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

[evizaer]

Originally posted by greggbert
Don't forget Empire Earth II, that game rocks!

Are you joking?

EE2 is like someone beat up RoN and then put glitter on the wounds.

[notyoueither]

When you boil it all down, it's just civ with new rules.

2, 3, 4? All slightly different takes on the same original concept.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

According to who? You?

"Real time games" has consistently been used for games like Warcraft, Starcraft, AoE, etc., for many, many years now. That is indeed what they are called in the mainstream.

[AEdwild]

I think you may be looking for Sims2 - all that you are looking for plus romance.

[Maquiladora]

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.

Call to Power 2 has a more realistic warfare model with real stacked combat. Its worth giving it a try, with one or two of the mods that iron-out the bad AI. Most everything else is based on civ.

[Mirkwood]

Rome is great but its diplomacy is pants and its the diplomacy that makes this game sand the others what it is for me as it gives a feel that you are playing several people not just one ai.

RoN is too clicky i still feel like you are up against the clock all the time. Europa is wonderful as a history sim but then the interface gets so clutterd and if various things happen at once all over the globe its mad...!

I love HoG 2 but again i can't play anything other thatn the Germans as the Brits and Yanks and Russians have so amny palces to look out for its crazy

[dearmad]

"Hi, I want a game more complex than civ iv with tactical combat through all the ages. But i don't think it should require a manual- games should be easy."


Huh!?!?

[Drachasor]

Whaaaaaa?

You thought Civ 3 was a refined version of Civ 2? As in better than civ 2?

You like Civ 3 more than Civ 4?


I don't get it.

-Drachasor

[hexagonian]

CTP2 Ages of Man...link is in my sig.

[My PitBull Tank]

I think Civ would be more realistic if you built not just single units but actual armies, and those armies are limited by more than the time it takes to build them. Like the size of your civilization. Certainly it is highly unrealistic (yes, it is a game, i know) to have five warriors and one city of population 3, bc if that were true, you'd have your warriors also out monday through friday in the fields and hunting.

I'd like to see regions that you control, and depending on the type of army you have, you can station certain military types in and around that region, and in various defensive or sentry formations. When the enemy shows up, it's not just one unit, but the army from a rival faction. They show up and you battle. Of course, this is very RTS based play, but it seems like this could be added in some manner to a more complex Civ type game, but you know, in a very simple manner... lol

I'm guessing we'll see this game in about 2050. *begins twiddling thumbs impatiently*

[John-SJ]

Hmmm,

Pitbull got me thinking of another game that does have a certain charm and some of the features he mentions, Knights of Honor. I just played the demo last weekend but the game definitely has some depth to it as well as some interesting real time (continuous time? I don't care) elements to it as well.

If interested the demo can be had at https://www.knights-of-honor.net/eng...loads/demo.php

[Volstag]

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.

Just so we're on the same page: you want a grand strategy game, coupled with a detailed tactical engine, that's not complex? Get in line.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Volstag


Just so we're on the same page: you want a grand strategy game, coupled with a detailed tactical engine, that's not complex? Get in line.

A game the simulates a complex reality without being complex itself is not a good simulation. What the OP wants is impossible.

Civ is simple compared to the reality, so naturally there are lacking areas.

Let's look at military issues that Civ ignores:

Really combined arms: They could do a CTP-thing, but this obviously adds complexity since you must decide how to group your units together.

Supply: Civ basically completely ignores cutting of supply to troops. Maintainence costs and healing rates are highly unrealistic and do not give you the ability to directly attack the supply convoy line (and hence no defense of such a thing). This precludes many historical scenerios where such tactics played a role. Supply is a HUGE issue. It, of course, adds complexity to the game.

War-time slowing growth rates: If many of the young men are out fighting, then cities would grow slower (there'd be a boom when they came back).

Economy: For similar reasons a 1st world economy would suffer if WWII-like numbers of men went out to fight. Many more women work today so there'd be fewer non-workers to take the place of all the unoccupied jobs.

Power: Related to supply, tanks and other vehicles need oil. Without them they can't run. The more modern the unit, the more supply it needs to operate (a sword needs less than a gun, for instance).

Gradual Changes: Naturally the changes in tech are much more gradual than in Civ.

Dispersion of Tech and Backwards Engineering: It is hard to keep secrets, even military ones when used in wartime against a roughly equal enemy. Especially if they get examples of the technology they don't have (by defeating a unit).

....and I could go on. Clearly I am leaving out a ton of things, as I haven't even gotten to battlefield issues, leadership, morale, etc.

Again, a complex reality cannot be simulated to an accurate degree by a simple game. One just has to accept it and enjoy Civ for what it is, a fun game. If one wants it more realistic, that's all well and good, but one must accept the increased complexity that comes with that*.

-Drachasor

*Of course some existing complexities are unnecessary, or can be simplified a bit, but the general trend would remain the same.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by My PitBull Tank
I think Civ would be more realistic if you built not just single units but actual armies, and those armies are limited by more than the time it takes to build them. Like the size of your civilization. Certainly it is highly unrealistic (yes, it is a game, i know) to have five warriors and one city of population 3, bc if that were true, you'd have your warriors also out monday through friday in the fields and hunting.

The units are represenative of larger forces. You can turn on a graphics option to show more than one "guy" per unit, btw.

-Drachasor

[GreenReaper]

Originally posted by dearmad
"Hi, I want a game more complex than civ iv with tactical combat through all the ages. But i don't think it should require a manual- games should be easy."


Huh!?!?

yeah thats exactly what i said...i love it when people quote me so exactly, it doesnt piss me off in the slightest. shut up.

I think Civ would be more realistic if you built not just single units but actual armies, and those armies are limited by more than the time it takes to build them. Like the size of your civilization. Certainly it is highly unrealistic (yes, it is a game, i know) to have five warriors and one city of population 3, bc if that were true, you'd have your warriors also out monday through friday in the fields and hunting.

my idea as well. i like how the total war series works... you pay gold for an army and it takes a "realistic" amount of game time to train (no more 10 turns at 20 years per turn BS). you then pay upkeep on said unit per turn, which limits the idioticly large armys the comp favors.

and to the rise of nations people, i tried the game and like it better than most of the warcraft clones but its got its own slew of stupid stuff. RTS games basically always boil down to: grab resources to build more units than opponent, send massive amounts of said units in wave after wave untill said opponent is dead. (which i guess is what civ does to only at a slower pace ). the way you solve this is with real combat tactics. (send as many elephants against my entrenched MGs as you can mother f'er...yeah and bring the stupid catapults too...theyll all die before they get within 200 feet!!) sadly, this doesnt happen.

i dont see why it would be so hard to smash civ into TW...or why it would have to be overly complex. basically, id say have the map portion and all the diplomacy and stuff remain the same, but instead of having separate units just have one "army" unit (like rome TW) to which you add other units. put a cap on how many units can be in an army or town, and then add a combat mode. whatever kind of mode would be best...a massive 3d realtime epic battlescape like TW, or you could have a simple-er turn based mode, something like maybe the might and magic series without the cartoony graphics?

so this is my main gripe on current civ games, i just want some tactics man. im so sick of being able to control every aspect of a civ, down to who farts when and where in what town, but leaving all the battles to basically the same random dice throws of 2 decades ago. its perfectly within current technology to play those battle out now. with the current game you simply cannot have a small but better equiped\managed army and that really hinders realism. alexander took out the entire persian empire with 1\4 of their troops. try that in this game, FAH!

(and please dont give me an entire disertation of how exactly alexander beat the persians...it was a generalazation to prove a point)