Civ games with TW style of combat?

[Aegrim]

I used to play Civ3, and i would enjoy spending months on the same campaign even though i was spending a good few hours every night on it. Eventually Civ4 came out and i was disappointed, as it was a lot harder to build armys to invade people as by the time you had enough to invade the units became obsolete.

Then at college a friend of mine introduced me to Rome Total War, I instantly recognised it from that TV show that used it to recreate ancient battles, but by this time Medieval2 was already out to i purchased that and fell in love with the TBS style of the campaign map, and the RTS battles especially how your "units" are groups of men who march in formation, rather than most RTS where your units are just single men and run around in a big rabble (I actually refuse to play anything other than TW now because of this.). I also got RTW later and enjoyed that a lot as well.

Anyway, does anybody else think it would be neat to have Civ4s style of building from ancient times right up to 1800s, with TWs style of combat for when the units get together for a brawl.
I'm guessing 1800s since the style of warfare after that probably isn't very well suited to the way the game works. They could probably introduce things to make ww1 possible, but i have a feeling tanks, and large scale airbattles wouldn't work so well.

[hitokiri2486]

So, kind of like RTW+M2TW+ETW rolled up into one game, plus Stone Age: Total War?

That sounds kind of epic

[Aegrim]

Could put it that way.

But also i guess, the world generation, the round world, placing your own settlements.

[Silencey24]

Problem with those types of games, (CIV's, Empire Earth, exc...) is that you don't really get a chance to explore a specific timeline in depth. Thats one of the things that makes the TW's worth playing besides the battles is actually being immersed in the time period your in. While those games are fun I don't think Total war games would benifit from a expansive timeline, eventually it would end up like those games, which is a race to best tech quickest and passing glasses at truely interesting times

[TroubledViking]

But while they don't go into as much depth as a single TW title, a combination of many games with less depth but more time would appeal to certain people.. I know I get annoyed when it hits 1800 and I really want to keep playing, but it's now in Napoleonic era. It would be an interesting idea. I'd play it.

[Silencey24]

But while they don't go into as much depth as a single TW title, a combination of many games with less depth but more time would appeal to certain people.. I know I get annoyed when it hits 1800 and I really want to keep playing, but it's now in Napoleonic era. It would be an interesting idea. I'd play it.

Hehe, I use to think that was bogus too. But in these games soon as you get to that point, your so unbalanced (winning) That its usually about time to start a new game anyhow. If they could offer a game that challenging past the dates that would be another story.

[Sailor]

@Aegrim

I also found Civ 4 rushed at first too (units becoming obsolete too quickly). There are various speed mods which slow down technology while keeping units, buildings, and other things the same, so you have more time to fight wars and build stuff before technology jumps ahead. However, eventually, after playing Civ 4 for years and years, I went back to vanilla Civ 4 and found it more enjoyable. It really makes you prioritize which buildings to build in which cities. It also makes it harder to just continuously wage all out war, because your economy and technology suffers, and your enemies will start to outpace you in techs more quickly. Anyway, just wanted to mention there are mods which address the issue you have with Civ 4, making it easier to build up larger armies and fight wars. However, the more time you spend with Civ 4, you might eventually decide, as I did, that vanilla Civ 4 speed is balanced very well.

[Humble Warrior]

Anyway, does anybody else think it would be neat to have Civ4s style of building from ancient times right up to 1800s, with TWs style of combat for when the units get together for a brawl.
I'm guessing 1800s since the style of warfare after that probably isn't very well suited to the way the game works. They could probably introduce things to make ww1 possible, but i have a feeling tanks, and large scale airbattles wouldn't work so well.

It`s a nice idea. It would be interesting to play a Campaign battle armed with Elelphants and catapults then find the AI has Line Infantry and artillerry against me. Would be challenging fun. However, it would be a lot of work for CA to do and I don`t think they`re up to it.

What I love about Civ4 is that the game is VERy well fleshed out and made. The Devs did not stop on patching the game after 7 months, but patched and patched and patched for YEARS, in fact they released another patch just this year. that`s the kind of dedication to making a perfect game that makes me stay with CIV4. They also released great expansions that intermixed with the main game. It is also extremely Moddable, keeping the game alive and making it a classic. No Steam too.

The ONLY thing I miss about CIV4 are the 3D battles, but I`d rather lose that and have the quality of diplomacy, open campaigns and options of Civ, especially now that CA have done badly with ETW. Besides, in reality, most leaders wouldn`t be on the battlefield anyway.

[Lazy-Hamish]

TW war should adopt the civ style of diplomacy, allowing you to trade specific items, make defensive pacts, trade embargos. It goes into much more detail than the diplomacy in empire, allowing for greater tactics