Civ 4 or TW:ME2

[GunnDawg]

So I am deciding on a good strategy/building game to buy and have come down to Civ 4 or Medieval 2: total war.....

could someone please explain the differences in the two, and maybe the pros, and cons of both.

both games look great but I can only afford one at the moment (holiday rolling around and 3 birthdays before that).

Any input is appreciated. Thanks.

[Ming]

While I can't comment on ME2...

Civ 4 With both expansion packs is the best Civ experience ever, and is a great game. If you have liked Civ in the past, you will love Civ 4.

[Kuciwalker]

Re Civ4: DO NOT BUY THE EXPANSION until they actually fix the damn game.

[Ming]

Some people say that... but I have had no problems playing the game. Like most games, there are little annoyances... but the expansion packs add to the game. The Vanilla version is just that... Vanilla.

Both Warlords and BtS dramatically improve the experience.

[Solver]

Don't buy both expansions. BtS includes Warlords, so the only extra thing you get from buying Warlords and BtS are the Warlords scenarios. There were a couple of good ones, but Warlords isn't worth buying just for that.

And ignore Kuci like we all do

[Kuciwalker]

SOLVER THAT GUY IS BEING MEAN TO ME oh wait

[Kuciwalker]

If you don't believe me, look at the bug thread for the latest patch. Some of the bugs are huge, game-breaking, and will be encountered in a huge proportion of games. (I'm thinking especially of the bug where your vassal declares war on you.)

[batavier]

Medieval 2 TW.

PRO

real time combat will be more exciting for many people. Be sure to get the latest patch, because it was badly broken when it came out.

Looks better.

CON

game is split between a strategy/economic map and battles. It certainly lacks a lot of depth because of this.

AI is much stupider than Civ4. Diplomacy in particular.

Multiplayer only involves battles. This does mean that they won't take very long, wich can also be seen as an advantage, but IMO this means that half of the game is missing with multiplayer. (I haven't tried CIV multiplayer)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If you don't believe me, look at the bug thread for the latest patch. Some of the bugs are huge, game-breaking, and will be encountered in a huge proportion of games. (I'm thinking especially of the bug where your vassal declares war on you.)

Bhruic's unofficial patch has fixed quite a few of those bugs.

[TriMiro]

It all depends on how much strategy you wish to go into. IMHO Civ IV (especially with BtS) is the most complex and therefore most fun game on the market. TW is more exiting. The choice is more or less Real time or Turn based, more strategy or more action.

[GunnDawg]

I like the Medieval era, however I want a game with more depth. Make and breaking alliances (can do in both games, but they are sorta pointless in ME2 IMO, not sure how well they work in this game), religion battles, royal family trees, diplomacy.

So I am looking for a game that isnt just about KILL THE OTHER TEAMS and something that can play out longer, maybe make a few alliances, then take those alliances and form a super power to go up against other nations that are allied up and such.

[Virulent]

Originally posted by GunnDawg
I like the Medieval era, however I want a game with more depth. Make and breaking alliances (can do in both games, but they are sorta pointless in ME2 IMO, not sure how well they work in this game), religion battles, royal family trees, diplomacy.

So I am looking for a game that isnt just about KILL THE OTHER TEAMS and something that can play out longer, maybe make a few alliances, then take those alliances and form a super power to go up against other nations that are allied up and such.

You can go for a Diplomatic, Culture or Space Race victory in Civilization so you can definitely can play a game where you don't have to wipe out everybody else.

I never played ME2 but I have played R:TW and I know that diplomacy is much more important and useful in Civilization as opposed to R:TW.

You can make large alliances in Civilization, you can also be betrayed as well but it generally depends on your opponent's personalities. I.E Montezuma or Genghis Khan are much more likely to stab you in the back than Ghandi.

[Crossfire]

The AI in ME2 is just about brain dead on the battlefield and this takes most of the challenge and a lot of the fun out of the game. Civ4 on the other hand is always challenging. I own both and only play Civ4 any more.

[Kataphraktoi]

total war has a campaign map but i dont see any point to point to playing on it, since it and the AI sucks.the real point of the game is the battles. Get civ4 if you like strategic civilization builders and total war for graphic displays of carnage.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by GunnDawg
I like the Medieval era, however I want a game with more depth. Make and breaking alliances (can do in both games, but they are sorta pointless in ME2 IMO, not sure how well they work in this game), religion battles, royal family trees, diplomacy.

So I am looking for a game that isnt just about KILL THE OTHER TEAMS and something that can play out longer, maybe make a few alliances, then take those alliances and form a super power to go up against other nations that are allied up and such.

Did You take Europa Universalis III into consideration ? I was pretty surprised when my "England" turned into "Great Britain" after completing the conquest of the british islands. And it surely plays out long enough for anybody. It´s huge. It´s not medieval (1453-18something), but there is another paradox interactive title which i think is ("Crusaders"?). If You dont care too much about graphics and havent thought about paradox yet, You should check ´em out. Lots of diplomacy (Royal marriages, wars or succession etc.), lots of depth (you hardly know all the consequences of what you are doing when you do it, because of the many internal interactions of the model) and yet easy to manage. And the whole world (some 2000 provinces, including the seas) is your playground. For example my tiny hometown, Lüneburg, is actually, and historically accurately, an independent state in the heart of Germany when you start the 1453-campaign. It´s hard to grasp, that in the same game the empire of, say, aceh (sumatra, indonesia, known from tsunami) is also included and both can actually get into contact and conduct diplomacy as well as war with each other. Ever wanted to fight off the europeans with the incas or the cherokee ? Go for it...

Right now i am engaged with my Great Britain (my second game, played one as the osmanian empire before) in a war against Spain (Castille to be more exact - they never merged with Aragon in my game). Actually i had been allied with them, but they decided to attack portugal, with whom i was also allied. Portugal is out of it already, having signed a white peace. Navarra (allied with Castille) became my vassal. Two british armies (6000 inf, 3000 cav, 1000 cannons each) keep a strangehold on the spanish colonies in virginia. The canary islands have been occupied by me. There is a front in marrocco for which i could use another army - take the one stationed in ireland and leave it defenseless, or recruit another one, depleting my manpower reserve for the replacements and my gold treasure ? Hmmm....