View Full Version : Some more details about Civ Revolutions


Ikael
May 14, 2008, 10:55 PM
Well, I am quite interested on this game (specially on its ds version since well, who wouldnīt love a portable civ?) so I went to the 2K forums and asked some questions to their mods which they answered me quite nicely. So, more small dettails about the game:

- You cannot assimilate a city with walls unless you have the Hollywood wonder! :eek: Thatīs a huge blow against culture players like myself. But then again, they also claimed that walls are extremely expensive, so you never know.

- Food is only used to make a city grow, famines doesnīt exist. That is, a city can grow undefinetly O_o

- The city radious of squares that can be worked starts being a 3X3 box. If you want it to improve, you will have to build a courthouse, so they are essential buildings this time.

- Each time you reach a certain amount of gold, a caravan will be created in your civ, ready to stablish new trade routes and gain money from them, civ 2 style.

- Naval units now are useful since they give naval support to land units when attacking a coastatal city.

- Planes will be like on civilization 2: land units with lots of movement and limited fuel.

- Units will be produced into massive numbers since there is no wasted production: if you city generates 20 production per turn and you build a unit that only requires 10, it will generate 2 of these units per turn O_o

- You cannot have open border treatries nor trade maps! The only way to explore will be by naval units or by sending explorer units beyond the other civilizationīs borders. It seems that they are really pushing exploration this time.

- Leonardoīs workshop will come back in full force! automatic upgrade for each one of your units! So awesome.

- It seems that the mongolian trait of -50% to the cost of building calvaries was wayyyy too much awesome, so instead of that, when they beat a barbarian campament it automatically becames a mongol city. Mightly cool trait, if you ask me.

- And my favourite one: the tech tree will be like Master of Orion 2. That is, you choose to research a certain tech from a group and the rest are discarded, meaning that if you want to have all of them you will have to trade them or stole them from your neightbours, making each play different.

- There is only one nuke in the game, and it can only be built by getting the manhattan project wonder.

The goverment effects will be:
- Despotism: Nothing
- Monarchy: doubles the effect of the palace (culture and spyonage related)
- Republic - Unknown
- Communism - +50% production. Shuts down temples and cathedrals
- Democracy - +50% trade. Cannot declare wars
- Fundamentalism. +1 attack to all the units. Shuts down universities and libraries.

And it is difficult to believe, but Spanish are going to be a good civ to play with this time.

Sooo... any thoughts guys? to me it seems like a blast, even thought I fear that it would become a warmonger paradyse.

dojoboy
May 15, 2008, 07:10 AM
- You cannot have open border treatries nor trade maps! The only way to explore will be by naval units or by sending explorer units beyond the other civilizationīs borders. It seems that they are really pushing exploration this time.


I can understand not trading maps, but can you steal maps?

dshirk
May 15, 2008, 08:46 AM
Just a quick clarification on a couple of these points. For Gold, there are different milestone bonuses you can reach, not just caravans. For instance, the very first one at 100 Gold is a free Settler.

The Mongol trait, while pretty cool, has a potential drawback. Barbarian villages are often in places that are not ideal locations for cities (no production squares, food, etc.). So while you might be able to grow your empire quickly, the quality of the cities may or may not be sub-par.

The Tech Tree is not quite like that. There are never techs that are discarded, even though you can certainly trade or purchase them from other players.

Under Republic, Settlers only cost a single population point.

As for map trading, there is none. However, defeated barbarians and friendly villages will frequently point you to (and expose on the map) other goodies like artifacts, barbarian villages, etc.

dojoboy
May 15, 2008, 09:01 AM
As for map trading, there is none. However, defeated barbarians and friendly villages will frequently point you to (and expose on the map) other goodies like artifacts, barbarian villages, etc.

:goodjob: :goodjob:

Ikael
May 15, 2008, 10:43 PM
Just a quick clarification on a couple of these points. For Gold, there are different milestone bonuses you can reach, not just caravans. For instance, the very first one at 100 Gold is a free Settler.

Oh, I thought that caravans were a quite common milestone bonus. Can you build them as a normal unit or get them in another different way?

The Mongol trait, while pretty cool, has a potential drawback. Barbarian villages are often in places that are not ideal locations for cities (no production squares, food, etc.). So while you might be able to grow your empire quickly, the quality of the cities may or may not be sub-par.
Well, thing is, there is no manteinance costs in this game, right? I think that makes the adquisition of cities in the middle of nowhere way more attractive.

The Tech Tree is not quite like that. There are never techs that are discarded, even though you can certainly trade or purchase them from other players.
Oh... well, that is a pity. I really think that such a type of tech tree helps to increase replayability A LOT. Still, I think that I readed somwhere about being able to miss techs more easily or something along these lines.

Under Republic, Settlers only cost a single population point.
Is that is? It does not sound like a great advantage, really, unless settlers cost a lot of population. Even with the inmigration mechanic, I donīt see that much useful nor too much characteristic of a republic.

As for map trading, there is none. However, defeated barbarians and friendly villages will frequently point you to (and expose on the map) other goodies like artifacts, barbarian villages, etc.
:goodjob: great. It seems that you guys are pushing the exploration aspect a lot this time. Me likes!

homan1983
May 19, 2008, 06:40 PM
Governments seems <poor> overall, not just republic. I'm really really disappointed

dojoboy
May 19, 2008, 07:14 PM
Governments seems <poor> overall, not just republic. I'm really really disappointed

In what way? How would you like their bonuses?

homan1983
May 19, 2008, 08:45 PM
The bonuses are pathetic to the point of non-existence. The idea that democracies can't declare war is brought back again.

When I read that Soren Johnson was making civ4, after doing some readup on the guy I got REALLY excited; I can feel when a developer is into the game deep down in their heart and has ideas that will improve it. And I wasn't disappointed when civ4 came out:

from the
- super specialists
- civic system
- religion
- new much more important role of resources [where every city would typically have at least 1 res. with capitals/top cities typically having 4-5 resources]
- not about how many cities you can spam

to the core philosophy of the civ4 design being that "adding complication doesn't mean the game is better, more CHOICES is what makes a game strategic":
In civ2/3 every grassland was irrigated and every hill was mined, in civ4 grasslands competed for irrigation and cottage and hills for windmill and mine. And the choice of government as well as a balance of short-term(irrigation) and long-term(cottage) played a pivotal role in the decision making process.

Then there is the BIG change to military - new promotion system, as well as the strength based system as opposed to the attack/defence. When I first heard this idea I hated it, but when playing I realized that Soren Johnson had pulled it off very nicely. Here was a game where unlike civ2 there was no mentality of "all mech. inf on defence and all howitzer on offence". Now you had to bring combined arms, cities would need to be defended by some pikemen, and some archers, maybe some catapults and knights thrown in for active defending since siege would devastate a SOD city.

There was also the 2 national wonder per city - which combined with the choices of national wonders make for some deep strategic decisions.
A half-arsed attempt woulda been if they had applied the 2 wonder rule, but made only a few wonders which would for all intents and purposes have made it another version of irrigation and mines in civ2. But here you had competing national wonders to complement the 2 wonder rule: do you build a national epic in the city with oxford uni. ? or is your commerce city best saved for wall street, and how do we distribute iron works|heroic epic|west point|red cross.

