Is Total War getting more popular than Civ at the moment?

Yes, it is VERY obvious that Total War is making a new game that a lot of people are looking forward for, and even though this is a CIV forum, I am also pointing out the possibility that Civ may be falling apart?

And I am aware still that the newest game, the Rise and Fall expansion of the Civ VI was released this year. But I feel Total War is a more popular turn based strategy. I make Civ V gameplays, but many people are not appeased of Civ VI, but more leaned to Civ V. but Civ V is an old game. So I believe people are drifting away from this series. Plus, another thread added it was "All quiet on the Civ Front" A person in that thread said they were going to add SOMETHING in the game. But again, all quiet on that front.

Even though Total War has Real Time Battles, another thing I would like to say is that Creative Assembly's art style and animation have leveled up. Firaxis has upgraded their art style too. But Total War Warhammer has almost the same art-style to the upcoming game "Total War: Three Kingdoms". So that means Creative Assembly's Art-style is evolving slowly, but it shows that they have become a company where they value that the most. Firaxis, however, takes a long time to make a new art-style, and maybe some wont like the new type. I am saying is that Creative Assembly is going on that front hard, but not Firaxis. So people who like this Art-style in games will probably leave Civ and go on to Total War. I am not trying to say Firaxis is bad, but all I am saying is that many people want more of these things, or more of that. Simple.



Now if this offended anybody, or if any of my points are stupid/doesnt make sense, then feel free to tell me. Idk, just wondered about this topic between these two turn based strategies. Thanks for listening!

 

I played a lot of the first two Total War games (Shogun and Medieval), disliked Rome and Medieval II very much and in consequence never gave it a chance again (I think I played Rome II for 15 minutes and then returned it).
You could easily check with Steam which games are played the most, and I think civ games tend to do very good, even when they are older. Civ V and VI are both in the top 20 right now (and in the top 5 for strategy games). Total War Warhammer is 10 places behind civ VI and the next Total War game is far away in the list.
I agree, however, that other games are catching up. I wouldn't name the Total War series first though, but rather Age of Wonders (I'm interested how the new SciFi version will do) or Endless Legend/Space - both game series are closer to civ than Total War.
I actually prefer it if games have a long life cycle, which definitely speaks for the civ series. You get the feeling that the game is growing over the years and you enjoy the different stages (the paradox games create a similar feeling in that respect). A new game also means a big step into another direction and not just the same thing again with a different theme and better graphics, something that I vastly prefer. The theming may also be problem for Total War games, as many people might prefer to stay with an older version that is set in a time/place they prefer.

 

Personally I don't care what's more popular. I know what I like, it's Civ for me. Others may think different and that's cool.

 

Are they even direct rivals?
Sure there is crossover between the fanbases just like there is with Europa Universalis but they are all very different games.

 

I used to love the Medieval 2 Total War games especially with the Stainless Steel mod. I definitely prefer Civ 5 and 6 though because Total war was just about building armies and fighting battles whereas with Civ its about a whole lot more than just fighting. The whole real time battle thing is a bit too intense as well whereas in Civ you can take your time.

Also the graphics of the new total war games look amazing but my mac just wouldn't be able to handle it. Civ is so accessible you can play it on your laptop and even on your iPad now.

 

I think it's not only about the art style, it's also about the gameplay. Civ is moving away more and more from being an "immersive game", and instead moving towards being a virtual representation of a board game, both in mechanics as well as the visuals. Obviously that will drive away the people who want to feel like they're leading an "actual empire". And as Civ moves further and further away from that, other games will of course fill that niche, or at least benefit from the fact that there are now players who give up the Civ Series and are now looking for something new. Firaxis probably assumed that this would happen, and accepted that downside, given how consistent that move is represented in all aspects of the game. And why not? The territory they're moving into has no other games that contest it, while the games in the territory that they're "giving up" have been catching up anyway.

 

As Stompr66 noted, Total War series is about building armies and then fighting battles with them. Although there may be elements of strategic planning, it is mostly a tactical game. The Civ series are about empire building and civilization growth. There are armies and battles, but not the same as Total War. Each style has its followers, but there are crossover players. I like Europa Universalis as well as the Civ and Total War series. Each has a different style of play.

 

The various iterations of Total War games all generally have some workable economic, trade, and diplomacy models that can be tightened and adjusted to provide a thoughtful strategy game... tactical combat aside. The truly interesting mods for the series all earn their distinction the same way... by creating scarcity, and therefore making all the little details (ignored by most players) a part of critical decision-making. For whatever reason, CA devs create these seemingly intricate economic models (e.g. Empire through Shogun II's "town wealth" arrangement), but then give economic balance such a light touch that none of it matters once the steamrolling begins.

As for the Civ series, my pipe dream is that some future lead designer decides it would be interesting to decouple combat from the main map, and present smaller, more detailed tactical maps... something a bit different from Endless Legend, but similar in transition. That would do wonders for map legibility, art presentation, and QoL concerning game play. Like TW, armies should march on the main map, but do their business on some other stage.

 

Both are cool. But the fact that total War has more micro activities that affect the nation you are playing etc. It is mind boggling that Firaxis hasn't followed such steps by introducing such gameplay options.

