Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Amongs several RTS adaptation of 'Civilization' concepts. What is the name of the computer game that you believe it IS the best? judging by the balance between gameplay and historical accuracy
1. Age of Empires series (and which one in the series do you like)
2. Empire Earth series (again! which is your fave)
3. Empires: Dawn of Modern World
4. Rise of Nations; Including Thrones and Patriots but excluding Rise of Legends, which it is strictly Fantasy RTS adapting RoN concepts.

IMAO the best designs of this kind of RTS is both RoN and EE2. the EE1 designs (and Empires: Dawn of Modern World is actually spiritual sequel) are considered (a bit) outdated when compares to AoE2. However EE1 is the first that covers the timespan of TBS Civilization series. the EE2.. which uses different developers. is the jewel of the crown in the series. since several aspects of AoE2 concepts have been introduced. (if not entirely), also military units differs by ethnicity chosen by player.
one could says Graphics are not really matters (3D graphics of the EE series are not really majestic ones due to primitive cam controls compared to Dawn of War and CoH series.) in the RTS. this is true for RoN. this game released few years after the AoE2, and exploited MANY features from that game. including that players can man any strongpoints (City, Towers and Forts) with units, and not only that! player can also provide ROF and attack damage bonus to a given strongpoints. similar to that of AoE2 but not to that of EE2 . which garrisoning units inside strongpoints grants almost no bonuses to the said strongpoints. However. healing inside strongpoints apply to both games. Also another features I LOVE about RoN are ethnicity aesthetics. the multitude of ethnicity unqueness of RoN beats ones of the EE2 so easily!
For historical accurate. this is the biggest problem. and none of the two provide an 'accurate' unit designs. many units are very "misplaced" (in EE2. halberdiers still appears in Epoch IX (equivalent to Enlightenment age in RoN, can't remember if it's also called the same) and even in Epoch 10 (Industrial Age, depiching 18th century victorians), also 'Regular' (real life Line Infantry) units uses breech loading animations instead of muzzle loaders, another misplaced units are the Riflemen, ones that appear in Epoch 11 (WW1) and in Epoch 12 (WW2 - 70s) are described in game as "using semi-auto rifles!!! and both aren't seems to be improved! ... in RoN, Roman (a playable civilization) Praetorians became avaiable in Gunpowder age and fights alongside Arquebusiers and Bombard guns!!!!! Big historical spoooooofs)) however, the RoN designs is considered closest. because the transition from Gunpower age to Enlightenment Age also changes warfare. in the latter era. Pikemen are effectively replaced by 'Line Infantry' (called Fusilier in that game and the unit cameo is a Napoleon-era french line inf.),
Another big problem of any game that uses the settings that spans an entire progress of human civilization is unit upgrade paths/unit career paths. Because every combat units in 1-4 are using Janken (Rock, Scissors, and papers) concepts, when a civilization progresses through era, so does warfare. A unit that designs to counter one type of unit may become useless even when upgraded unless the new units are categorized in the same 'career paths'. in case of EE1, and Empires: Dawn of Modern World (and to some extent, the EE2). many types of units are simply terminated when player progressed through certain ages. and CANNOT be upgraded into modern types (Player may still be able to buy those outdates units if the training structure is still intact, however players can no longer build the said structure once he/she progressed to the era that this unit is no longer available). in RoN. however, no such terminations occured. instead. units are simply transformed into a new warfare. but does that means Napoleonic Fusiliers can wreck a tank? RoN considers that tanks are cavalry (as real history is). so the team associated Antitank units with pikemen and fusiliers. and considers 'Musketeer' (available in Enlightenment age) being light infantry instead of line infantry and thus associating this unit with archers and arquebusier career paths. Warfare history doesn't really works that way. in real life. Pikemen merged with Arquebusier / Musketeer (and to some nations, Archers!!!) to became Line Infantry and then riflemen. Antitank units appear in late WW1. I can't really figure out how can unit designs REALLY be achieved by having a Line Infantry a lineage with Musketeer and Pikemen and the game still balances? BigHuge teams set the career path for RoN units that way to balance the game W/O adding pikemen into Enlightenment age. Is there any better unit systems than Janken ones?
What do you say?