I don't wanna drag it on since I've typed a lot, suffice it to say there is a hell of a lot more that could be said about civ4 and how great it is.

You know a good test of how interactive a civ game is, is seeing how much of the game is "automated" and how much "decision based".
In civ2, I would say almost everything was automated except city build order, diplomacy and unit movement.
So improvements were solvable - no decision required
Later government = better - no decision required
Its almost like watching a movie.

In civ4 we get:
- Choice of improvement
- direction of civics and civic combination
- spread of religion[corp]
- specialist and super specialist
- national wonder distribution
- techtree path is not forced, the requirements are OR not AND
- choice of super specialist usage
- wider choice of win condition
- 1000% improved trade choices
- quality [settler spam] vs quality [few settlers then concentrate on research]

All that on top of the Civ2/3 style.

I have nothing against what peoples' usual complaints regarding civ revolution is. But there are REAAAAAAALLY annoying things about CivRev that have nothing to do with the simplification of civ.

Organised religion alone in civ4 gave 25% :hammers: boost, other civics would give specialist +3:science: or cottage +2:commerce: or state property which removed distance corruption, improved workshops by 33%++, gave cities +10%:hammers:and removed corporations.
A civ would have not 1 but 5 of these civics.

Now we have an entire government bonus making a settler cost -1 pop, and democracy gives 50% more gold and as if that isn't bad enought, it comes with a civ-disavvanatage: you can't declare war - which is RIDICULOUS, 50% is bad enough, the 2nd part is just an insult that brings back awful memories of civ1-2 and shows just how arrogant Mr Sidney Meier is.

Non Declaration of War shoulda been a no go for any government bonus its:
- not fun
- not historically accurate [iraq? afghanistan? vietnam?]
- not fun
- Removes a HUGE aspect of civilization for a tiny bonus
- no fun at ALL

I can't imagine how it got past the design board (actually I do, and it includes someone who's so big headed he tries to include his name in the titles of games he's worked on, even those he hasn't in fact)


And finally there is that fact that out of 15 Civs, they couldn't give 1 slot to Persians. Thats just shocking.:eek::eek::eek:
Thinking of the greatest empires, The first few that come to mind are Brits Roman and then Persian, and although some people may argue that point, no one would say the Persians don't deserve a slot in a 15 slot game.

But Persia has an even bigger role: tradition in civ games. A lot of civfanatics LOVE Persians. Persians became a civ icon in civ3 when their immortals made the civ itself immortal. And this continued in civ4, in fact probably expanded.
I would say that Persians had the biggest fan of any of the civs in civ4, yet they release civ rev and somehow they disappeared.

Whats worst is that the developers insult us. Unlike other games, the people who play civ tend to be mature and intelligent - a lot of em married with wives and kids, but they wouldn't even take the time to come here and explain to us why there is a black hole in the civilization lineup, the most anticipated civ is missing and why they created a civ called "africa". Don't they respect us enough to at least give us an explanation?

dojoboy
May 19, 2008, 09:04 PM
Wow, that was quite a bit. Can't accuse you of not thinking about it. ;)

The bonuses are pathetic to the point of non-existence. The idea that democracies can't declare war is brought back again.

I wonder if this is in some way related to balancing the victory conditions. For example, I assume democracies have wonderful economic bonuses. So, a person aiming for the economic victory would opt for this government. Perhaps not as realistic as one would want.

Thrallia
May 20, 2008, 02:57 AM
And finally there is that fact that out of 15 Civs, they couldn't give 1 slot to Persians. Thats just shocking.:eek::eek::eek:
Thinking of the greatest empires, The first few that come to mind are Brits Roman and then Persian, and although some people may argue that point, no one would say the Persians don't deserve a slot in a 15 slot game.

But Persia has an even bigger role: tradition in civ games. A lot of civfanatics LOVE Persians. Persians became a civ icon in civ3 when their immortals made the civ itself immortal. And this continued in civ4, in fact probably expanded.
I would say that Persians had the biggest fan of any of the civs in civ4, yet they release civ rev and somehow they disappeared.

Whats worst is that the developers insult us. Unlike other games, the people who play civ tend to be mature and intelligent - a lot of em married with wives and kids, but they wouldn't even take the time to come here and explain to us why there is a black hole in the civilization lineup, the most anticipated civ is missing and why they created a civ called "africa". Don't they respect us enough to at least give us an explanation?

What civ called 'Africa?'

You want the list of civs in CivRev?
America
Arabia
Aztec
China
Egypt
England
France
Germany
Greece
India
Japan
Mongolia
Rome
Russia
Spain
Zulu

Who on that list would you replace with Persia? I don't think Persia makes the cut...The designers of Civ1 and Civ2 didn't think Persia made the cut of 16(21 for Civ2) either.

I disagree with you that Sid Meier doesn't know what he's doing, and I disagree with you that CivRev will be disappointing. It isn't meant to be like Civ4, and it isn't meant for the same audience. Some of us may enjoy it because it is still Civ...but many of us won't because it takes out a lot from the PC series.

homan1983
May 20, 2008, 04:32 AM
Wow, that was quite a bit. Can't accuse you of not thinking about it. ;)



I wonder if this is in some way related to balancing the victory conditions. For example, I assume democracies have wonderful economic bonuses. So, a person aiming for the economic victory would opt for this government. Perhaps not as realistic as one would want.

But thats the point, it would be great if democracies have powerful economic bonuses, unfortunately all government bonuses are weak or very weak and can barely match up with a single civic in civ4.

What civ called 'Africa?'
I hope, not for my sake, but for the sake of Civilization itself that you're now correct and they removed the atrocity.
But if it is so, then know that it wasn't always so:

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1375&c=26
To quote: "Greetings from Shaka Zulu of the Africans"

This is from thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=244152&page=2.

So I do NOT make baseless comments.

Now regarding the inclusion of Persians, which should frankly be referred hereon as a crime against humanity: The absense from Civ1&2 was disappointing, but not crucial. The choice of civ then had no impact.

In both Civ3 and 4 where it was important however Persians were always at the forefront.

Again this also shows that Mr sidney has something against Persians as a civ [lets hope not as a people at least] because civ1 and 2 were made under him and persians were not included, someone else makes civ3 and civ4 and the persians make a cut. Now he makes CivRev and Persians are out.

I disagree with you that CivRev will be disappointing. It isn't meant to be like Civ4
Wrong and wrong, I never said civrev will be disappointing - at best you can quote me as saying that governments in civrev are EXTREMELY disappointing and you're wrong about me saying its meant to be like Civ4: I stated specifically that my criticism about CivRev was not because it was too different or too simple compared to civ4 - I merely showed civ4 to say how a game can be successful and vastly improved from previous incarnations.

Who on that list would you replace with Persia

You're joking? Because if not then this is the last time I'll waste my breath on you. Persia is amongst the top5 Civilization legacies IN THE ENTIRE, HISTORY, OF OUT WORLD!

You're telling me with a straight face that they shouldn't make it in the top15?