 

Total War isn't a direct competitor to Civ. IMO it's Age of Wonders that's been cutting into Civ's market share.

 

There are more daily players of Civ 3, 4 and BE each than all the AoW games on Steam. Maybe Planetfall becomes popular next year, but Civ has nothing to worry about from AoW as it stands.

Any gains Total War has made on Civ as a series are due to the Warhammer games. The upcoming 3K game could be pretty big as well, but it’s not like Rome 2 and Atilla are challenging either current Civ game for dominance of the Steam charts. Their older games remain pretty popular, though.

Paradox GSGs are really the only strategy games that are going to challenge Civ as a franchise, and I think it’s pretty clear they’ve been making headway in recent years and are no longer considered the niche that they once were. I’m not sure what the takeaway is for Civ from those games, though. I think the business model is the best thing to steal, even with as much hate as it gets.

 

I don't really see how the popularity of one has much of an impact on the longevity of the other. They are very different games. Besides the major distinction of real time vs. turn-based. The Total War series is all over the place in different eras, cultures, and genres. Total War also pumps out a new game every 1-2 years while Civ is closer to 5-6 years.

So while similar, in they are both strategy games, the playerbase is nowhere near 1:1 and with them "scratching a different itch" players that are into both types can (and likely do) own/play both. But day-to-day popularity isn't going to matter much to Civ. They play a long game with their games, and with the fact that so many in the series are still being played it shows. Total War may be more interested in the popularity spikes since they are constantly churning out a new one and so they need those surges to press forward, but Civ is a slow burn. They play off that, Civ doesn't need a lot of players "today" they need them overall, which, I think, they have cultivated.

 

I think Total War missed an opportunity. They had the opportunity to make a game that spanned a greater time period, and covered more time, but they have been mired in the ancient/medievil period for a long lime now, and the next one is in ancient China.

They had such success with Empire and Napoleon, I am surprised that they haven't gone back there again, but they seem to be afraid of either being too modern, or making the games cover too large of a historical period.

Perhaps they are sensible, but I don't see them topping Civ until they get more ambitious.

 

I’ve been playing TW since Rome. But then I got a 2017 iMac. Plenty of RAM and a Radeon GPU...

Now I either can’t get them to run, or when I can, the controls don’t work right for grouping units. Unplayable unless I want to auto-resolve all battles, in which case, why play TW?

So at least for me, Civ is triumphant over TW. Especially as I now know from forums that TW has had this issue for a year at least and has done nothing to address it.

Hooray for the Spring Update yesterday from Aspyr, btw.

 

TW: 3K would also attract fans of Dynasty Warriors as well, given the Romance of the Three Kingdoms setting.

Yes, Rot3K is the most popular of the Four Great Classical Chinese novels (Journey to the West is second).

 

I’m thinking paradox is bigger competition for firaxis. At least for me. Year after year i play more paradox games. Civilization used to be my main gaming series. But that has changed when i lost interest in civ 5. This game never surpassed civ 4 in greatness. Will regain interest in civ 6 after a series of succesfull patches and or expansion. Right now civ 6 does not feel challinging or fun enough to complete more then a game. Just a realisation the latest patch does not feel like its the time to step in and play civ 6 nonstop.

 

The fundamental difference between Civilization and Total War is that the former is a strategy game that utilizes warfare as one of the tools to building an era spanning civilization, while the latter makes use of some logistical tools to optimize the tactical advantage from battle to battle. They are certainly two different approaches. I think the "popularity" comparison then becomes a matter of which approach is gaining more appeal among the gaming community, as well as begging the question, does one really impact the other?

I think there is plenty of room for both and one needs not worry about the other.

 

Main problem for Paradox is that their games share many of the serious issues in Civ games. 1000's of extra inputs across a game in both EU 4 and Civ 6 for example. Hidden rules in both. Wrong UI in both. Consistent alpha strategies in both when everyone is trying, despite alleged multiple ways to play. Well, Civ 6 doesn't have false advertising like EU 4 so there's that, but it's worse in a few other ways (like how it handles DLC for example).

 

I would have said that Endless Space 2 is a better game than Total War. I would also say that Total War appeals to less folk than Civ VI.
The best 2 games in the genre at present (imho) are Civ VI and Endless Space 2. I play both, and enjoy both.

 

Not recalculating critical UI data when making strategic changes is one of the most frustrating aspects of Civ VI. We're going on 2 years of this oversight, having to manually trigger UI updates.

TW campaign play had such problems in the past, but I notice it's been addressed, at least as of the first Warhammer title. In older titles, I recall having to constantly toggle region taxation to get an accurate read of what economic effects certain agents were having after moving them to new locations. No longer the case, and a real breath of fresh air.

The number one priority in any strategy game driven by statistical data should be presenting accurate information to the player (aside from program stability, obviously). If it isn't, something is clearly out of whack from a QA perspective. The amount of time I spend with a game is directly proportional to such things, never mind other preferences.

And if EU IV is guilty of this, after all this time, I'd be aghast... haven't played recently enough to notice.