datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
Eh, the way I see it, King Arthur is similar to Civ because
1. top-down view (obviously)
2. fighting over towns and territory
3. have to manage economy. Can build buildings to improve territories, but also have to watch national budget.
4. move around discrete armies. In Civ, you tend to move around armies in groups, so it's effectively the same thing
What's interesting is that there's more character. So like, where in Civ you'll have a city that is unhappy, in King Arthur, the unhappy region will be plagued by bandits, or nether-creatures, and you'll have to devote one of your armies to taking care of that, leaving one of your other regions exposed.
You also have to deal more with internal politics. Your heroes will sometimes mutiny and leave. You also have to deal with their wives and how that affects the domestic economy.
Ultimately I found King Arthur to be similar enough to Civ for where it mattered (top-down big picture strategy) but with lots more personality, and far more streamlined *yet* intricate combat and economic systems.
You can also opt to auto-resolve battles, which makes it all top-down view.
The biggest problem for King Arthur, for me, was that with it's real time combat it starts moving into territory covered by the Total War games, which absolutely ANNIHILATE it in the real time portion.