So I bought Company of Heroes and Civ 4 several months ago...

[coolred]

But I haven't played either one yet, which one should I try first? I have played the demos of both. I liked them both, just can't decide what I am in the mood for. Which one is easier to learn to play?


Now with poll

 

[TheSlamma]

CoH is easier to learn.

 

[pcslookout]

Civ 4, to me, is easier to learn.

 

[N2gaming]

CoH

 

[Rottie]

Civ 4 is fun and longer game play

 

[pontifex]

i liked coh better because its real time and there's more action.
after i beat coh, that was it. i couldn't play it any more (sp or skirmish), it was just boring.

 

[Bateluer]

Typically, people will really like RTSs or really like TBSs, rarely do people have a love of both.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Typically, people will really like RTSs or really like TBSs, rarely do people have a love of both.

I'm one of those people that love both. Hey, play Rome TW and get best of both worlds!

It was hard for me to choose for that one reason. I like the politics and civilization time-line of CIV4. To be in another era of advanced technology while the opponent is still developing warriors with clubs is just fun. I also like how resources play such a crucial role in advancing in the game (something I wish Total War was built on).

Company of Heroes is just...one of the most immersive RTS's I ever played. So much detail which extends beyond just presentation and graphics, but the game play mechanics and front line battling.

 

[lupi]

Civ 4 may be easier to learn initially because of all the popup hints and what not, but playing at anything above chieftain will likely be a slaughter if you haven't done some strategy reading.

CoH is pretty easy to pick up, especially if you know how to play a RTS.

 

[brikis98]

w/o a doubt, CoH is much easier to learn than civ 4... partially because a single play through is much quicker in CoH - once you have a large Civ game going, it takes a LONG time per turn - so you get to do the trial and error process much more often. moreover, there are far more "details" and micromanagement in civ, so to play above the easiest levels, you need to invest more time than in CoH.

the "fun" factor is hard to guage. CoH, as an RTS, is much more "in your face", exciting, etc... Civ is all about meticulous and devious strategies, economics, etc... for "adrenaline" rush kind of fun, go with CoH. for "strategic" and "intelligent" fun, civ 4. please note, however, that i am NOT knocking the strategy required to be good at CoH (especially online). just that the strategy is more simplified than in civ and has a lot to do with your multitasking abilities to handle the mayhem on the battlefield. civ 4, being turn based, has different strategies involved, and is more of a chess match than anything.

finally, which game is better overall? in the short term, most ppl will enjoy CoH more. the presentation is far better, the game is intense, and there's still plenty of strategy to be had. in the long term though, I found CoH got boring. Civ 4, on the other hand, like almost all of sid meier's games, is as addictive as heroin. after 6 months, CoH will be collecting dust, while your Civ 4 save games folder will be ever growing.

in the end though, you can't go wrong with either game - both are two of the best games ever made in their genres (real time and turn based strategy)...

 

[mnikkel55]

Tough choice, both games are outstanding. Personally, I prefer Civ 4, but either way you can't go wrong.

 

[imported_Imp]

Start with CoH. It's fast paced, real-time and action packed. If you start with Civilization 4, you'll be yearning for something more 'exciting'. I have both and got tired of Civ after a while; I mean it's fun moving armies and stuff around, but having 5 enemy stacks sieging your city over and over again with essentially, no control at all, it gets tiring.