Again you make a foolish comment.

Tell me why at the very least, the following should make it before Persians:

America
Arabia
Aztec
China
Egypt
Germany
India
Japan
Russia
Spain

You provided no proof, citation or backup YET AGAIN. But let me do so for you:
A poll was done in this very forum: Which civ do you wish was included in CivRev (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=250533).
The result?
42% of people who voted thought that Persia should be included 33% that Babylonians, and 30% that Ottomans.

I tell you what, its looking more and more like you're a fanboy who thinks that he can respond to people's criticisms of CivRev with the same statement over and over again: CivRev is not Civ5.

In fact I find people like you more annoying than those who argue that CivRev should be Civ5.
You're blind following of Sidney is not gonna get you anywhere personally, and certainly won't help Civilization get anywhere: its ok to criticise something we've come to love, because nothing is perfect.

And lets face it, Mr Sidney Meiers was the same person who thought his shrill voice was the right choice in replacing Leonard Nimoy for the expansion of Civ4.

No one minds if they decide to take a new direction in Civ. But we CAN criticise the choices within the new direction, without being grouped in with some imaginary bunch of people who supposedly don't like a direction change.

In every, single civ release I'd been excited without limit, this is the first civ where I can't say the same thing, this is the first civ where the boards are filled with disappointment.

And again we ask the developers: Why do you hate us so?

Why don't you tell us why you didn't include Persians?

Why does America have the best racials of all the civs combined?

Why do you not try to create a game without bias for any particular side like any good game designer should?

Why haven't explained the peculiar choices made?

Thrallia
May 20, 2008, 05:58 AM
I hope, not for my sake, but for the sake of Civilization itself that you're now correct and they removed the atrocity.
But if it is so, then know that it wasn't always so:

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1375&c=26
To quote: "Greetings from Shaka Zulu of the Africans"

This is from thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=244152&page=2.

So I do NOT make baseless comments.

I never said you do make baseless comments(although you've indeed made a few in your ranting response to me)

It is true, there is no 'africans' and I doubt there ever were any plans for such a civ. I suspect that it was a placeholder while they decided whether to use the Zulus or some other african civ(such as Ethiopia)

Now regarding the inclusion of Persians, which should frankly be referred hereon as a crime against humanity: The absense from Civ1&2 was disappointing, but not crucial. The choice of civ then had no impact.

In both Civ3 and 4 where it was important however Persians were always at the forefront.

Again this also shows that Mr sidney has something against Persians as a civ [lets hope not as a people at least] because civ1 and 2 were made under him and persians were not included, someone else makes civ3 and civ4 and the persians make a cut. Now he makes CivRev and Persians are out.

So...you had no problem with the Persians not being in the game in Civ1 and 2, despite them being 'one of the top 5 civs ever', but you do have a problem with them not being in it now? Why? And why must it be because Sid has something against the persian empire?(there are no persian people anymore...only arabs who wish they were persian)

Wrong and wrong, I never said civrev will be disappointing - at best you can quote me as saying that governments in civrev are EXTREMELY disappointing and you're wrong about me saying its meant to be like Civ4: I stated specifically that my criticism about CivRev was not because it was too different or too simple compared to civ4 - I merely showed civ4 to say how a game can be successful and vastly improved from previous incarnations.

You are right there(for once in this post), I misread the reason why you were talking up so many of the features in Civ4.

You're joking? Because if not then this is the last time I'll waste my breath on you. Persia is amongst the top5 Civilization legacies IN THE ENTIRE, HISTORY, OF OUT WORLD!

I'd call that a baseless comment...you have given no proof for why it is one of the top 5 civs(what are the other top 5 civs? what have they done to warrant top 5 status?)

You're telling me with a straight face that they shouldn't make it in the top15?

Again you make a foolish comment.

Actually, I'm telling you with rolling eyes that I can see reasons why they might not be in the top 16. I've made no foolish comments...just because you disagree with me doesn't make me foolish.

Tell me why at the very least, the following should make it before Persians:

America: Only the most powerful single country ever...also the reason why WWI and WWII were won by the allies, not the axis
Arabia: Created the basis for all of modern day mathematics and medicine
Aztec: The most advanced and longest lived of the American empires...would have lasted hundreds more years if not for smallpox
China: One of the oldest and most venerated civilizations. Has lasted through thousands of years and for thousands of years was the most advanced civilization in the world...discovered machinery and gunpowder a millenium before Europe
Egypt: The first civilization to create truly wondrous structures that could withstand the test of time. Invented writing and was an empire for over a thousand years
Germany: Has been a military power in Europe for 1200 years, was the birthplace of the printing press and home of the largest theological schism ever
India: Home to dozens of minor empires, has been ruled in a single empire for thousands of years
Japan: Home of many of the martial arts and various other martial practices. Samurai, Ninjas, and the Bushido Code(warrior code of honor) were all begun here...along with having lasted as a country for thousands of years
Russia: Has lasted as a country for over a thousand years...was instrumental in turning back the Mongol hordes, and in the end of WWII. Also the largest country ever in land area
Spain: Was the most extensive empire ever, having conquered or colonized much of the african coast and most of the Americas. They were the first European country to repel the muslim invaders and have lasted as a country for over 1200 years

Now for Persia...was the largest empire of its time...lasted less than 300 years, made no technological advances, no wonders of engineering or architecture...all of its culture was taken over and twisted by the Greek and Ptolemaic empires that followed its collapse.

For that reason, I can see it as being one of the top 20 civs, but I cannot place it in the top 16 without argument from other civilizations...so I have no problem with their absence.

You provided no proof, citation or backup YET AGAIN. But let me do so for you:
A poll was done in this very forum: Which civ do you wish was included in CivRev (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=250533).
The result?
42% of people who voted thought that Persia should be included 33% that Babylonians, and 30% that Ottomans.

That poll was done for civs that were not in the game, but that people thought should be...sure it was #1 in that poll, but that doesn't mean that it belonged in the game any more than before the poll was done...and the poll was highly subjective anyway...other deserving civs such as the Hebrews, Sumerians and Carthaginians got nowhere near as many votes as the Ottomans

I tell you what, its looking more and more like you're a fanboy who thinks that he can respond to people's criticisms of CivRev with the same statement over and over again: CivRev is not Civ5.

In fact I find people like you more annoying than those who argue that CivRev should be Civ5.
You're blind following of Sidney is not gonna get you anywhere personally, and certainly won't help Civilization get anywhere: its ok to criticise something we've come to love, because nothing is perfect.

I'm not gonna criticize CivRev till I play it, because I've liked everything I've heard and read about it. I'm no fanboy of anything, as anyone who's actually read my posts could tell you. And I never said anything about CivRev not being Civ5...I couldn't care less if it was, I'll play them both anyway.

And lets face it, Mr Sidney Meiers was the same person who thought his shrill voice was the right choice in replacing Leonard Nimoy for the expansion of Civ4.

I don't care what 'reason' they gave for not bringing back Leonard Nimoy, the reason was that he was too expensive for them to hire again.

And again we ask the developers: Why do you hate us so?

Why don't you tell us why you didn't include Persians?

