Napoleon Total War -CiV should take a look at that!

[Osama Bin Davis]

I didn't play N:TW since I was heavily underwhelmed by ETW.

The one thing I think Civ could learn from ETW is some ideas on how to make navies valuable by making naval trade significant, and some ideas on how to make naval trade routes work.

On-screen trade routes between regions that you can harass by placing multiple naval units on the route. Not just port blockade.

To protect your trade routes, you have to have a navy that can chase off anyone trying to raid your trade.

I think that would be a great improvement to civ, I hardly ever use navies in any game just because it isnt my style, but in ETW I loved being the dutch just to use the navy.

I don't see why you wouldn't look at other games to see ideas that could be implemented in civ, civ is far from perfect (Bloody great game tho) so why not see what others have done, use the ideas and better them. You would be stupid to say that civ can't learn from anythin and everythin should learn from it.

 

[501st Legion]

CA is the lowest of the lowest in my book. Horrible people creating horrible games. The battles look cool, but they are not challenging. That is about it. If you care about the way a game looks, then the latest total war series are awesome. If you want solid gameplay you need to look elsewhere.

Ever tried playing mods for RTW such as Europa Barbarorum, Roma Surrectum, and Rome: Total Realism? They really change the vanilla game into something that has solid gameplay.

The one thing I think Civ could learn from ETW is some ideas on how to make navies valuable by making naval trade significant, and some ideas on how to make naval trade routes work.

On-screen trade routes between regions that you can harass by placing multiple naval units on the route. Not just port blockade.

To protect your trade routes, you have to have a navy that can chase off anyone trying to raid your trade.

I agree on this - in Civ IV you can still trade even though there aren't any roads connecting your cities to your neighbor's cities.

Another thing Civ can borrow from Napoleon is attrition - in Civ IV for instance there's no consequence if a warrior unit enters, shall we say, a jungle square.

Civ could also learn from ETW the "sabotage" army option - a spy can prevent an army from moving for a single turn or so.

 

[Shurdus]

I wholeheartedly disagree about the blockading of naval routes like in ETW. That annoyed me to no end in that game, and not only that, it seems a bit too much given the fact that you cannot actually raid land routes.

In BtS you could pillage a road to prevent trading over land, and use the blockade mission for ships to block naval trade. This is a neat and simple system that makes the navy as important as adding actual sea-roads - because that is what the trade routes in ETW were. The major advantage is though that the BtS system is not that annoying.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I have a bunch of Total War games. Seems whenever I'm playing them they make me wish I was playing something else. As in, I'm never in the mood for turn-based AND real-time at the same time. One day I'll be playing it and thinking "ummm I wish I was playing Civ instead" (TBS mood), the week after I'm playing it and I'm like "uuummmm the campaign map is kind of crap" (RTS mood). I don't have an example of a better RTS because I do think the battles in Total War are top notch, but when I'm in the mood for such battles I'm not in the mood for the campaign map stuff. But I'm more of a grand strategy games fan so most of the time I'm tempted to automate battles because they are too long and I'm just not much that into real time strategy games.

The people clamoring for tactical battles in Civilization really puzzle me. Go play Total War, we already have that for your kind.

 

[Shurdus]

Battles in Total war look top notch, in ETW the AI has a bunch of good gunners, they fire once and then the AI engages in melee no matter how weak the AI unit smay be in melee and how much better they are off shooting. Also units in the TW series cannot even hold asimple line.

If you like watching combats you may as well go watch a movie, the AI in the total war series is beyond horrible to the point where you can smack the bejeezus out of the enemy armies, even with a lesser army.

 

[Ahriman]

Ever tried playing mods for RTW such as Europa Barbarorum, Roma Surrectum, and Rome: Total Realism?

Yeah, those were pretty awesome.

That annoyed me to no end in that game,

Yeah, I never really understood why you didn't like this when it came up before, but it really sounded like you felt it unfair that you had to have a naval presence in every theater where you were getting a large trade income.
Which was kindof the point.

and not only that, it seems a bit too much given the fact that you cannot actually raid land routes.

Land trade routes had pitiful yields by comparison, and on land you could do raiding by pillaging all the buildings/improvements (farms, workshops, wineries, etc.) which had a large economic impact. So there was plenty of on-land raiding.

