medieval 2. Here's the thing:

-Are there any live player battles in the game, like in Total War, unit vs. unit, just battlefield battles or seiges? And if so, can you post any pictures, that would be appreciated.

-Since this game has gotten better overall reviews than Total War series games, what aspects of this game are better than Total War games?


Since I'm making the purchase online this week, that's it I guess. Any imputs would be greatly appreciated.

Be honest with yourself. The two main "points" that you seem to value is the graphics and real-time battles. The Civ 4 graphics are fine (in my opinion), but not "cutting edge" at all. There are NO real-time battles in Civ 4.

Ask yourself, will you really enjoy this game? Do you ever play Total War where you focus on the campaign map and auto-resolve EVERY battle? If you do, you will probably get some enjoyment out of Civ 4. If your love of Total War stems from the real-time army vs army battles, then you'll probably be massively dissappointed in Civ.

I'm not trying to disuade you, but I just don't want to see you post again in a week saying "Civ 4 totally sux!"

 

[rabidveggie]

I have both games and I've enjoyed Civ IV immensly over MTW2. Civ IV is more in depth compared to MTW2. Diplomacy is waaaayyyy better then the Total War series as your ally usually won't stab you in the back three turns later. Their is an actual diferential in the troops you create so that you don't spend 16000 dollars on a building capable of creating a unit with plus one attack. Finally the major selling point is the online which is more then just a battle. A lot of the time I start up a game I intend to play for an hour and before I know it half the world is in my fist and three hours have gone by.

 

[TeraHammer]

Civilization is a TURN-BASED game, like chess. There is no real-time element at all. You can make a move, leave your computer on and go out to see a movie, then come back, and your game will be exactly as you left it..

In multiplayer, however, there is a real time element, because players can move their units simultanously. If you are fast with your units to attack a city before your opponent can reinforce it you are victorious, for example.

 

[Arnesson]

My three favourites are Rome Total Realism, Medieval II Total War and Civ (currently IV, but III and II previously). Each has its own special appeal, but no matter how often I play the Total War games, I inevitably return to Civ. The major reason for this is that there is a definite similarity to the outcome in TW games (which is a function of which faction you elect to play) whereas the CIV games are always different, no matter which CIV you select.

The point about multi-player options is also a major consideration. A real-time Internet game, with the ability to pit yourself against other human players, is definitely preferable to the capabilities provided in the TW series.