This or Civ5

people are telling me Civ5

Both. :p

I can't afford both

Originally Posted by Robertclive

I can't afford both

nice to see people who actually buy the games
i would recommend this game over civ 5
eventhough i played civ for years, that was earlier versions
civ 5 was kind of dissapointing
also check out paradox studios
they sell games at 10 dollars (strategy games)

Depends what you want from a game Civ5 has that oh so splendid mod factor to keep interest going.

Napoleon has plenty of mods too

It really depends on your interests.If you want a slower,more carefully planned game,or you prefer diplomacy,get Civ;on the other hand,you can't beat Napoleon when you wanna watch 300 men on horseback crash into each other with glinting steel

I played CiV 4 and was bored after 3 days.
Never back again, i need some action to keep playing.

Originally Posted by Atlaas

I played CiV 4 and was bored after 3 days.
Never back again, i need some action to keep playing.

Agreed - Civ games are unbelievably tedious - the thing is, the game doesn't even seem to work as well as the map section of TW games, because I can spend hours on the map in TW without getting bored. You just cannot compare Civ to TW.

Originally Posted by SonOfCrusader76

Agreed - Civ games are unbelievably tedious - the thing is, the game doesn't even seem to work as well as the map section of TW games, because I can spend hours on the map in TW without getting bored. You just cannot compare Civ to TW.

This shows just how subjective gaming opinions are. I enjoy both games, and some people like Civ and dislike TW. Both games have a lot of sales, so there must be a lot of people happy with both games.

Well do you prefer large battles on battlefields or city building?

Originally Posted by Alexander of Jordan

people are telling me Civ5

There's a lot of misinformation about both these games, but as others have said, it all depends on what you enjoy. I am in the camp of people who thinks the civilization games are boring. I have both Napoleon Total War and Civilization 5. I've played NTW for 200 hours and Civ 5 for 37. I am already bored with the gameplay of Civ 5, as my current playthrough will be my last.

If you've played Civilization before and absolutely love it, then you will like Civ 5. Keep in mind the gameplay is VERY similar to all the other games, despite the changes they've made. Same technologies, pretty much the same civilizations, similar mechanics, but with slightly different combat. The graphics look gorgeous on my new 27" monitor, but looked kind of bland on my old 19" monitor.

And for the people singing the praises of the diplomacy in Civ 5, are we playing the same game? Diplomatic options amount to "trade X luxury resource for 5 gold/turn" Other leader says "no." So I click "what will make this deal work?" And the other leader selects EVERY single resource I have available, as well as all my gold, and all my gold per turn for his ONE luxory item. Um, yeah whatever. "Would you like to form a pact of cooperation?" Sure! What does this mean? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else playing the game. All we know is in 30 turns it will expire, and absolutely nothing happens. Lol, I eventually just started ignoring diplomacy altogether in my current game in Civ 5.

So I guess it boils down to whether you want to fight epic, large scale, realistic looking battles in real time, or do you prefer turn-based, still relatively bland looking combat with colorful, cartoonish looking units on a top down interface? I didn't find Civ 5 to be any more difficult than NTW.

Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by M2TWRocks

If you've played Civilization before and absolutely love it, then you will like Civ 5

Not really. Civ 4 (especially with mods) is a bloody gorgeous game. Civ 5 is a damned insult to the Civ series.


P.S. Yes, I realize that I've just replied to an ancient thread.

Theres no replayability with Civ 5, even though its a better game. (After you go through the tech tree once, it just seems pointless to press all those end turns just to do it again.)

If you want the better game out of the 2, get Civ.

If you want an arguably as good game, and much more replayability for your money, NTW is the way to go.

Originally Posted by .Mitch.

Theres no replayability with Civ 5, even though its a better game. (After you go through the tech tree once, it just seems pointless to press all those end turns just to do it again.

That's just silly. I don't have Civ 5 yet, but I still play Civ 4 with the "Beyond the Sword" extension, and there are few games out there with such immense replay value. So many different civilizations to choose from, so many different configurations ... and that's not even dipping into the excellent community-supplied mods. I'd say Civ probably just wasn't your cup of tea to start with.

Civ 5 and NTW are completely different games.
NTW is based on realistic tactical combat (I don't mean the unit sizes-though much more realistic than Civ) and massive, bloody battles tha relies on extreme micromanagement and skill. On the campaign perspective NTW is more historical but based on an extremely limited timeframe with less realistic diplomacy and gameplay features.
Civ, on the other hand, is completely unhistorical but have a more detailed diplomacy, technology, and trade system. But it lacks in the combat department and have few units and little distinction between nations.

From reading the Civ 5 Forums on release and for a few days after it was a little like Deja-Vue from Empire: TW here and elsewhere prior to patch 1.6.
Many many complaints, especially about the 'slimming' (dumbing) down of much of the game mechanics like diplomacy, dumb & illogical tech-tree etc. The mod tools were also 'on promise' as well.

I played the demo and then Civ IV again and IV was definitely better (though when/if Firaxis do release mod tools I am sure it will become a much better game once a few mods have been made for it.

By which time the price (a ridiculous AU$100 here) should have come down too

Originally Posted by Lucius Verenus

From reading the Civ 5 Forums on release and for a few days after it was a little like Deja-Vue from Empire: TW here and elsewhere prior to patch 1.6.
Many many complaints, especially about the 'slimming' (dumbing) down of much of the game mechanics like diplomacy, dumb & illogical tech-tree etc. The mod tools were also 'on promise' as well.

I played the demo and then Civ IV again and IV was definitely better (though when/if Firaxis do release mod tools I am sure it will become a much better game once a few mods have been made for it.

By which time the price (a ridiculous AU$100 here) should have come down too

Mod tools are out.

Originally Posted by Prince of Darkness

Civ, on the other hand, is completely unhistorical but have a more detailed diplomacy, technology, and trade system. But it lacks in the combat department and have few units and little distinction between nations.

Civ is just one big campaign map and nothing else, you fight pike-men with cruise missiles and other ridiculous stuff. So i would recommend that original poster should buy Napoleon Total war because you just compare the game like Civ to game like Napoleon!

I bought civ and after fighting a battle I uninstalled it and went back to NTW. IMO swordsmen fighting tanks aint much fun.

Originally Posted by E.K

I bought civ and after fighting a battle I uninstalled it and went back to NTW. IMO swordsmen fighting tanks aint much fun.

I agree 100%.It makes you wonder how some people describe Civ to be better than Empire and Napoleon.