PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy of Civlization: Revolution



Graham Mitchell
09-23-2008, 10:31 PM
So, me and my fiancee' picked up Civ Rev about a month ago and we've spent a fair amount of time with it. We've won a few single player campaigns on the first two difficulty levels and now we've moved up to the third.

This is my first experience with any Civilization game, and I'm having trouble understanding something. You see, I was under the impression that the game offers you 4 ways to win: domination victory, cultural victory, economic victory, or technology victory. Trouble is, if you actually put your resources into anything but military domination, the game will fuck you. Whoever the military powerhouse is will be knocking at your gates with catapults in about 5 turns, and if you don't have a ton of experienced archer armies, they're taking your shit.

The only way I've found to get any other type of victory, is to play like I'm going for military domination and wipe everybody off the map except for one nation, and then change my strategy halfway through and pillage the hell out of that last nation with spies and caravans for 600 turns until I get my World Bank or whatever. It would be quicker to just send my knights in and finish them off.

Basically, my complaint is that people rave about what a great game Civ has been over the years, but I'm finding this game to be very unbalanced. There's a ton of focus on fighting, and you can't do anything else unless you focus on your military for the first 70% of the game. I might as well be playing Disgaea or Nectaris. At least the fighting has some depth there.

So, what am I missing? I've tried the game on 3 difficulty levels and the AI goes for the same approach every time. Maybe the game is designed for multiplayer. I haven't tried multiplayer yet, but It's kind of lame to charge $60 for a strategy game that sucks when you play it by yourself.

So what am I not getting, here? What don't I understand about the game mechanics? I've noted on a lot of DP user's XBox Live Gamertags that they all play CivIV, but nobody's playing CivRev. Is CivRev the redheaded stepchild of the series, or what? Help me out, brothers and sisters. ;)

calthaer
09-23-2008, 10:52 PM
I never even made it to Civ IV, but yeah - the series has pretty much always been about conquest. Unless they've introduced new victory terms a la Alpha Centauri that are things like "Research the uber-thing that will let you become a supernova awesomeness"?

In which case...you always need to at least build defensive units. Meier's games usually let you make units that are high on defense that can overcome the offensive units of the AI, allowing you to effectively turtle and expand as necessary. If you expand quickly enough and keep building those defensive units (and as long as the map is big enough), you can usually win.

On small maps, you are screwed: go for the jugular.

Cantaloup
09-23-2008, 11:39 PM
So what am I not getting, here? What don't I understand about the game mechanics? I've noted on a lot of DP user's XBox Live Gamertags that they all play CivIV, but nobody's playing CivRev. Is CivRev the redheaded stepchild of the series, or what? Help me out, brothers and sisters. ;)

In Civ you always need some kind of military, even if it's just some units to defend your cities. So you can't go 100% culture/science/economy, you need to have some balance. That being said, CivRev's AIs are a bunch of bloodthirsty bullies. They're always demanding things from the player and threatening war. So occasionally you'll have to smack them around a bit. CivIV, on the other hand, features a much more robust diplomacy system. It shows how much other civs like you, and you can influence them by adopting certain governments or religions, giving them gifts, helping them fight wars, trading with them, etc.

Nature Boy
09-24-2008, 11:53 AM
In Civ you always need some kind of military, even if it's just some units to defend your cities. So you can't go 100% culture/science/economy, you need to have some balance.

Agreed. That's why it's so much easier going for a domination victory IMO, as going for one tech in order to get a unit seems much easier to organize than keeping a workable military going.

What I've found is that the higher levels you play, the more important micro managing becomes. Even if you're just going for Domination.

Check out civfanatics.com for *tonnes* of info on the philosophy of Civ amongst anything else you can possibly think of.

Poofta!
09-25-2008, 01:43 AM
CivRev is a piece of shit. maybe, somewhere, somehow, the game can be fun, but it definitely does not deserve to be called Civilization.

that being said, as it was mentioned you always need SOME military in Civ, much like in real life... the series has been degrading quite a bit to be honest though.

if you want to play Civ at its best, get Civ II. yes i know, its old as hell, but its probably free out there somehwere and it works well w/ windows xp (havent tried vista). that game is pure bliss and in my opinion by far the best in the series (although i only played CivIII for like a day, i spent about a week on CivIV and about 2hours with CivRev.)