My favourite PC RTS is Stronghold Crusader... if that's what you're asking... I'm never really sure...
Though it's a castle builder/RTS but it probably still counts...

Nah. i'm talking about an RTS that has blend several elements of Sid Meier's Civilization series. a game that you starts as a caveman and win as Caesar. or you starts as a knight and end a match fighting tanks!.. capiche?

Civilisation isn't really an RTS because it's Turn-based thereby negating the real time elements of an RTS.
I like Europe Universalis 3 personally...
You don't get further than mid 18th century but it's good fun for 400 years. A year is fairly substantial even on max speed...

purplefood wrote:Civilisation isn't really an RTS because it's Turn-based thereby negating the real time elements of an RTS.
I like Europe Universalis 3 personally...
You don't get further than mid 18th century but it's good fun for 400 years. A year is fairly substantial even on max speed...

Absolutely this! I haven't gone back to Civ. since paradox's outstanding historical rts games, not to mention all the mods

Huffy wrote:

purplefood wrote:Civilisation isn't really an RTS because it's Turn-based thereby negating the real time elements of an RTS.
I like Europe Universalis 3 personally...
You don't get further than mid 18th century but it's good fun for 400 years. A year is fairly substantial even on max speed...

Absolutely this! I haven't gone back to Civ. since paradox's outstanding historical rts games, not to mention all the mods

The AI is a touch funny on it but it's a really great game...
Multiplayer is also great but my PC keeps crapping out on me all the time.

Yes. Play EU3 all the time.

Very nice, I usually play England to start with and then form the British Empire ASAP

psshh the only clear option is to play castille, go for spain and then colonize the british isles!

Please, play as England and then just troll everyone in Europe since they can't touch you due to the Royal Navy

I like the first Rise of Nations a lot.

yeah, EU3 takes the cake here for me too.

On a shorter time scale (and also turn based):

Empire: Total War.

Napoleon Total War.

Private_Joker wrote:Napoleon Total War.

Agreed. However, i purposefully didnt mention Napoleon (even though i prefer it) because the time scale is SO much shorter than Empire, and because the technological advances arent as apparent as they are in Empire.

Still, absolutely GREAT game...

Private_Joker wrote:Napoleon Total War.

I've finished Napoleon Total War. (The third French campaign). it is still far from perfect.
while i love Total War combat systems (which sometimes it resembles HoMM series). the campaign map itself needs some more refining. and it should includes an option for him not to conduct a disastrous campaign against Russia. or an option/research/technology/map structures to 'overcome' russian harsh winter.
Also i've forgot whether did the decisions to sell Louisiana exists? in RoN : Thrones and Patriots (there's a Napoleon campaign.. player roleplays Napoleon Bonarparte himself). same thing happens (and player may refuse to sell Luisiana and nothing bad happens if player do so)
i've heard that the Europa Universalis series (i've never play any mew!) doesn't have combat screen mew!

oops.. both Total War series and E.U. series are classified as Geopolitics strategy game. AoE, EE, RoN doesn't have a delicate Geopolitics features.

The politics are okay in EU but the AI tends to be... somewhat homicidal...
They tend to either be total dicks in getting what they want or terrified of pissing you off if you're powerful enough...

Age of Mythology. The only game that has the balls to go with the true history of the world, and not that made up gak the man is always trying to cram down your throat. Julius Caesar wasn't stabbed, he got beat down by a frost giant.

purplefood wrote:The politics are okay in EU but the AI tends to be... somewhat homicidal...
They tend to either be total dicks in getting what they want or terrified of pissing you off if you're powerful enough...

