i guess i wanted a different game, does it exist?

[GreenReaper]

ive always been a big Civ fan. i thought civ 2 was probably the best game ever for PC. civ 3 seemed to refine the game a lot, but IMHO it seemed like it hit a wall. as in, they could get no better with the current model of game, so to improve it they needed to throw ina different aspect.

i guess thats what i was hoping for in civ 4. but if you strip all the fancy stuff away, this is just civ 3 with new rules (and most of the new rules i just HATE!)

its obviously my own fault for rushing out and buying it without even researching it at all, (allthough most game reviews give anything from sid a golden pass) but ANYWAY, the pont of all my rambling is this!:

i want a game that blends empire building and real warfare tactics (like medieval and rome total war) with the advancement thru the ages like classic civ.

if i were a movie producer i would hawk it as "total war meets civilization". does this game exist?

[Electrius]

No. Sorry.

[FelisSilvestris]

Guess you could try Europa Universalis or some other of Paradox' games. However, they lack a tactical mode..

[Protra3211]

Supreme Ruler 2010 might fit the bill. Comes with a 100 page manuel. Some what complex at first but has many helps to guide new players

[GreenReaper]

good lord

thanks for the tip maybe ill check it out, but in my book a game shouldnt need a manual. theres no reason to make a game overly complex.

[Son of David]

Re: i guess i wanted a different game, does it exist?

Originally posted by GreenReaper


i want a game that blends empire building and real warfare tactics (like medieval and rome total war) with the advancement thru the ages like classic civ.

Rise of Nations?

[GodSpawn]

I agree. Rise of Nations played on slowest speed, hard AI settings, with plenty of pausing may be just what the doctor ordered!

I love Rise of Nations - best RTS EVER (even though I effectively play it in TBS mode..)

But I like Civ IV better (only just, tho!)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GodSpawn
I love Rise of Nations - best RTS EVER (even though I effectively play it in TBS mode..)

<- starts beating up people for calling them "real time" games.

It's not real time in any sense of the term. Real time is one second game time equals to one second our time.

[Solver]

RoN is the closest to that indeed, I think. It has all the tactical and military management elements common to RTS games, but you can tweak the settings so that it will take a really long time.

I'm really surprised that some people don't like change . Civ4 can be said to be Civ3 with new rules, but then it's also Civ1 with new rules - the core concept indeed hasn't changed, although pretty much everything has. Oh well .

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


<- starts beating up people for calling them "real time" games.

It's not real time in any sense of the term. Real time is one second game time equals to one second our time.

I expect you're gonna have to beat a lot of people up, UR, if you are to achieve your goal of banishing the use of 'Real Time' as a way of describing non-turn, continuous play games.

[Adagio]

Of course civ4 is just Civ4 with new rules... did you expect a completely different game? C&C Generals is also just Dune 2 with new rules and new graphics

[Son of David]

One of the best things about Civ4 is that it has reintroduced lots of elements from the original Civs that were missed in Civ3.

For example, the caravan system being sublimated into an automated city-specific trade system. Civics and the UN which are SMAC concepts. The ability to sign ceasefires as well as 10-turn unbreakable peace treaties. THE ABILITY TO GIVE UNITS TO THE AI!

Lots of other things, all the best things from the previous Civs (and SMAC) have been brought back and added to the cool new improvements like combat, religion etc.

I love it. I have been playing non-stop, hours a day, for the last two weeks.

[GodSpawn]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

<- starts beating up people for calling them "real time" games.

It's not real time in any sense of the term. Real time is one second game time equals to one second our time.

Heh.

Clearly it's not THAT kind of real time - unless the games took 2000 years to play.

But I suppose you could argue that while you are dithering about , game time is passing. So perhaps they should be called "Game Time Strategy".

Whatever, "RTS" is the name that's stuck, no matter what anyone things about it!

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


<- starts beating up people for calling them "real time" games.

It's not real time in any sense of the term. Real time is one second game time equals to one second our time.

Your understanding of real-time as it relates to computers is incorrect.
Real time systems are designed so that they can respond to unpredictable inputs in a predictable way. Further those responses should happen simultaneously for all inputs.
For example, I create a unit, and the AI creates the exact same unit and it happens at the exact same moment, both units (barring some sort of handicapping system) must be created at the same time, and be available for use at the same time. Should we send them off against each other, they should arrive at a point equidistant between us, because they should be travelling at the same speed (barring handicapping).
They are real time games in the strictest definition.

[greggbert]

Don't forget Empire Earth II, that game rocks!