Why does America have the best racials of all the civs combined?

Why do you not try to create a game without bias for any particular side like any good game designer should?

Why haven't explained the peculiar choices made?

Why do you think America has the best bonuses? Only 3 or 4 civs have even had theirs released, how can you be so sure america will still have the best when they are all released?

They've explained many choices they've made at the 2k forums...if you are so desirous of hearing why, then please go there to find out.

homan1983
May 20, 2008, 07:04 AM
It is true, there is no 'africans' and I doubt there ever were any plans for such a civ.

But thats your opinion and its baseless - after all they did include a civ called "native american".
The facts prove you wrong

you have given no proof for why it is one of the top 5 civs
I haven't given proof true. Thats like me not giving proof when saying the Romans were one of the greatest civilizations that ever existed, or me not giving proof as to why 2+2 equals 4: its widely accepted and in the general public knowledge, if you think the Persian empire was rubbish then the ownus is on you now to do so - many many historians have already proved the opposite

Actually, I'm telling you with rolling eyes that I can see reasons why they might not be in the top 16. I've made no foolish comments...just because you disagree with me doesn't make me foolish.

Actually that is a foolish comment. Some things are merely opinion; one could probably argue endlessly with me about which civs are the top 3 civilizations in our history - but to say that the Persians shouldn't be included in the top15 Civs in history is just slander and IS IN FACT foolish.

It shows clear bias and discrimination in my opinion.
If someone were to make a modern simulation or game and didn't include America [being the power that she is at the moment] then I would equally say that the designer was anti-American: in fact it would be obvious and the discerning of the fans would already know it.

I don't care what 'reason' they gave for not bringing back Leonard Nimoy, the reason was that he was too expensive for them to hire again.

Again you misunderstand me, its totally understandable that they couldn't bring him back due to financial restraints. Thats not my point, I'm just showing how arrogan Sidney Meier has become when he instantly decides to put his voice as a replacement, which makes me cringe everytime I research one of the techs he is narrating. Out of 6 billion people in this world he would prolly be the last person who should have done narrating (its simply not his job or talent), this just goes to show his persona: as does putting his name in the title of every game he releases...

America: Only the most powerful single country ever...also the reason why WWI and WWII were won by the allies, not the axis

Just because Fox news says it, it doesn't make it so.

At one point, the British empire stretched so far that they said the sun never sets on the British Empire: the sun always shone at some part of the british empire. Britain ruled 1/4 of the world.

At this territorial peak, the Roman Empire controlled approximately 5,900,000 kmē (2,300,000 sq mi) of land surface. Because of the Empire's vast extent and long endurance, Roman influence upon the language, religion, architecture, philosophy, law and government of nations around the world lasts to this day.
Rome was also a pioneer in engineering, military science and logistics, as well as culture.

Then there is the Persian Empire
The Persian Empire expanded under multiple leaders, one one such occasion, it ruled the world all the way from india, through modern day pakistan and afghanistan, to Iran, Iraq and most of the Middle East, towards both Egypt and the Ottoman Empire into europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

It is fair to say that today, the United States of America is the most powerful country in the world but your statement is just....

I don't even want to get into WWI and WWII but your lack of knowledge about the subject becomes apparent, my question to you is: why do you bring them up if you clearly know so little about them?


Why do you think America has the best bonuses? Only 3 or 4 civs have even had theirs released

See here is where I begin to wonder, do you just like arguing for the sake of argument? Because it certainly seems so, it looks as though you have just opened a random thread and decided to mindlessly argue to a random poster:

Here is the page you can find the civs revealed:

http://www.civilizationrevolution.com/community_features.html

Currently the following civs and all the bonuses have been revealed:


French:

Starting: Begin the game with a Cathedral
Ancient: Receive knowledge of Pottery
Medieval: Half-price Roads
Industrial: +2 Cannon attack
Modern: +1 Riflemen movement


Arabs:

Starting: Begin with knowledge of Religion
Ancient: +50% caravan gold
Medieval: Free Mathematics tech
Industrial: +1 Horseman/Knight attack
Modern: 2% interest on gold


Aztecs:

Starting: Aztecs begin with a wealth of gold
Ancient: Units heal after winning in combat
Medieval: Temples provide +3 science
Industrial: Half-price roads
Modern: +50% gold production


Zulu:

Starting: Zulus can overrun their enemies more easily
Ancient: +1 Warrior movement
Medieval: Cities grow faster
Industrial: +50% gold production
Modern: Half-price Riflemen
Unique Units: Warrior becomes Impi Warrior


Spain:

Starting: Begin with knowledge of Navigation
Ancient: +1 Naval combat
Medieval: Double gold earned from villages
Industrial: +50% gold production
Modern: +1 production from hills
Unique Units: Knight becomes Conquistador


China:

Starting: Chinese begin with knowledge of Writing
Ancient: New cities have +1 population
Medieval: Receive knowledge of Literacy tech
Industrial: Half-price Libraries
Modern: Cities not affected by Anarchy


Russia:

Bonuses for the Russian Civilization
Starting: Russians begin with more of the map visible
Ancient: +1 food from plains
Medieval: defensive units receive the Loyalty upgrade
Industrial: Half-price Riflemen
Modern: Half-price Spies
Unique Units: Horseman becomes Cossack Horseman, Tank becomes T34 Tank


Japan:

Starting: Knowledge of Ceremonial Burial
Ancient: +1 food from Sea Regions
Medieval: +1 Samurai Knight attack
Industrial: Cities not affected by Anarchy
Modern: Defensive units receive Loyalty upgrade
Unique Units: Knight becomes Samurai Knight, Pikeman becomes Ashigaru Pikemen, Bomber becomes Val Bomber, Fighter becomes Zero Fighter


America:

Bonuses for American Civilization
Starting: Begin the game with a Great Person
Ancient: 2% interest on gold
Medieval: Rush units at half-price
Industrial: +1 food from plains
Modern: Factories provide 3x production
Unique Units: Tank becomes Sherman Tank, Bomber becomes Flying Fortress, Fighter becomes Mustang Fighter

India:

Bonuses for Indian Civilization
Starting: Begin with access to all resources
Ancient: Cities not affected by Anarchy
Medieval: Free Religion tech
Industrial: Half-price Settlers
Modern: Half-price Courthouse


Egypt:

Starting: Begin the game with a Wonder
Ancient: +2 food from desert regions
Medieval: Receive knowledge of Irrigation
Industrial: +1 Rifleman movement
Modern: +50% caravan gold


Mongols:

Starting: +1 production from Mountains
Ancient: Half-price Horsemen
Medieval: +50% trade from captured cities
Industrial: +2 food from desert regions
Modern: Free Communism tech
Unique Units: Horseman becomes Keshik

although I must note that I read somewhere the mongol half price cavalry bonus has been changed to become: "when capturing a barbarian village it becomes a city"


Now I have nothing against America and I certainly want it to be competitive. I don't want ANY civ to be worst or better than another. However look at the bonuses, most civs have 1-2 GREAT traits at best, like the arabs 2% interest which can give equal income to 1-2 cities possibly, or the Egyptian +2:food: from desert, and that kickass mongol half price cavalry.