This is a neat and simple system that makes the navy as important as adding actual sea-roads - because that is what the trade routes in ETW were.

Blockades did not make navy important because:
a) Sea trade was of low value, so the economic damage inflicted by raiding was low
b) You had to blockade every single city individually. And even then, that still didn't block it from resource access if it had a land connection to another coastal city.
c) You could only do "close blockade", where you could be counterattacked by units from the city, who could move out, attack, and then move back into the city to heal (and be invulnerable).
So there was not requirement for a blue water navy in order to have major trade; a brownwater navy was all you needed.
d) There was no feeling of "raiding". No hit and run, no advantage for subs.

 

[LegionSteve]

I haven't played N:TW or E:TW because M:TW2 was such a huge disappointment. They promise so much then deliver on so little. The campaign has basically barely changed since rome and the in battle AI has always sucked. I think rome was my favortie in the series but until they stop pumping out new versions every year I am done with that series.

I completely agree, what they did with MTW2 was very sad since MTW is still one of my all time favourite games. RTW was also fun, though it had a few problems. Since MTW2 though I am not interested in anything CA do.

 

[Ischenous]

I'm hoping they don't do so badly with Shogun 2 but I'm not exactly confident. One of the things that really bugged me about Empire was how they manged to make the interface worse while streamlining it. Hopefully Civ 5's will be ok, as I understand they are taking a new design with it completely, right?

 

[bhavv]

I love the strategy layer game of the Total War series, but I absolutely hate the battles, they take far too long.

I just automate every fight.

 

[the343danny]

Eh, Napoleon was far better than Empire, and as for some ********-ness that should have been easily fixable (ie not forming lines and melee cluster) were fixed by a few mods. I actually like the battles, and I think the main part of bad AI in ETW and NTW were the guns. M2TW AI got improved quite a bit with mods so I have nothing to complain about (its still bad but so is Civ AI)

But the point of the OP was what we could take from the TW series, not what Firaxis could take from CA. I would also like to add another line to the purpose of the OP. "what we could take from the TW series and have it still maintain the essence of Civ"

That means no real time battles. Sure, I would love a Civ/TW merge with good AI and little bugs, but in the real world that will not happen. TW battles take long too, and many of us simply do not have the time. Instead, if we want we can play TW and Civ and another game that is essentially Civ and TW, but Civ title itself should definitely not be merged with TW.

Somethings I think we could take is from the diplomacy. In Civ 4 it seems that friends from 4000 years ago are friends for ever, while relations were more unstable in TW. IMO unstable relationship would add spice to the game, and also eliminate how if I dont become a Buddhist, Isabella will still remember that from 3000 years ago. It would take away a lot of the late game boredom as those wars would mean that even if you did eliminate your enemy 1000 years ago and there is only peace, relations could quickly decline with your ally and he will become your new enemy.

Also the importance of the navy in ETW and NTW. In Civ and M2TW and older TW games, having a massive navy as England barely meant a thing until way late in the game, because they can simply load and unload without ever needing to combat your ships. In ETW and NTW units get the option to engage if something gets within the zone of control, so if I have a big navy I am pretty much safe on the island. Also how you can simply raid trade routes, not the port itself. NTW and Civ 4 lets you stop routes by going on top of the road for Civ or holding a choke point the route goes through in NTW, and in Civ 4 it may be near impossible due to road spam but in Civ 5 that wont be a problem. However, unlike in NTW you cant profit off of that, so that should be added

 

[Aeon221]

Great concept, poor execution, stole shamelessly from Europa Universalis series.

If Civ is going to draw inspiration from anywhere, it should be EU3 -- don't get me wrong, the first two were brilliant, but the latest EU3 expansion took the game from pretty good to HOLY GOD BEST THING EVAR.

 

[Ahriman]

don't get me wrong, the first two were brilliant, but the latest EU3 expansion took the game from pretty good to HOLY GOD BEST THING EVAR.

What was added? I played a lot of EU1 and 2 a while ago, and the original board game, but never really tried 3 or expansions.

