Civilization Revolution*

[StefanS]

But honestly, it's just for the nostalgia. Most Civ fan's I've found really get into the mathematics of the game, essentially breaking down victory conditions to mathematically formulas with uncertainty left only to starting position and battle out comes.

Revolutions is a fun game, but it's not nearly as 'deep' and as such, limits the amount of interaction and opportunities you can have.

As a Civ fan, I wouldn't recommend purchasing the game. I think you'll get your fill out of 'discovering' the different options to win in a rental's period. (Online experiences may vary, along with ESRB.)

I'd frame the argument differently. Honestly, I'd recommend it even to die-hard Civ fans under one the sole condition that they really like online play (preferably fast paced). Online matches are definitely worth a try, IMO.

Apart from that, it's simply not as attractive to Civ fans as the regular console joe: There's simply only one way to win it and that's by military expansion - I know, there's multiple victory condition, but in the reality all will rely on military expansion. The gameplay isn't diverse enough. etc.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Apart from that, it's simply not as attractive to Civ fans as the regular console joe

I think that's the main point. Civ fans are buying Civ on PC, so why create a console Civ for them? The console Civ is for a more casual god-game, like Megalomania, that people who don't care for the maths can enjoy, or for Civ fans who want to play online against other Civ fans where pure maths would lead to stalemate or people giving up on round 5 because they've calculated they can't win!

There's simply only one way to win it and that's by military expansion - I know, there's multiple victory condition, but in the reality all will rely on military expansion. The gameplay isn't diverse enough. etc.

I disagree there. Digging in can win it. Piling up the buildings in your captial can make it explode in production and rival many large empires. I've also been toying with the different nations, which are more balanced than it seemed looking at the specs, and I'm going to try winning a cultural victory by stealing other nations Great People. This is offline though, but I can't see in principle where a nation that digs in and throws it resources behind advancement would lose to a nation that throws it resources behind unit production.

 

[StefanS]

I think that's the main point. Civ fans are buying Civ on PC, so why create a console Civ for them? The console Civ is for a more casual god-game, like Megalomania, that people who don't care for the maths can enjoy, or for Civ fans who want to play online against other Civ fans where pure maths would lead to stalemate or people giving up on round 5 because they've calculated they can't win!

I didn't say anything to the contrary. If anything, I agree with you here. It's a Civ for the console audience. I didn't say it's a bad game, it isn't at all. But people should know the constraints it comes with.

BTW, for even mentioning Megalomania, you win some plus points from me

I disagree there. Digging in can win it. Piling up the buildings in your captial can make it explode in production and rival many large empires. I've also been toying with the different nations, which are more balanced than it seemed looking at the specs, and I'm going to try winning a cultural victory by stealing other nations Great People. This is offline though, but I can't see in principle where a nation that digs in and throws it resources behind advancement would lose to a nation that throws it resources behind unit production.

Sorry, but we have to disagree here. Military expansion is a far more important component of Civ Rev, compared to the PC counterpart, due to its simplified diplomacy system, its simplified trade and its fast paced nature, etc.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree it's of principle importance. Diplomacy is non-existent in this game! The only interaction with other nations is certainly war, and from that POV I agree with you. But it's not the only pursuit of the player, and it's not the only way to win as you said. It is possible to win without pursuing military expansion, no?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Actually, guys.. I find your debate amusing because the easiest way to win the demo was through cultural victory.

The game mechanics make it very easy to build one mega city and two (in the time allowed for the demo, I'd imagine even easier with more cities in a full game) 'feeder-cities' that simply build settlers and feed them into your mega city.

Timing expansion and things like the hanging garden multiplier correctly make the game really rather elementary.

I haven't read up on strategies since the full game has been released, but the ease in which the demo was able to be defeated made any further investigation fruitless.

The balance in this game is just 'off' because it has been dumbed down for the console audience to the point where the complicated mathematically strategic decisions that made Civ appeal to it's fanbase have been removed.

Like I said, it's still fun. It's the most played demo I've got, and I still haven't deleted it because it's fun to play just to 'experience' Civ... and it still retains that Civ 'feel'.

But it only retains that INITIAL 'Civ Feel'. That first enjoyment when you don't really understand the game mechanics and aren't thinking about them and are just trying to do this or that without any clear goal or concept of how one decision influences another.

It has for me the feel of CivIII, which was a great game I played for a long time, that I could only win on the lower levels of difficulty because I didn't concern myself with the mathematics that were the foundation for the game.

Essentially, I think we all agree.. this is a console game that was built for consoles and even moreso, built for quick on-line play.

This is a game that will give new and old Civ players hours of enjoyment.

I just don't see it as a game that will give YEARS of enjoyment as a further understanding of the mechanics evolves like the former Civ games that were PC based.

 

[rekator]

The demo is in very easy mode.
Actually I won all the type of victories in "king" mode and lose all games in "divinity" mode.
The computer seems to concentrate against you and let generally one other Civ in peace to reach Alpha Centaury… Don't remember this type of comportment in Civ4 CoP…

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Found a copy of Civ4 on my PC. Guess im not gonna buy this one, unless somebody says its better?

I remember everybody kept wining about the NPCs being to agressive in Civ4 aswell, but it wasn't that hard to win by diplomacy or cultural wins. Population is the key to win any Civ game imo.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Ah... On the demo being in very easy mode, although in the 'regular' Civ games the difficultly levels had to do with bonus structure, alot of which is removed from this game. Maybe I'll check out Civfanatics or Apolyton to see if they've gotten the breakdowns yet (which I'm sure they do).