But it seems like they took every single good trait that other civs have, and gave it to America:

2% interest in age2,
HALF PRICE unit purchase in age3
Age4 gives the best russian bonus which adds +1:food: to plains (making them better than grassland

To top it off, they also get some out of this world amazing traits unique to them:

- a free great person as soon as game starts (lol)
- factories provide 3 times the production [oh mother of god!]

Now ask yourself this, and you have to be honest to yourself, out of all those civs, does any of them scream out unbalanced to you?

I have a confession to make, in all these years playing civ4, I haven't played a SINGLE game as Romans [and their praets], not a single one. The reason is that I simply don't enjoy playing something which a phenomenal advantage - deep down my true wish is that all civs are balanced. It has nothing to do with America personally, but the civ as it stands looks unbalanced.

To be fair you sound like a decent guy, and I don't wanna argue with you, but there is no need to accept the current CivRev as gods incantation of Civilization - it has flaws and in this case pretty serious ones, and the absence of the Persian [along with ottoman] civs shows some pretty serious discrimination.

dojoboy
May 20, 2008, 07:55 AM
I'm rather enjoying this. It's come a long way from "disappointing governments in CivRev."

Any imbalance, in regards to what is presented to consumers, is there to maximize sales. Not many Iranians will be purchasing this product, especially when compared to Americans and Brits.

That may make one disgruntled, but Firaxis only uses history as a template.

homan1983
May 20, 2008, 08:31 AM
Yea true, but I think its really short sighted to say that only Iranians play Persia. In fact the Persian civ was the most popular in both 3 and 4.

Otherwise who would ever play Zulu or Aztec or Egypt, Mongol and Arab.

I'm just really really disappointed in the civ choice. A LOT of people would have played Ottoman, Persian, Babylonian, Viking.

Also, I hope that Romans and Brits are in as you yourself say, otherwise!!!!!!! ;)

Padma
May 20, 2008, 09:19 AM
Let's face it, this game is going to be sold primarily in "the West". That means it's going to be heavy on "Western Civilizations", and other Civs that would be relatively well-known in the West. That's why there's America, England, France, Germany, Spain, Rome, Greece, etc. They had to chop their list off at 16, so they had to make some hard choices. For all you or I know, it could have come down to flipping a coin: "Do we keep CivA or CivB?" - flip - "CivB it is!" For whatever reason, Persia (and others) didn't make the cut.

With the 16 Civs that are in the game, given their bonuses, every Civ is overpowered! This was done intentionally! Sid said he wanted you to feel like you couldn't possibly lose, no matter which Civ you chose.

dshirk
May 20, 2008, 10:10 AM
Sheesh, walked into the wrong thread.

As Padma mentions above, an absurd amount of time was put into balancing the Civs. It really does work well. As for the Americans, the bonus's you mentioned are a bit off. They do not receive half-cost units, you can RUSH them for half the cost, meaning your paying gold to push them out instead of production. It's a good trait to have in a pinch. Also, factories are VERY expensive, so it's not something that can be done quickly or easily. As for Democracy, this is the most powerful government choice if you're planning on either a gold OR science victory, because it provides 50% trade. Because this trade bump is so powerful, we make it a bit more inconvenient to you in terms of war. You cannot declare war, and if you are already at war with someone, and they offer peace, then you have no choice but to accept it. The governments are all tailored to specific game-play objectives, with the exception of the early governments (like Republic), which are there mainly to spur growth

And for the record, you need to remember that this is a game, not a statement of affection or hatred for any particular civilization. It's a game. :)

homan1983
May 20, 2008, 11:00 AM
But the people have spoken, and they want Persians in the game.
And I find the assertion that people play the civ corresponding to their nationality wrong. I know its not the case for me, and its been shown by the players themselves that it doesn't represent them. In fact people are usually lured to the exotic.

I don't want anyone to think that I am concentrating solely on Persia's side; but the fact is that Persia has been wronged here, hence why its getting attention. If the Romans were missing then I would definitely be campaigning for their presence.

I don't think it should have come down to "lets flip between Persian and CivB", because the fate of Persia, Roman, Brits and a few others should have been decided early into the game - in any case, one of the Ottoman/Persian/Babylonian/Assyrian should have been there to represent the subculture.

You see what I always loved about the Civilization series has been its ability to detach itself from current day politics: In civ4 state property had very nice bonuses, regardless of the political bias against communism, with the same applying to religion and fascism. It would be a sad day when Objectivity is lost in Firaxis because its one of their Civ traits :)


I did also say that the American bonus is half price purchase [which is my way of saying rush buying]. The idea of half price everything didn't even occur to me as that would be incomprehensible. But I do know that in Civ4, The Kremlin which provides -33% cost for only 1 era [modern] was so incredibly powerful that an entire economy based on the idea of rush-buying was developed and the costs of rush buying was soon patched to tone down the strength of this.

-50% for free for everything in all eras is the equivalent of doubling the strength of something however I think that the development of Civ4 should mean you earnt enough trust that I give it a chance before I criticize You did such a good job with Civ4 that you deserve it.


Im sorry if I came off as rude, often passion for a subject [in this case Civilizations future] leads to such an illusion

*I stand corrected!*

It isn't often when I hope I'm proved wrong, here I really do.

warpstorm
May 20, 2008, 11:07 AM
Civ2 was led by Brian Reynolds.

Thrallia
May 20, 2008, 02:48 PM
I think you will be proved wrong lol and I cant' believe that you have such a misunderstanding of WWI and WWII history as to think I'm misinformed on it :lol:

I'm a history buff in my spare time, love it...I can't watch movies if they slaughter history(Alexander, Troy, 300, Pearl Harbor, etc), so I think I know a tad more than you think about those eras.

Schuesseled
May 20, 2008, 07:01 PM
But the people have spoken, and they want Persians in the game.
And I find the assertion that people play the civ corresponding to their nationality wrong. I know its not the case for me, and its been shown by the players themselves that it doesn't represent them. In fact people are usually lured to the exotic.

I don't want anyone to think that I am concentrating solely on Persia's side; but the fact is that Persia has been wronged here, hence why its getting attention. If the Romans were missing then I would definitely be campaigning for their presence.

I don't think it should have come down to "lets flip between Persian and CivB", because the fate of Persia, Roman, Brits and a few others should have been decided early into the game - in any case, one of the Ottoman/Persian/Babylonian/Assyrian should have been there to represent the subculture.

You see what I always loved about the Civilization series has been its ability to detach itself from current day politics: In civ4 state property had very nice bonuses, regardless of the political bias against communism, with the same applying to religion and fascism. It would be a sad day when Objectivity is lost in Firaxis because its one of their Civ traits :)


I did also say that the American bonus is half price purchase [which is my way of saying rush buying]. The idea of half price everything didn't even occur to me as that would be incomprehensible. But I do know that in Civ4, The Kremlin which provides -33% cost for only 1 era [modern] was so incredibly powerful that an entire economy based on the idea of rush-buying was developed and the costs of rush buying was soon patched to tone down the strength of this.

