I remember reading something a long time back that after beating the game you would unlock larger maps.

I am not so much interested in larger mapss as I am in being able to play with more Civs.

From what I understand you can only play 5 Civs which simoply isn't enough for me.

So I was wondering if you will be able to play with more Civs as I remember reading somewhere a long time back that you was suppose to be able to unlock larger maps which I assume would let you play with more Civs.

Also can we chooce which Victory Conditions we want to play with like the PC games. I really don't want stuff like economic, and science victory conditions in my games as I don't consider them do be true victory conditions at all.

I have read/viewed/listened to most information about this game out there and I know there are a lot more Civs than five. But only 5 at one time. You and 4 Ai's for single player. The official website has a bunch of leaders and information there that you can view.

If there is a unlockable larger map then they are keeping that very hush hush. Highly doubtful there is though. There is one size map and 4 random ai civ's that are generated. It is unclear on the ability to enable/disable victory conditions right now, what I have heard/read is unclear on that area.

Maybe we can get a response on that. My gut feeling is 'no.' victory conditions will all be enabled always.

Thats very dissappointing. I have dreamed for many years of a streamlined, less micromanagament, faster playing Civ, but for pete sake 5 Civs. That is just to few to have a really interesting game with.

I certainly hope we can turn off the victory conditions we dont want. To me at least economic, and science victories are not legit victories.

This is the type of game I have dreamed about for a long time for the life of me I just cann't understand why they would limit us to only 4 AI Civs. That really limits the epicness, and excitment of the game.

so only killing everyone else off is a legit victory to you? ;)
May I suggest you always play as the Mongols? :rolleyes:

I have read/viewed/listened to most information about this game out there and I know there are a lot more Civs than five. But only 5 at one time. You and 4 Ai's for single player. The official website has a bunch of leaders and information there that you can view.

If there is a unlockable larger map then they are keeping that very hush hush. Highly doubtful there is though. There is one size map and 4 random ai civ's that are generated. It is unclear on the ability to enable/disable victory conditions right now, what I have heard/read is unclear on that area.

Maybe we can get a response on that. My gut feeling is 'no.' victory conditions will all be enabled always.

Yeah, Firaxis have made it pretty clear that they want Civ Rev to be played how they've designed it to be played. Hence the lack of customization. I'm not sure if it helps, but I do know that the AI personalities are randomized. So that should add a little spice to the proceedings!

Fingers crossed though, Firaxis may have planned ahead and incorporated some measure of customization into the game code, to be activated at a later date by a patch.

Thats very dissappointing. I have dreamed for many years of a streamlined, less micromanagament, faster playing Civ, but for pete sake 5 Civs. That is just to few to have a really interesting game with.

I certainly hope we can turn off the victory conditions we dont want. To me at least economic, and science victories are not legit victories.

This is the type of game I have dreamed about for a long time for the life of me I just cann't understand why they would limit us to only 4 AI Civs. That really limits the epicness, and excitment of the game.

I am sure that the consoles don't have enough computing power to handle 8 or more civs in one game.

I am sure that the consoles don't have enough computing power to handle 8 or more civs in one game.

That is total BS and you know it. Both the PS3, and 360 could handle 16 Civs. This is simply the devlopers keeping a very tight noose on us and forcing us to play how they want to play.

so only killing everyone else off is a legit victory to you?
May I suggest you always play as the Mongols?

Not at all both Diplomatic Victories, and Time Victories are legit. Sadly it looks like they have neither of those in Civ Rev.

The victory conditions I played Civ4:BTS were domination, diplomatic, and time. These 3 are all legit victory conditions.

That is total BS and you know it. Both the PS3, and 360 could handle 16 Civs. This is simply the devlopers keeping a very tight noose on us and forcing us to play how they want to play.

Whoa-ho-hoooaa, buddy. I don't know that at all.

I am sure that the consoles don't have enough computing power to handle 8 or more civs in one game.

I disagree.

It has nothing at all to do with any limitations of the hardware. It's a design thing. Firaxis wanted Civ Rev to be a short game, played on small maps, and where you quickly made contact with your neighbours. That's why there's no customization options.

On the plus side though, doing it that way does leave a bit more scope for the eye-candy, use of physics, and terrific battle animations they've incorporated into the game.

Personally, I can't wait to get my grubby paws on it! :)

I disagree.

It has nothing at all to do with any limitations of the hardware. It's a design thing. Firaxis wanted Civ Rev to be a short game, played on small maps, and where you quickly made contact with your neighbours.

That may be. I really don't know the answer.

But if consoles were capable of handling games like Civ 4 or GCII, why wouldn't they make them? I'm sure there is a market for them.