Ost: the AI in Civ IV had many shortcomings, a lot of them were able to be offset by downloading mods from a user on Apolyton (Bruce??) his AI tweaks were actually incorporated into the first expansion pack. Population, and the proper use and timing of population is always the key to any Civ game. I agree.

 

[Enzyme]

I finally had the first demo experience last night. The game seemed a bit boring at first, but became better after a while and I had quite a lot of fun eventually.
This was my very first Civilization experience, and I have to say that I was surprised to see how easy it was to get into this game. Although it is dumbed down according to other people here.
I did see that (at least in the easiest mode) no other nation ever attacks you, or anyone else. Nor is there much trading or even exploring going on. Is this because it's on easy, or is it always like that?

Too bad that the game is limited in number of turns, so I haven't had the chance to finish a game yet, nor did I try another difficulty. I'll try again tonight though, maybe on a harder setting.

 

[StefanS]

I did see that (at least in the easiest mode) no other nation ever attacks you, or anyone else.

A nation seldom attacks you out of the blue, though it depends a bit on their form of government. Usually, they contact you first trying to extort money, research etc. If you refuse it might end in a declaration of war, though not necessarily so.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I did see that (at least in the easiest mode) no other nation ever attacks you, or anyone else. Nor is there much trading or even exploring going on. IS this because it's on easy, or is it always like that?

Well, your your civ keeps expanding, and other civs keeps expanding, sooner or later your gonna run into eachother...

 

[Enzyme]

A nation seldom attacks you out of the blue, though it depends a bit on their form of government. Usually, they contact you first trying to extort money, research etc. If you refuse it might end in a declaration of war, though not necessarily so.

Ah, too bad.
They did always contact me first for a peace treaty though, but even when I always refused, you get the 'your nation won't last for long' kinda dialogs, but nothing ever happens beyond that.

Well, your your civ keeps expanding, and other civs keeps expanding, sooner or later your gonna run into each other...

For as far as I could see, the other civs didn't even expand. (except for Egypt)


Also, some other thing.
When the game goes from a unit on one end of the map, to a unit on the other end of the map, there seems to be a lot of slowdown. Is that normal? And is it still like that in the final game, or has that issue been resolved?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

On the demo, the rival nations are just cannon fodder. On the harder levels, they tend to be quick to wage war. You always have a peaceful start - I've not yet met a nation that starts the game with warmongery in their hearts, not even the Mongols! If you start winning though, leading in a path towards victory, they'll start bullying you, and war soon follows.

They don't seem to fight each other much at all, though you can bribe them to start a 5-turn war. A couple of times one nation has been totally independent, happy to coexist until towards the end. In one case to win a Domination victory against a dug-in opponent, I bribed them to war another nation, and after sending their troops out, attacked their capital.

And last night was interesting. I set out to win an Economic Victory with the English. It ended up a close race against the Egyptians pursuing a Technological Victory. They had launched the space mission while I was still trying to break the 20k gold threshold. But i had some strong production centres, and could build the World Bank in time. To help matters I bribed the Egyptians to wage war on the other nations to keep them off my back and tie up the Egyptians a bit so they couldn't attack so effectively.

The demo doesn't really do justice to the game, like so many! Why do they stick with easy mode and give a false impression to the game experience?

 

[Cheezdoodles]

On the demo, the rival nations are just cannon fodder. On the harder levels, they tend to be quick to wage war. You always have a peaceful start - I've not yet met a nation that starts the game with warmongery in their hearts, not even the Mongols! If you start winning though, leading in a path towards victory, they'll start bullying you, and war soon follows

In earlier civs (i havent tried level 10 difficulity for civ4 yet) at the hardest difficulties you would often just get whiped out rather quick. Come to think of it, this may have been a scenario mode rather than just difficulty.

Anyways, your civilization develops much later than the the original AI civilization, so they are anything from 1-3 thusand years ahead of you in technology.

I tried to win under these contidions but its very very hard. You have to be very lucky with where your civilization spawns in order to suceed, some distant medium size undiscovered island. If you spawn close to AI, while some may be kind and give technology, the AI will tell others of their encounter with my civilization, and then its only a matter of time before the Zulus or mongolians or whatever launches their battleships and tanks vs your fortified Phalanxes!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wouldn't be surprised if top difficulty was dumbed down for the console market, but devs should always give the layer the choice IMO. I suppose if you're really after a challenge you could spend the first thousand years as nomadic wanderers.

 

[Tap In]

in the retail version can you save the game to resume at any point?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes. 10 saves on XB360, unlimited on PS3, although I'm not using more than 4 or 5.

 

[Tap In]

sweet shifty, thanks

have never played a Civ game before and tried the demo last night. at first I almost just turned it off and went to bed but it was so accessible that I got a little hooked.

I'll be picking this one up. they found a sweet spot for gamers like me.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Be aware, Civ games can be extremely immersive. You sit down, and suddenly 5 hours has passed as you have been conquering a continent or whatnot.

 

[Tap In]

Be aware, Civ games can be extremely immersive. You sit down, and suddenly 5 hours has passed as you have been conquering a continent or whatnot.

yea after my question on saves I realized I may have a hard time walking away from a game. My problem is the family expecting me to engage some time in that 5 hours .

otherwise I'll have to stay up all night after they are asleep and have to function on 4 hours rest.