-50% for free for everything in all eras is the equivalent of doubling the strength of something however I think that the development of Civ4 should mean you earnt enough trust that I give it a chance before I criticize You did such a good job with Civ4 that you deserve it.


Im sorry if I came off as rude, often passion for a subject [in this case Civilizations future] leads to such an illusion

*I stand corrected!*

It isn't often when I hope I'm proved wrong, here I really do.

The american civ isn't stupidly imblanced.

Rushing is very expesnive and destroys your chance at an economic victory, so being able to do this at 50% cost, isn't going to make a large amount of difference

3x factory production, useful but factories are very expensive to build, and the 3x bonus doesn't mean 3x production speed, it means 3 times the produtcion bonus, which could only be as little as 5 or 10 extra hammers per tun.

all the cioves have powerful bonuses, egypt gets a free wonder and food from desert, mogols get free cities and have kick arse horses.

Thrallia
May 21, 2008, 03:12 AM
and looking through the other announced civ bonuses, I think India, Mongolia, Egypt, Japan, and Russia all get bonuses as good or better than America's.

homan1983
May 21, 2008, 03:31 AM
The american civ isn't stupidly imblanced.

Rushing is very expesnive and destroys your chance at an economic victory, so being able to do this at 50% cost, isn't going to make a large amount of difference

3x factory production, useful but factories are very expensive to build, and the 3x bonus doesn't mean 3x production speed, it means 3 times the produtcion bonus, which could only be as little as 5 or 10 extra hammers per tun.

all the cioves have powerful bonuses, egypt gets a free wonder and food from desert, mogols get free cities and have kick arse horses.

I have no idea how rush buying works in CivRev, but assuming its even close to Civ3-4 then a -50% is a significant bonus.

3x factory bonus IS HUGE no matter how you look at it, of course its not gonna triple a town production, but then if it did that it would be plain broken, even tripling the bonus is a LOT imo.

You yourself state 1-2 good traits from every civ, but that just confirms what I say, the thing is imo all of America's bonuses are top notch.

In any case I look at civs like china and I despair at how big a discrepancy there is between the civ bonuses.
There are 1-2 civs that prolly are barely competitive with America.

In any case its been stated here that the civs have been tightly balanced so I'm assuming that where I see a weak or strong trait, its due to me applying it to civ4 mechanics rather than up and coming CivRev ones - Wait and see I guess [i did place an order for xbox version on amazon yesterday]

KrikkitTwo
May 21, 2008, 04:07 AM
- Units will be produced into massive numbers since there is no wasted production: if you city generates 20 production per turn and you build a unit that only requires 10, it will generate 2 of these units per turn O_o

Not Quite, Production IS wasted

If you produce 25 per turn, then you can build 2 (10 cost) units per turn... the extra 5 is lost
or if you produce 19 per turn, then you can build 1 (10 cost) unit per turn... the extra 9 is lost

unfortunately, this means Civ Rev will open up old micromanagement issues.

Ikael
May 21, 2008, 08:41 AM
About the civilizations:

They ARE balanced. Have you look at the bonuses of the other civs besides America? +50% to gold (in addition to another plethora of bonuses), +50% to the defense of the units in the motherland, automatic wonders in the ancient times... they balance each other, everyone is "ultra powerful" and I love that approach of balancing since it rewards way more a focused style of playing (say, if you are the Spanish you will have to explore a lot to reap the benefits of their bonuses, if you are the Americans you will have to focus on the end game, etc).

The whinning about the American bonus for factories is stupid. It is a very, very late game bonus and applied to a concrete building. Chances are that it is going to be extremely rare to see that ultra powerful bonus being used.

However, I agree that the goverments are... well, crap. I mean, I love the new approach of a "balls to the wall civ" were every bonus is so awesome that they compensate each other.... so why the hell now they come up with such minor bonuses for the goverments? The Monarchy and republic ones are laughable, democracy and communismīs gets severely crippled because of the contras, and fundamentalism is only useful on the begginging of the game, when 1 extra combat point can make a difference, which latter will get dilluted. I can think right now in one bajillion of better ways to balance them.

About the exclusion of Persia: Some of my favourite civs didnīt make it either, and they were as much, if not more influent than the Persians (Babylon, Portugal, Carthage, the turks, etc).

dshirk
May 21, 2008, 09:56 AM
I think you're underestimating Fundamentalism and Monarchy. :)

Fundamentalism adds a single point to the BASE value of a unit, meaning that every multiplier that gets applied to that unit is also multiplying that extra point per unit. (50% veteran, 100% elite, 50% general, wonder bonus's etc.)

Monarchy gives your capital city +100% of culture output, which is HUGE if that's where you're focusing your wonder building efforts. Add that to temple and cathedral bonuses and your culture output can go through the roof, prompting great people to spawn much more quickly (which are part of the cultural victory conditions).

KrikkitTwo
May 21, 2008, 10:04 AM
A few points
1. Fundamentalism, value of 1 extra point depends on how the combat system works... if its 3 v. 2 has a 60%/40% chance of winning, and 9 v. 11 has a 45%/55% chance of winning.. then I agree
but say the Odds on combat are
3 to 2
3=2^3, 2=2^3
so the Odds are 8 to 4 (66%/33%)
and
9 to 11 is
9=2^9, 11=2^11
so the odds are 512 to 2048 (20%/80%)

This
1. means better numbers increase your chances significantly
2. means that +1 is the same increase in combat value whether it is 100->101 or 1->2

2. Monarchy... I have a feeling Culture might be Very important in this game... it seems like it may be the primary way of getting Great People, (even if you don't flip cities)** crossposted with Firaxis :) **

3. Representation, I agree this is bad, but if population grows really slowly, and this is available early, Representation may be necessary for REXing without conquest. (otherwise each new city costs your empire 1 ?or is it 2? net population units)

I do agree that these are definite Possible Balance Issues, but it depends on the actual game mechanics

homan1983
May 21, 2008, 10:31 AM
The whinning about the American bonus for factories is stupid. It is a very, very late game bonus and applied to a concrete building. Chances are that it is going to be extremely rare to see that ultra powerful bonus being used.

Thats such a bad statement to make that I don't know what you're thinking. Every other civ has a modern trait as well, yet they dont have an out of this world bonus with the explanation: "well you get it late game so its ok". Every other civs' bonus is pretty average except America.
This isn't like age4 where America only gets their civ bonus lategame whilst other civs have a better start, America also gets some pretty good bonuses in early-mid game.

However neither me nor you know how the balance is so I think wait and see is the best approach, although your reasoning will never fly as logical.

I have 2 questions for dshirk though if you wouldn't mind answering:

Monarchy gives your capital city +100% of culture output, which is HUGE if that's where you're focusing your wonder building efforts. Add that to temple and cathedral bonuses and your culture output can go through the roof, prompting great people to spawn much more quickly
Does this mean that culture is linked to the rate of Great People growth?

Fundamentalism adds a single point to the BASE value of a unit, meaning that every multiplier that gets applied to that unit is also multiplying that extra point per unit. (50% veteran, 100% elite, 50% general, wonder bonus's etc.)
I play pretty competitively in Age of Empires 3 and number crunching is familiar to me as I am required to do it often. The thing here is that whilst its true that the % bonuses apply after this bonus, it doesnt make an actual difference - i.e. in proportion the strength would be the same.