But if consoles were capable of handling games like Civ 4 or GCII, why wouldn't they make them? I'm sure there is a market for them.

You're probably right. It's just that traditionally, turn-based gaming has generally been regarded as being the domain of the PC. Consequently, there aren't too many console developers around brave enough to risk the investment required to test the t.b.s market. So all credit to Sid and the gang for having the bottle to take the plunge with Civ Rev!

Hopefully, it's commercial success might just be enough to restore developer confidence in the genre. And who knows, we might not have to wait too long before we do start seeing the likes of Stardock coding for the consoles, and handhelds.

I remember reading something a long time back that after beating the game you would unlock larger maps.

I am not so much interested in larger mapss as I am in being able to play with more Civs.

From what I understand you can only play 5 Civs which simoply isn't enough for me.

So I was wondering if you will be able to play with more Civs as I remember reading somewhere a long time back that you was suppose to be able to unlock larger maps which I assume would let you play with more Civs.

Also can we chooce which Victory Conditions we want to play with like the PC games. I really don't want stuff like economic, and science victory conditions in my games as I don't consider them do be true victory conditions at all.

No unlockable bonuses

No customization (except perhaps the orignal, difficulty level, and sea level, not too sure)

5 Civ's Single Player

4 Civ's Multiplayer (Edit: Actually there are five civs online still, except one is AI, four are human players)

^ Those numbers will work, becasue the size of the world you'll be playing on is tiny compared to the sizes of other civ games, this makes it quicker and more action packed, but as to wether it'll be more or less fun, i'll have to wait and see.

That may be. I really don't know the answer.

But if consoles were capable of handling games like Civ 4 or GCII, why wouldn't they make them? I'm sure there is a market for them.


beacuase they would look graphically retarded on a console.

I am sure that the consoles don't have enough computing power to handle 8 or more civs in one game. The PS3 Cell is extremely powerful at crunching numbers so have no problem running 8 or more civs (AI)and probably a lot faster than most PC. According from what I've read the number of civ able to play at a time is limited (as well as map size) to keep the game time down to a few hours so you can finish a game in one sitting.

Again this is why I think it was smart for Firaxis not to waste time developing a PC version of Revolution as it would disappoint too many Civ fans. If you want a civ game with a lot of options and civs on a huge map then surely Revolution isn't design for you.

Noted that if you increase the max number of civ in civ4 (40+ civ mod) it seems to slow the game down even when you playing a game with a few civs (like 8 for example). This is probably one reason Firaxis didn't incease the max in BTS. (Someone wrote it has something to how the AI handles diplomacy.)
But if consoles were capable of handling games like Civ 4 or GCII, why wouldn't they make them? I'm sure there is a market for them. PC has a at least two huge advantage over consoles with it comes to these type of games
1) PC usually has more ram and even uses HDD file swapping if a PC is a little short of ram.
2) Freedom: Developers and fans have more power to build mods (like FfH2) and in Stardock case update their game like crazy without Sony or Microsoft say in it.

I am sure that the consoles don't have enough computing power to handle 8 or more civs in one game.

actually, the 360 and PS3 are both likely more powerful than the computer you are using right now ;)

If either were sold as PCs with all their internal parts priced at PC standards, they would be higher end PCs that would cost over $1500

Not at all both Diplomatic Victories, and Time Victories are legit. Sadly it looks like they have neither of those in Civ Rev.

The victory conditions I played Civ4:BTS were domination, diplomatic, and time. These 3 are all legit victory conditions.

I'm not a fan of Time victories, but my favorite victory condition in Civ4 is the diplomatic victory...guess I'm just too much of a builder at heart :mischief:

You're probably right. It's just that traditionally, turn-based gaming has generally been regarded as being the domain of the PC. Consequently, there aren't too many console developers around brave enough to risk the investment required to test the t.b.s market. So all credit to Sid and the gang for having the bottle to take the plunge with Civ Rev!

Hopefully, it's commercial success might just be enough to restore developer confidence in the genre. And who knows, we might not have to wait too long before we do start seeing the likes of Stardock coding for the consoles, and handhelds.

TBS games work pretty well on the DS. Look at the Advance Wars series. But, then again, AW games aren't on as large a scale as Civ is (Advance Wars gives you control over a single army, and the focus is on tactics, not long-term strategy), nor can anyone reasonably expect an Advance Wars game to last anywhere near as long as a Civ game (I've been playing one game on Civ IV for nearly a month now, but this is a bad example, since I don't play as often as I would like to). That said, I would love to have a long-term strategy game for my DS or my Wii. The fact of the matter is that I have more time to use on consoles than I do on my trusty Mac. Having to share a computer severely cuts down on gaming time. While Revolution looks like a blast, I wouldn't mind having a larger game.

