Pretty sure it’s Noble.
The Total War series might be worth looking into.
(From memory, oldest to newest: Shogun, Medieval, Rome, Medieval 2, Empire)
The “macro” part of the game is in the same ballpark as the Civ series. You control a nation, or a faction of a nation, with the aim of world dominance. You do this by expanding and improving your territories, conquering or forcing concessions from your neighbours and, occasionally, assassinating the Pope. It’s all turn-based, so there’s plenty time to think out your moves.
It’s far more militaristic than Civ, though. There’s no option for technological or cultural victories and the diplomacy ranges from “virtually non-existant” to “doesn’t work properly” depending on which game you’re playing.
Where it differs from the Civ games is that it lets you control the battles on a tactical level. Think a Civ engagement, except when the battle starts, the game zooms in on the battlefield and gives you active, “realistic” control over your forces. Here’s a screenshot.
The tactical battle mode of the game is skippable - the computer can autoresolve it without your input. In which case, you’re mostly playing the odds, à la Civ.
I understand that you might be apprehensive because of your motion impairment, but it’s not a clickfest. And you can play the game at half-speed or even pause the game entirely to give orders.
If you want to try one of the games, you’d be well of if you found a time period that interests you and try that one. I’ll provide a link to a demo so you won’t have to commit money right off.
Shogun: Total War (2000)
As the title implies, it’s War in Japan and you’re the Shogun of one of the head families. Gamespot page. Link to demo.
Medieval: Total War (2002)
Set in Medieval Europe and you’re the leader of any one of a number of countries. Gamespot page. Link to demo.
Rome: Total War (2004)
Set during the Roman Empire and you’re the leader of one of the ruling families.
Gamespot page. Link to demo.
Medieval 2: Total War (2006)
Back in Medieval Europe with more countries, bigger armies, better graphics and the option of discovering the Americas. Gamespot page. Link to demo.
Empire: Total War (2009)
Now spanning most parts of the globe, Empire focuses on the period from 1700 to 1800, when it was still an open question of who, exactly, would come to dominance in America. Introduces both a new story-based mode where you can lead the Americas to independence and naval battles. Also, lots of cannon. Gamespot page. Link to demo (Steam).
Be duly warned, however: All of these games were counted to be quite resource heavy at the time they came out. Depending on your PC’s hardware, Empire might not be the best way to go since it’s quite demanding. Medieval 2 should be playable on pretty much every PC bought since '06, though.
Bit of an info dump from me, here, I guess. But I honestly admit that the Total War series is my favourite set of games on the PC. 
Thanks for the tip. Will try them soon. Right now though I have got to conquer Athens and finish off Alexander. 
Funny, I never have any problems with Montezuma. Guess who I always play as? 
Ugh, can’t imagine wanting to play as Monty. Lousy, lousy UU. One of the worst of the bunch.
What’s UU? I find his style suits me which is surprising since I rarely start wars. I like the aggressive trait though so I can develop a strong counterattacking force. I do start some wars but usually later in the game unless I meet Napoleon early. That motherfucker always must die.
Yeah - his UU (Unique Unit - Jaguar Warriors, in the Aztecs’ case) would be one of the two or three least useful, especially because you’re madly clearing jungle. I’d rate it as a useless upgrade, similar to the Navy SEAL, the Panzer or the Cho-Ko-Nu.
And, of course, I don’t care overly for his skills. They don’t fit too well with my preferred techno/spiritual leadership strategies. If only I could get Napoleon’s skillset and the Indians’ UU…
Ah, unique unit. Well, you can build it without access to iron unlike the swordsmen it replaces. That may or may not be huge depending on the map.
True, but iron’s usually available enough that it’s not an issue.
The number of longbowmen I’ve had to pick out of my tank treads because they happened to be located around a supply of something they only knew as “black goopy stuff”, however, is enough to drive some civs to regret inventing paper and obliging them to write condolence letters to their families.
When I get a tech lead into the mid-game, just tear down any city that you have near oil. It’ll be easier for you in the long run.