Let me make an example:

A rifleman has 10str vs Tank 15
With Fundamentalism its 11 vs 15 so the chance of rifle is 11/26
Now if both units were elite, it would be 22 vs 30, which is still 11/26 in terms off odds. The rifleman is still 10% stronger, whether regular, veteran or elite.

However what IS important is what sort of numbers we'll be seeing around the time fundamentalism comes about (which I'm assuming is modern?).
Are modern units values around 5? 10? 15? or somewhere like 20-40 as in civ4.

Appreciate your help in advance.

dshirk
May 21, 2008, 01:48 PM
The amount of culture you're putting out has a direct correlation to spawning great people. The same can be said for science, gold, etc. The type of great person spawned depends on many different variables, including techs researched, who's still available, etc. If you're concentrating on Culture techs, the chances are much higher that the great person that spawns will be cultural.

As for fundamentalism, there are many other customized bonuses that elites get as well, making the margins open up a bit more as you upgrade them. Unit values are also much more constrained than in Civ IV. For example, a Tank is 10 attack/6 defense, making the +1 bonus an extremely worthwhile addition, especially when compounded by other bonuses. Throughout the middle of the game is where it really shines, where individual offensive units average around 4 attack/2 defense.

Ikael
May 21, 2008, 02:00 PM
I think you're underestimating Fundamentalism and Monarchy.

Fundamentalism adds a single point to the BASE value of a unit, meaning that every multiplier that gets applied to that unit is also multiplying that extra point per unit. (50% veteran, 100% elite, 50% general, wonder bonus's etc.)

Even with that, if late era units gets status are around 20 points as it happened in past civs, the bonus becames pointless as it only represent a very small fraction of the total power, not to mention that the other enemy units also have the same bonuses due to experience, as homan explained.

EDIT: Ouch, just readed that you already answered to that. Well, now it does seem that the +1 bonus it IS useful. But still, libraries AND universities being shutted down? isnīt that a bit tad extreme? A science penalty would be more bearable me thinks (not to mention more realistic: iran and another modern theocracies have libraries and universities).

Monarchy gives your capital city +100% of culture output, which is HUGE if that's where you're focusing your wonder building efforts. Add that to temple and cathedral bonuses and your culture output can go through the roof, prompting great people to spawn much more quickly (which are part of the cultural victory conditions).
Well, it seems that since there are certain aspects of the game that we do not know yet (like the great people birthrate attached to the culture output), some goverment effects cannot be judged properly. But still... monarchy a goverment for culture - building civs? republic offering a bonus for emigration? what the hell? where is the logic on that? Heck, it would be even more logical to be reversed (capital culture bonus in republic, settler bonus for early expansion for the monarchy). And then you have the severe drawbacks of communism, fundamentalism and democracy. The only one whose positive effects seems to outweight its cons is communism, but still. Democracy nullifies one big aspect of the game altogether (war), while I really doubt that anyone would be willing to rennounce to such a huge science bonus just for a measly +1 combat. Seriously, you guys needs to rebalance the goverments effects extensively and try to apply to the goverments the same design philosophy that has been applied to the rest of the game.


Thats such a bad statement to make that I don't know what you're thinking. Every other civ has a modern trait as well, yet they dont have an out of this world bonus with the explanation: "well you get it late game so its ok". Every other civs' bonus is pretty average except America.
This isn't like age4 where America only gets their civ bonus lategame whilst other civs have a better start, America also gets some pretty good bonuses in early-mid game.
Thing is, in this civ (as in the previous one), the earlier the bonus, the more turns you can reap its benefits. Letīs say, a +50% gold since the ancient ages is way more powerful than a +50% gold at the modern age. Also, America has some quite discrete bonuses during the middle ages, and since we do not know the specific effects of the great people we also do not know how much good is their starting bonus. And as people have pointed out, there are another civs with huge bonuses as well (no unhappiness for the chinese, +50% gold for the Spanish, +1 food for plains for the Russians and since ancient times, etc, etc).

homan1983
May 21, 2008, 06:45 PM
The amount of culture you're putting out has a direct correlation to spawning great people. The same can be said for science, gold, etc. The type of great person spawned depends on many different variables, including techs researched, who's still available, etc. If you're concentrating on Culture techs, the chances are much higher that the great person that spawns will be cultural.

As for fundamentalism, there are many other customized bonuses that elites get as well, making the margins open up a bit more as you upgrade them. Unit values are also much more constrained than in Civ IV. For example, a Tank is 10 attack/6 defense, making the +1 bonus an extremely worthwhile addition, especially when compounded by other bonuses. Throughout the middle of the game is where it really shines, where individual offensive units average around 4 attack/2 defense.

Wow, first let me say than kyou for responding.
I really like the direction being taken with culture. Since its first presense in civ3, it has come a LONG way.
By civ4, culture was quite a bit more powerful, but still it felt like after a certain amount of time that culture's effect was diminished to the point of near nil. This led to culture always being an afterthought, a by product from buildings you build for other purposes. Unlike other aspects of the game, there was nothing one could do about culture short of destroying the city itself.

This new mechanic seems really exciting.

As for a tank having 10a6d - thats again very good news. In civ4 a tank had 26 str or so [somewhere between 20 and 30 as far as i remember] and moder armor had 40.
So worst case scenario for tank its an improvement of 10%.

But I can also imagine how big a boost it would be for units that typically have less base strength.



I'd like to ask you one last question:

What do you think are the differences in terms of roles between Fundamentalism and Communism?

It seems that both are geared towards a more firm fisted civilization.
Would I be correct in saying that both are good for war civs, with each having a slight niche?

Communism: Has good production overall that can be levereged towards both civil and military construction. Has a more balanced approach, still allowin good research. Happiness and culture suffer under communism

Fundamentalism: All out war civilization with greatly improved units, but science is effectively stalled. Very focused government. Still keeps religious buildings however.

Is that about the jist of it? :crazyeye:

homan1983
May 21, 2008, 07:03 PM
Thing is, in this civ (as in the previous one), the earlier the bonus, the more turns you can reap its benefits. Letīs say, a +50% gold since the ancient ages is way more powerful than a +50% gold at the modern age.

But I have already explained this line of thought. Of course +50% over 3 ages is better than +50% over 1 age, as was the case in Civ4. In such case, the Unique building and UU for America was very strong to make up for its late arrival and that was fine - in fact it was argued that it was still too little too late.

The point is that America DOES have bonuses in all ages; top tier ones in fact, so if the argument is used that a modern age trait needs to be exceptionally strong because of its late arrival, then it should apply to all late age traits.

In any case it seems like we're going around in circles and if you hadn't understood my explanation the first time then the 3rd or 4th probably won't make a difference. So lets agree than I'm right :king: or if you insist agree to disagree (although I strongle prefer the former :crazyeye:)

AutomatedTeller
May 21, 2008, 11:42 PM
It's an open question whether the US won WWII or not - you can make an argument that Russia was already beating Germany when the US came in, and that most of the best divisions were on the eastern front.

