Making Total War less war and more civ

[thomonkey]

i was just wondering what you guys think of my idea after enjoying a game of civ 4 much more than the annoying games of rome total war i played.

i would love it if they changed it so that it was more like civ, where you are building your empire, founding your ownn cities, researchign and what not, and then having those rare wars. basically, having a civilization copy for the campaign map, and then when you do go to battle use the total war engine. This would also give more options for diplomacy because in total war you know that everyone is going to war with eachother. thers no room for alliances, and no room for any peace. nonstop war makes the wars loose their value. for example, in Civ 4 when you go to war with an enemy its pretty rare, and you can have a peace with an ally for 100s of years. with total war, of course the diplomacy sucks, but i think that with an improved diplomacy along with a civ 4 copy campaign map, there will be the greatest game ever

[Frost, colonel]

I think people want fewer meaning less wars, started by a some what inept AI, but at the same time the game is called 'Total war'.

[Honeohvovohaestse]

Yes, wars shouild be a more seemless and absorbing thing. However you do not need to subtract for the war factor to add more to the civilization factor. I feel that the factions could be more unique in non-combat (unit) areas as well, however little attention seems to be given here by the developers and the gamers alike.

[Valerius Maximus]

total war is about war and fighting battles, and i like it this way,
guess it's just a matter of personal taste

[Legione]

i was just wondering what you guys think of my idea after enjoying a game of civ 4 much more than the annoying games of rome total war i played.

i would love it if they changed it so that it was more like civ, where you are building your empire, founding your ownn cities, researchign and what not, and then having those rare wars. basically, having a civilization copy for the campaign map, and then when you do go to battle use the total war engine. This would also give more options for diplomacy because in total war you know that everyone is going to war with eachother. thers no room for alliances, and no room for any peace. nonstop war makes the wars loose their value. for example, in Civ 4 when you go to war with an enemy its pretty rare, and you can have a peace with an ally for 100s of years. with total war, of course the diplomacy sucks, but i think that with an improved diplomacy along with a civ 4 copy campaign map, there will be the greatest game ever

Lol you know that is so funny you should mention that because I used to think the same exact thing, that it would be the ultimate gaming experience. Wars would be more scarce but more epic and more DECISIVE at the same time. Then I played CivIV for the first time and hated it. Lol, honestly, the game sucks up like 40 years per turn, so before you know it a century has gone by, and it just takes toooo looong for you to research techs and produce units. But nevertheless I still agree. A worldmap more focused on building, tech upgrading and civilization as well as economy and many diplomacy options like in CivIV would make total war just the more epich. And maybe it should be a seperate option like Arcade mode was. So you would have Arcade mode<Normal mode<Advanced mode lol.

Also your army would reflect your nation's several advancements. That would be a must. I hate it when they have like 20 factions who essentially have the same exact units in stats and appearance with the exception of 1 or 2 "unique" units per nation which wear out once you advance to the next age anyway

[TuuSaR]

When conquering whole map there is simply too much individual battles per turn.(usually over 5)
But then again these TW games are made for casual players who do not worry such micro gaming problems(two hours per turn) as they dont expand or dont care for absolute perfection and use quick button for battles.

Other empires should also surrender just like in real life when power balance is very clear, there is no point for having a fight.

[Lord Tomyris]

Then I played CivIV for the first time and hated it. Lol, honestly, the game sucks up like 40 years per turn, so before you know it a century has gone by, and it just takes toooo looong for you to research techs and produce units.

On the contrary, I thought techs were researched too fast! I prefer Civ III's pacing.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

The concept of Total War is total war. All TW games are set in times when and places where there was total war. The "civilization" aspect IS there, to an extent, with the building upgrades, culture, religion, etc. I do like your idea thought and I'm sure MTW2 will include more aspect of "civilization" without compromising the military bit.

[Mathias]

Ive never played civ so I dont know if makin TW more like civ will be better

[LegionnaireX]

Total war is about military strategy and war. If you enjoy the Civilization style of gameplay why not just go and play Civilization?

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

I like TW that way it is now.
If we could build cities like in Civ then we would just have endless seiges and that would be boring as hell.
And the research I don't know about that.
In Civ you take a faction and advance through the ages. In TW you only have one age and any important discovery during this era is done by a pop-up message. And better units and equipment is made by building the right buildings which is a form of research.

[Owain_Glyndwr]

Heh, the thread title amused me. Why make Total War "less war"? That is the point of the game, war, hence the name. This is also why there is no detailed diplomatic, economic, social, legislative or whatever system people keep complaining about because it "isn't in the game". The game is for fighting battles and conquering far and wide, not technological researches and political squabbles.

[The True Roman]

Ya I dont get it if you like civ just play that rather then TW. There not going to take away from the war on the count of the name and thats the best part of the game. If it wasn't for the realtime combat I wouldn't like Rome as much as i do. The war part of the game is what makes the game so great.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, it is the war part makes Total War series great. If there is more management in Total War series, may be it can change name to "Total Management" . (I feel a bit cold for my joke... but personally I like Total War series because the battle part, not the management part. I am poor manager.)

[thomonkey]

i just think that the total war loses replay value because its the same thing over and over again. just non stop battles. and the reason i dont wanna just go and play civ 4 is cuz the battles suck. basically, i think if civ 4 ripped total wars real time battle engine, then i would stick to civ.

[Sétanta]

If it is more like Civ then they might as well call it

Medieval: Total Civilization

besides there wasn't a lot of civilized people back in the day that MTWII takes place in

[Slaxx Hatmen]

I like TW the way it is, however i woudint say no to a new game that combines the best of both worlds.

[Arcarius]

coll thing could be, a civ game, with battles like total war, id rather control my troops, then trust the combat odds, of winning

[Kscott]

yes TW could fall do a game genre that is done multiple times, or they can be unique, I cant imagine TW any other way(Other than with better AI )

[Shazbot]

Total War games are total war games. I played Civ 3 and a demo of Civ 4 and didn't like them at all. But even If I did, I would not try to change any core aspect of a TW game. They are unique. Any game that trys to copy TW had failed. (Alexander and Imperial Glory come to mind) My 2 cents