Total War Cities - Simcity style

[scivian]

Long time Total War buff recently tried out Simcity 5 for the first time. I am really enjoying creating a city, watching it function and connect with other cities in the unique way that it works. Total War has somewhat similar features...

Would anyone else like the Simcity style to be more representative of the city building aspect? Any other games that you think do a better job of a particular aspect than Total War's implementation?


EDIT: Clarification - Perhaps as an argument for "City View"

I try to leave questions open ended in order to allow for many interpretations, but my initial thought was more about the visual nature of city building. That is, instead of simply selecting a building to construct and it suddenly appears later with minimal animation, I would like to click on a city, like in "city view" and choose to build it where I like and watch it be built and then function, with people etc...

[SirFork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_IV

Not in a total war game, it's just incompatible gameplay.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

That'll be the day! But then you would have two actual games, plus the TOTAL WAR title won't count as much, will it? It would be very difficult to build a huge city in an accurate sense - most people would definetly try it. It's an idea though, maybe ahead of total war games' current capabilities.

[HigoChumbo]

I haven't played the last SimCity but provided the awful scores it has got in most review sites i wouldn't use it as my reference.


That said, i'd like to see city building in TW, but only when the day comes that they will merge both battles and campaing into the same (real time) map.

City building doesn't make much sense with the current system. Maybe if you would only manage your capital, or those cities in which you have a family member/general in.



In any case... seeing how most strategy games are running away from resource gathering and base building (despite knowing how much people love them and how those kind of games gave birth to what strategy games are today), i'd say we won't be seeing this. Like... never. As much as i'd love to.

[Bob Doad]

I haven't played the last SimCity but provided the awful scores it has got in most review sites i wouldn't use it as my reference.

It got bad scores because of the always online stuff along with the server issues. The game itself is fun.
Also there is Grand Ages:Rome which allows city building

[cevap]

Why would you want to turn Total War into an MMO!

But seriously I think it wouldnt fit at all in a TW game, what you want is a SimCity game with TW combat, meaning you only manage one City and its defenses or assaults but not conquering hundreds of cities and managing them all.

[Serkelet]

Well, the Total War graphic engine certainly could have potential to make an ancient world city building simulator with stunning visuals... But that would be a totally separate game, and I don't think the effort and money is worth it... I mean, why trying to compite with a so deeply stablished franchise like Sim City, when they already have their own unique franchise where they don't have real competition (as long as they keep improving)?

[Sir Spaghetti]

I would love a spin off game based around this idea.

[Big Brown Bear]

SimCity is a great deal of fun, but that's because you don't have to manage 50 cities at the same time.

[lolmaster]

A citybuilder in the roman times i can approve, but in a Total War game? no thanks.

[Adreno]

ill build my cities in the editor

[Fabino79]

I like the idea.

But, please, do not use the new simcity as a model. The game is completely broken. Most of the core mechanics simply dont work (RCI balance for example). And even the ones that do work are so superficial...its almost a facebook game. The bad scores are not because the online issues, most players forgave that. The problem is the game itself. Its so far from the previous editions that it seems a completely different series.

Theres lots of threads on the official forum that explain with more details what Im talking about.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/forums/show/4122.page

[The Roman Republic]

@OP

You gotta be joking right.....

[scivian]

@Dictator Of The Roman Republic

Interesting response, I guess Id point you to the same video in reply.

[The Roman Republic]

@Dictator Of The Roman Republic

Interesting response, I guess Id point you to the same video in reply.

Ok, so you don't like my first reaction,

Lets drill it down a bit.

Why would a simCity style benefit the current engine and system of the campaign?

How does a SimCity style take advantage over the current way the campaign building system is represented in terms of expansion, building?

If this simCity style would replace the way I build in the game anyway, would that mean I would have to endlessly go into a another visual view port of every city I conquer just to build?

You say this simCity style "would be more representative of the city building" yet the game has it's own personal representations.

Why try to fix something that isn't broken.

[Kinjo]

This is offensive and lame

[ObiWan86]

How come you compared total war to that rubbish?!

[Gelston]

It isn't rubbish. The newest SimCity is fun, the always online requirement is what is stupid. Take note of that CA.

To the OP, I honestly think what you want is a new game in the Caesar series. Your idea, while fun, doesn't fit in with the TW series. Honestly, unless it was its own game, it wouldn't be done justice.

[Kenios]

Mixing genres can be very risky. You could end up alienating both fanbase and pleasing neither. Take, Mass Effect, for instance. It mixes third person squad-based cover-system shooting with role-playing. Shooter fans aren't pleased. "It's a weak copy of Gears of War!" RPG fans aren't pleased. "Where's the RPG? I want to play inventory management!" The thing is, do people who play Total War have an interest in city building? How do you make the whole city building system fun when the player has 50 cities to look after? I'd say Creative Assembly should keep clear of trying to do too much and focus on its core gameplay like a laser. Fortunately, Creative Assembly didn't survive for so long by being stupid. If you look at their marketing trailers, they have always, always emphasized the cinematic feel of armies clashing together. That's how they've cornered their market and no one else is able to come in to compete with them.

[roarer]

I actually like Grand Ages : Rome over Caesar IV, so OP should just try out both games You can always linked up these games with Total War using your own house rule like... X city will have a certain building first! I built a Temple for Jupiter in Capua, then in Grand Ages : Rome, I will have more Temples for Jupiter than any other Gods.

It is always a hard task for a company to please multiple groups of customers. If you make the city building aspects affect the Campaign too much, then those who have no interest in city building will just feel that they are forced to do the city building. If there is not much connection between the campaign and city building, then it just feel like 2 separate games. And there will always be the debate of , resource should spend in this bettering the city building experience instead of the other one. And all of these can be avoided if we just have 2 separate games, with the city building fan base linking up the 2 games themselves.