 

[Grouchey]

Napoleon:TW is overpriced and lacks replayability. I hope CIV stays far away from that formula, but moving to Steam and DLC isn't an encouraging sign.

 

[Ahriman]

but moving to Steam and DLC isn't an encouraging sign.

a) What on earth does Steam have to do with replayability? Replayability in Civ comes from playing random maps, as opposed to a handful of fixed scenario/campaign maps.

b) There has been no statement from Firaxis or 2K that there will be any DLC for Civ5 other than the initial deluxe offerings (some extra maps and Babylon). But even if there had, what on earth would this have to do with replayability?

I swear, people just take everything they're like and conflate them all together, without actually thinking about what they're saying.

 

[seasnake]

EU3 is the best thing that could be incorporated to Civ. It is the one game that feels like you are actually running a country. The latest expansion pack gave it the best feature: Causus Belli. Wars that have a reason have a much different impact than wars that don't, and accomplishing a war goal is important. Plus you can form leagues with other nations, deals can include military access, trade rights, giving away core provinces, etc. It's really in depth and there are lots of decisions to be made.

Civ's diplomacy could really benefit from EU 3.

 

[Ahriman]

The latest expansion pack gave it the best feature: Causus Belli

Uhh... cassus belli has been in EU since the original, no?

Which is fine for a game attempting something closer to a simulation of history; doesn't work so well in a sandbox game like Civ.

Plus you can form leagues with other nations, deals can include military access, trade rights, giving away core provinces, etc

Nothing unusual here, it sounds like most of these will be in Civ5.
Though I think separating open borders into separate trade vs military access probably isn't a good idea, as it tends to lead to not enough military access agreements being formed, and thus players don't face enough military threat from anyone who isn't your neighbor. So, bad for gameplay.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Uhh... cassus belli has been in EU since the original, no?

Which is fine for a game attempting something closer to a simulation of history; doesn't work so well in a sandbox game like Civ.

The casus belli system in the new expansion is a lot more detailed, there are a LOT of different types of wars you can wage, for a multitude of reasons which allow you to take different spoils depending on the reason you went to war. Actually, it's more like, if you go on a certain type of war, you will be less disliked by choosing the appropriate spoils that are attached to that casus belli.

Also, in my mind EU is a lot more sandbox than Civ.

 

[Ahriman]

The casus belli system in the new expansion is a lot more detailed

Ok, sounds cool.

Also, in my mind EU is a lot more sandbox than Civ.

How so? In EU you always play on the same map, with the same countries in the same places, and get the same sets of events. You are strongly encouraged to follow semi-historic expansion patterns because you get casus belli against countries that occupy "your" core historic provinces. AIs are hard-coded to follow semi-historic patterns (eg France colonizing Canada, England colonizing US, Portugal colonizing Brazil, etc).

Civ is way more open in terms of what will happen in one game as compared to another.

 

[Rub'Rum]

How so? In EU you always play on the same map, with the same countries in the same places, and get the same sets of events. You are strongly encouraged to follow semi-historic expansion patterns because you get casus belli against countries that occupy "your" core historic provinces. AIs are hard-coded to follow semi-historic patterns (eg France colonizing Canada, England colonizing US, Portugal colonizing Brazil, etc).

Civ is way more open in terms of what will happen in one game as compared to another.

I agree with you, really. It's just that there isn't really a clear goal in EU3. A lot of the mechanics are very rigid, but there is no victory per say. You just set your own goal which might involve, for instance, just keeping your borders and developing trade a region of the world, or I dunno what. You can play various sized countries and set your own goals. You can do whatever you want in Civ but at the end of the day when you reach the end of the game, most of those different things you can do will lead to "you lose" unless you follow one of several methods that will help you achieve victory. Civ is less sandbox to me because of that thing you're trying to achieve in every game you play. Of course, you're free not to win and do whatever you want, but it's not really the spirit of the game as much as it is for EU3, because in EU3, the game just ends and you're free to decide by yourself if you achieved what you set out to do.

 

[croxis]

I remember Sid responding to a similar question back when Civ4 was approaching release. He said that his design philosophy is to focus energy one making one great game as opposed to two good games in one package (which is what the total War series is, the turn based strategy game and the real time strategy/tactical game).