Nature Boy
09-25-2008, 10:31 AM
if you want to play Civ at its best, get Civ II. yes i know, its old as hell, but its probably free out there somehwere and it works well w/ windows xp (havent tried vista). that game is pure bliss and in my opinion by far the best in the series (although i only played CivIII for like a day, i spent about a week on CivIV and about 2hours with CivRev.)

I *love* Civ II, and never thought I'd quit it, but I have to give props to Civ IV.

I gave Civ III a chance, and loved the new ideas (having to access resources, having a cultural border for your civ, taking over other cities using culture and religion) but couldn't get into it at all. Went back to Civ II.

Civ IV built upon those things and added a *fantastic* replacement for simple Government types called Civics. I really, really dig Civ IV. Hearing Leonard Nimoy after every Technological discovery is just an awsome touch, but what I really love is how easy it is to access the Civpedia from anywhere. The game is 1000x more complex than Civ II, but learning it isn't as daunting as Civ III was IMO.

Having said all that, I'll refute the "CivRev is shite" comment.

CivRev is REVILED by the hardcore PC Civ gaming community, because it's basically an overly simplified version of Civ.

That's not a bad thing, it's just a bad thing for the hardcore PC gamer types.

As a console gamer who also loves Civ I think they did a *fantastic* job of bringing the game to the consoles, and I love having the option of playing the quick and easy version of Civ on my 360 and DS (I bought both sadly).

Graham Mitchell
09-25-2008, 06:20 PM
Wow, I'm glad other people think Civ Rev is lacking something. Having not played the other games, I didn't know what I was missing...but I could tell I was missing something.

I'll give Civ II a shot in dosbox one of these days. And it sounds like I need to procure Nikki a copy of Civ IV. Does anybody have any preference of PS3 vs. 360?

Nature Boy
09-26-2008, 09:54 AM
I'll give Civ II a shot in dosbox one of these days.

You don't need DosBox to run Civ II. I've got the "Gold Edition" and it plays just fine on XP.



And it sounds like I need to procure Nikki a copy of Civ IV. Does anybody have any preference of PS3 vs. 360?


I prefer the 360 because it's the only machine I own, but if you want to play Civ IV you have to do it on a PC :)

CivRev is your only console option :)

Graham Mitchell
09-26-2008, 10:03 AM
You don't need DosBox to run Civ II. I've got the "Gold Edition" and it plays just fine on XP.




I prefer the 360 because it's the only machine I own, but if you want to play Civ IV you have to do it on a PC :)

CivRev is your only console option :)

Well...I've only got a Mac, and I don't currently have XP running on it. I think Civ IV has a mac release, though. Hmm...could have sworn I saw Civ IV on Xbox360. I had thought I'd seen people playing it in their gamertags.

Nature Boy
09-26-2008, 11:01 AM
Well...I've only got a Mac, and I don't currently have XP running on it. I think Civ IV has a mac release, though.

D'oh - never occured to me you might not have a PC and would need DosBox for another reason :)


Hmm...could have sworn I saw Civ IV on Xbox360. I had thought I'd seen people playing it in their gamertags.

You might be thinking of the "IV" logo of GTA IV. Trust me, if Civ IV existed for the 360 I'd know about it. :)

Graham Mitchell
09-27-2008, 11:42 AM
Awesome! Thanks for your help, guys!

Zing
09-28-2008, 07:55 PM
The only complaint I had with Civ IV is that the wonders were greatly toned down. Maybe there is some ultra depth to the game that makes them stronger than it seems, but they are so minor compared to the previous games.

I have, well, had, until it was stolen last week, a Macbook and tried the Civ IV demo and it ran fine. I am considering getting the full version when I pick up a new Macbook next month.

nate1749
09-29-2008, 02:40 AM
hmmm, sounds like Civ Rev is dumbed down a bit to start the console people out on an easier level to understand. You've been built up (from earlier civ games) so this one seems like a step back, but to new civ console people it is probably a great game. I'm guessing the controls also limited this game too.

I'm looking forward to giving it a try on the DS.

Nate