TBS games work pretty well on the DS. Look at the Advance Wars series. But, then again, AW games aren't on as large a scale as Civ is (Advance Wars gives you control over a single army, and the focus is on tactics, not long-term strategy)

Dont' forget Age of Empires ;)

If I can't play with at least 10 players or AIs then I am not buying this game. I will stick with my Call of Duty 4 and other shooters. What the hell are they thinking man!

Only 5 civs...? :shifty:

*Swedishguy quietly backs away from the accursed game*

You lost a potential buyer, Firaxis!

If I can't play with at least 10 players or AIs then I am not buying this game. I will stick with my Call of Duty 4 and other shooters. What the hell are they thinking man!

PC Civ is supposed to have epic fun games
Civ Rev is supposed to have quick fun games, to make this possible the things that stretch the games to epic times had to be cut out, this emant making the maps really small and havuin far fewer civs playing at one time. If they didn't do this then military victory wouldn't work in the timeframe, and all victories have to be achievable to make it a civ game.

PC Civ is supposed to have epic fun games
Civ Rev is supposed to have quick fun games, to make this possible the things that stretch the games to epic times had to be cut out, this emant making the maps really small and havuin far fewer civs playing at one time. If they didn't do this then military victory wouldn't work in the timeframe, and all victories have to be achievable to make it a civ game.

Then I will not play it. Epic fun is the essence of the Civilization franchise?

Again. I am not going to buy it

Cutting the number of Civs has nothing to do with making the game faster. They could still put all 16 Civs on a tiny map. Heck I played some games with 18 Civs on a dual map in Civ4:BTS.

The thing that they should have done to most speed up the game is for the AI to automatically controle all of your military units. That is by far the most time consuming part of Civ is moving your military units in a offensive war.

If the AI controled your military units that would save you a ton of time, and micromanagement.

I have always hoped for a Civ that would allow you to put your military units under AI controle, as that would take all the tedious micromanagement out, and really make the game much faster playing.

Removing the ability to manage your battles, would completley destroy civilization. You can't automate everything, it would be like watching a really stupid interactive movie.

Epic fun isn't the whole point of the civ franchise, You can play duels and small maps with not so many opponents for a quick game. Personally i've always preferred the epic game myself, but Civ Rev quicker games sounds like it's defintely worth a shot to me.

That is total BS. It would make Civ far more fun if you didn't have the tedious, boring micromanagement of mnaging the battles.

Civ should be about making grand stratgic decisions not tedious minor tactical descions.

All the tactical decisions should be taken out, and only the major strategic decisions should be left to you as leader.

The kind of Civ I want to see you would only be responsible for wheather you want a offensive war, defensive war or a balance between the 2. The AI would then carry out your stategic decision.

This would improve Civ so much.

I have quit many Civ games I became bored to death of the tedious, boring micrommanagement of moving units around.

War has never been fun in any Civ game ever, and that is a shame.

Basically my dream Civ would be a Civ that you were only responsible for major strategic decisions, and the AI would then implement your policies, and carry out all the tactics, and micromanagement.

Moving military units is very boring, and tedious, and I have quit many Civs games because the war became to boring, and tedious.

Leaders should moy have to micromanage they should instead be responsible for only major strategic decisions.

what your describing is an a really interactive movie, where every 5 mins a message pops up, shall we attack china mr president?.

Rubbish

The only fun part of the wars is too make your units slaughter an enemy stack, and burn all thier cities. If that was all automated, then you would basically become an advsior whilst an AI plays for you, just stupid.

Well if you could control units much more as a Group, and give them more general orders (and if they moved faster)

the return of armies in civ rev, is a good way of doing that, and the fact that the maps are much smaller will mean less tiome travelling, so ... yay.

Well that has only been the most boring part. Moving tons of units. I have quit so many Civ games because of that. I would love to fight more offensive wars, but that always turns into a boring, tedious chore, and it is not fun because of all the time you waste moving units.

That should be taken care by the AI. You should be able to tell them what city you want captured, and stuff like that, but the AI should control all units.

Yea the actually capturing of cities is fun, but the actual moving of units is a boring, and tedious chore that should be removed.

i suspect that if you jsut clicked an attack button next to a city, and let the AI do everything for you, it wouldn't be anywhere near as fun,w ouldn't be boring but defeinetly wouldn't be fun either.

oy...way OT lately in here...

I think that being able to unlock larger maps or play with more civs should at least be an option. I don't think that it needs to be on the scope of Civ4, but at least having the option for more civs at a time would be awesome. The games would still be faster than PC ones thanks to all the streamlining done.