To be fair to EU3 the AI is by far and away the best in any strategy game, ever. It's clever as hell in general, it's just that after you play it for a few (hundred) hours you can game it...slightly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:Age of Mythology. The only game that has the balls to go with the true history of the world, and not that made up gak the man is always trying to cram down your throat. Julius Caesar wasn't stabbed, he got beat down by a frost giant.

Age of Mythology is bloody amazing. Under-rated IMO.

Bromsy wrote:Age of Mythology. The only game that has the balls to go with the true history of the world

You're talking about it like this is a good thing...?

Perhaps I'm weird, but I like it when games deviate from history... treading the same old boring ground that everyone else has tread is not interesting.

Melissia wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Age of Mythology. The only game that has the balls to go with the true history of the world

You're talking about it like this is a good thing...?

Perhaps I'm weird, but I like it when games deviate from history... treading the same old boring ground that everyone else has tread is not interesting.

I actually wish the industry would do more alternate history games.

at some point. Empire and Napoleon Total War could also be 'alternate history'. also player can have access to 'steampunk' units!

think about Ironclad appeared by the time of Napoleon I

Lone Cat wrote:at some point. Empire and Napoleon Total War could also be 'alternate history'. also player can have access to 'steampunk' units!

think about Ironclad appeared by the time of Napoleon I

Hehe mine definitely is, Great Britain just conquered Spain, and have already conquered France, driving Napoleon into the Alps to recover....

For Total War style games it has to be ROME. Easily the best in the series and the next game best be Rome2


But my favourite Age-up RTS has to be AOE2

It is such a brilliant game.

EE2 is a better game but merely due to its age.

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:at some point. Empire and Napoleon Total War could also be 'alternate history'. also player can have access to 'steampunk' units!

think about Ironclad appeared by the time of Napoleon I

Hehe mine definitely is, Great Britain just conquered Spain, and have already conquered France, driving Napoleon into the Alps to recover....

i don't know why you dislike Napoleon? for me he's a revolution hero and can scares an oppressing clan of Bourbons.
Also another campaign that needs to be tie in with ANY Napoleonic wars is the war between the USA and Great Britain. remember the 1812?

no computer games featuring the said 1812 campaigns so far. only American Conquest : Divided Nation has it. but as a one-off scenario instead of a whole campaign mew!

Melissia wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Age of Mythology. The only game that has the balls to go with the true history of the world

You're talking about it like this is a good thing...?

Perhaps I'm weird, but I like it when games deviate from history... treading the same old boring ground that everyone else has tread is not interesting.

Bromsy was joking, Ago of Mythology is about as alternate as alternate history gets...

I love Empire Earth, due your ability to make your own army in that game. I might have to try out Europe Universalis 3.

Lone Cat wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:at some point. Empire and Napoleon Total War could also be 'alternate history'. also player can have access to 'steampunk' units!

think about Ironclad appeared by the time of Napoleon I

Hehe mine definitely is, Great Britain just conquered Spain, and have already conquered France, driving Napoleon into the Alps to recover....

i don't know why you dislike Napoleon? for me he's a revolution hero and can scares an oppressing clan of Bourbons.

Wait.... what?

I dont hate Napoleon, im just playing as Great Britain, therefore France is my largest, and most dangerous opponent.....

Lone Cat wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:at some point. Empire and Napoleon Total War could also be 'alternate history'. also player can have access to 'steampunk' units!

think about Ironclad appeared by the time of Napoleon I

Hehe mine definitely is, Great Britain just conquered Spain, and have already conquered France, driving Napoleon into the Alps to recover....

i don't know why you dislike Napoleon? for me he's a revolution hero and can scares an oppressing clan of Bourbons.
Also another campaign that needs to be tie in with ANY Napoleonic wars is the war between the USA and Great Britain. remember the 1812?

I don't think he dislikes Napoleon on a personal level but if he's playing Great Britain in Napoleon Total War then he is against Napoleon...
As it is most British people have some knowledge of Napoleon as a bad guy, which considering the circumstances is fair.

EDIT: Ninja-ed! *Shakes fist*