There are many other unique units I would rather have for sure but I like the combination of Aggressive and Spiritual traits. No anarchy, of course. I still haven’t won on Prince yet so it’s not like I’m an expert though. For unique units I would prefer the fast worker or praetorian.
Above about Prince the game stops being fun and it becomes all about repetitive execution. I’ve won at the top level, but I didn’t enjoy it.
Find the game style you like, find the level that provides the right amount of challenge and play it there. I tend to play in two-hour bursts, so I’m more than a little disjointed and capricious. There was one game I played where I established a city, then in my next session some weeks later, I couldn’t think why the fornication I’d even think about building there, so I abandoned the city.
In the session after that, it was so blindingly obvious that the city had to be there that I re-founded it immediately. I can’t remember what the reason was - probably about establishing contiguous borders, or something.
Dance! Dance to my whims, little electro-minions! Lay down your lives in order that I can temporarily seize an indefensible city purely so that my borders look like a horsey! Suffer years of anarchy and deprivation so that I can drop into mercantilism for a year just so my empire’s been in every governmental state!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
<ahem>
…uh, I mean, whatever works for you.
For another similar game (but not nearly as similar as you’d think), try the Fall from Heaven mod. It takes almost as much work to get into as the main game - it’s pretty complete in its makeover - but it’s excellent if you like that sort of dark fantasy.
Any Civ newbie needs to get over to Civfanatics ASAP, and nevermind the advice you got here. If you really want to learn the game, get into a succession game, they’re listed under Stories and Tales. Looks like there’s still some Civ 3 SGs ongoing.
I do wish the game was more about building, though. So many buildings can be skipped, and then war is tempting, and then it’s a big micromanagement mess. I’m talking Civ IV here. As I remember it, Civ III was all about the early expansion war, then the war to get your golden age, and then the war to take over another continent and rushbuy a Forbidden Palace. Hardly any wars at all! Ah, the sweet innocence of youth.
Yeah, plus you can make do without iron if you have bronze and vice versa. You can get by without either if you have horses or elephants. If you don’t have any of those four, man, you’re screwed. Better make yourself as non conspicuous as possible and dash for the gunpowder…
You couldn’t rush the Forbidden Palace in III unless you had a Great Leader. About the best you could usually do was put it in a city that isn’t completely hosed by corruption to begin with, rush a Courthouse, and then just let it sit for a millennium or so.
And personally, I’d say that the real turnaround point in most of my Civ III games is the moment I get railroads. I construct them much more efficiently than the AI does (if they even have the tech at the time), with the result that, since I can move my troops around instantly to wherever they’re needed, I can fight effectively with a small fraction of the actual military strength they have, leaving me open for even more runaway tech lead. It also doesn’t hurt that many civs commit suicide by Marx around that time, too: Communism is cripplingly bad in Civ III, but the AIs like it.
Like Tiger Woods, don´t ever attack anything without 65% odds or better ´cause you WON´T win. Fuckers also know what you´re researching and wonders you´re building before they have open borders or enough espionage to pull it off.
I rarely have too much trouble with Montezuma or Shaka, but that probably has something to do with the fact that I usually play as Tokugawa or Ragnar Lodbrok. I’m always quite the war-monger. Sometimes I’ll turn on indiscriminate leaders (I think that’s what it’s called) and play as Tokugawa of the Ottomans, build barracks everywhere, switch to theocracy, and get Janissaries that completely own everything.
Has anyone ever played with the “Pacifist” type? I keep wondering how that works… you get penalized for every military unit you have. So how do you defend yourself from, well, everyone?
I realize I can probably find the answer on CivFanatics, but it’s probably in the middle of a 23 page thread, and I’m too lazy. Anyone?
Unrestricted. And yeah, I consider that option to be very much a cheat, you can get some absurdly powerful combos :). Wang Kon of the English, anyone ?
My computer opponents have a tendency to offer to trade techs…when I’m one turn away from completing the research on that tech. Hey, if you’d offered to trade me Construction for Horseback Riding back when I first started researching it, I’d have jumped at it. Now, though, it’s insulting.
And I swear that the computer cheats when it comes to building fighting units, too. Or else it constantly whips the cities for more spearmen or archers, because there’s no WAY that it could build up all those units.