Japan was a different story - there, the US took the brunt of the fighting. I think you could easily say that, without Russia, the Axis would have won WWII. Or without Hitler, who made several large mistakes.

Discuss this elsewhere! This is not the thread for it!

AbbieRevo
May 25, 2008, 04:25 PM
As far as the Persia debate goes.

It seems to me that Persia is about equal with Mongolia as far as it's rights to be included in the game go. Both had large short-lived empires. Persia's had a longer half-life (farsi was a universal trade language throughout the orient for a very long time), but Mongolia's was bigger.

But looking at the list of civs, Mongolia and Japan are the only ones that I think could conceivably be cut in favor of Persia, and both of them could make strong cases for being kept in (actually thinking more and more about it, Japan really hasn't been all that important until the last hundred and fifty years or so, same could be said of America, but America is much more dominant than Japan)

dennis580
May 25, 2008, 06:45 PM
and looking through the other announced civ bonuses, I think India, Mongolia, Egypt, Japan, and Russia all get bonuses as good or better than America's.

Egypt's bonuses sucks accept for the starting bonus. Certainly they are far weaker from there orginal bonus of +50 wonder production. Had they kept that bonus, and been the only Civ to have that bonus they they would have rocked. As it stands now they are certainly one of the weaker Civs.

dennis580
May 25, 2008, 06:50 PM
Rushing is very expesnive and destroys your chance at an economic victory, so being able to do this at 50% cost, isn't going to make a large amount of difference

Who gives a rats a$$ about economic victory. I know I sure as heck am not going to let my gold set around and do nothing hoping to get a economic victory.

If I am playing as the US I sure as heck will invest most of my gold in rushing out half price buildings, and infrastructure.

reverend oats
May 25, 2008, 07:06 PM
My 2 cents om Persia is that it at the very least was far, far more important than Zululand.

homan1983
May 25, 2008, 07:07 PM
As far as the Persia debate goes.

It seems to me that Persia is about equal with Mongolia as far as it's rights to be included in the game go. Both had large short-lived empires. Persia's had a longer half-life (farsi was a universal trade language throughout the orient for a very long time), but Mongolia's was bigger.

But looking at the list of civs, Mongolia and Japan are the only ones that I think could conceivably be cut in favor of Persia, and both of them could make strong cases for being kept in (actually thinking more and more about it, Japan really hasn't been all that important until the last hundred and fifty years or so, same could be said of America, but America is much more dominant than Japan)

The role of Persia (Iran) in history is highly significant; In fact, the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel considered the ancient Persians to be the first historic people and stated thus: "In Persia first arises that light which shines itself and illuminates what is around...The principle of development begins with the history of Persia; this constitutes therefore the beginning of history"

And Richard Nelson Frye further verifies:
"Few nations in the world present more of a justification for the study of history than Iran."

The Persian empire had many faces and a lot of different eras. The exact dates from wiki:
Median Empire 728 BC – 549 BC
Achaemenid Empire (550 BC–330 BC)
Hellenistic Persia (330 BC–250 BC)
Parthians (250 BC–AD 226)
Sassanid Empire (226–651)
Safavid Persian Dynasty (1500–1722)
In fact the main Persian empire came to an end when Russia decided to take dominance of the important central asia, the didn't even do it alone, accompanying them to Isfahan was the ottomans.
Persia was carved into Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan amongst others [wiki]

If you add all those dates up, you'd see that Persia is one of, if not THE longest spanning Empire[Civilization] in the entire history of the world.
Persia was at the very least on par with the Romans and British - one reason I think people don't realize this is that they have a great deal of knowledge of the european civs.

Now you say that mongol could have been cut out for Persia but I would say that the Mongols were another iconic civilization.

I would definately rate Mongols higher than Russia, Spain, Zulu, Aztecs, India and a few others that aren't coming to mind. [Possibly America and Japs]

Thrallia
May 26, 2008, 03:20 AM
Egypt's bonuses sucks accept for the starting bonus. Certainly they are far weaker from there orginal bonus of +50 wonder production. Had they kept that bonus, and been the only Civ to have that bonus they they would have rocked. As it stands now they are certainly one of the weaker Civs.

Alright, let's see you say that when Egypt starts out with the wonder that allows them you use any government they want, from the very beginning of the game.

Rushing is very expesnive and destroys your chance at an economic victory, so being able to do this at 50% cost, isn't going to make a large amount of difference

Who gives a rats a$$ about economic victory. I know I sure as heck am not going to let my gold set around and do nothing hoping to get a economic victory.

If I am playing as the US I sure as heck will invest most of my gold in rushing out half price buildings, and infrastructure.

I look forward to crushing you in multiplayer then :)

The role of Persia (Iran) in history is highly significant; In fact, the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel considered the ancient Persians to be the first historic people and stated thus: "In Persia first arises that light which shines itself and illuminates what is around...The principle of development begins with the history of Persia; this constitutes therefore the beginning of history"

And Richard Nelson Frye further verifies:
"Few nations in the world present more of a justification for the study of history than Iran."

So you picked a crackpot anarchist from the 1700s(and early 1800s), and a historian who focuses specifically on Persia as the people you wanted to support you? Hegel was a crackpot who had very bizarre ideas and an anarchist who considered laws to be unnecessary. And Frye focuses only on Persia in his studies, so of course he's going to say that Iran has the most to offer historians(note he says Iran, not Persia...he thinks Persia is dead and gone as well)

The Persian empire had many faces and a lot of different eras. The exact dates from wiki:
Median Empire 728 BC – 549 BC
Achaemenid Empire (550 BC–330 BC)
Hellenistic Persia (330 BC–250 BC)
Parthians (250 BC–AD 226)
Sassanid Empire (226–651)
Safavid Persian Dynasty (1500–1722)
In fact the main Persian empire came to an end when Russia decided to take dominance of the important central asia, the didn't even do it alone, accompanying them to Isfahan was the ottomans.
Persia was carved into Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan amongst others [wiki]

mmkay, Hellenistic Persia is not Persia...is it Persia ruled by Greece. After that, those empires are considered Iranian in nature, not Persian(oh, and the Safavid Persian Dynasty is a ridiculous attempt to recover whatever persian culture was left after 1000 of muslim eradication of other native cultures)

So if I add together those years...I get around 300-400 years...just like last time :p

If you add all those dates up, you'd see that Persia is one of, if not THE longest spanning Empire[Civilization] in the entire history of the world.
Persia was at the very least on par with the Romans and British - one reason I think people don't realize this is that they have a great deal of knowledge of the european civs.

I agree that most people have more knowledge of European history than world history(or middle east history), but I don't agree with your dates, as those empires were no more persian than the portuguese empire is still spanish.

Now you say that mongol could have been cut out for Persia but I would say that the Mongols were another iconic civilization.

I would definately rate Mongols higher than Russia, Spain, Zulu, Aztecs, India and a few others that aren't coming to mind. [Possibly America and Japs]

I think the Mongols are the only possible civ that could have been cut to make room for the Persians, but that they win out because they held a MUCH larger amount of territory at their height than the persians did.

reverend oats
May 26, 2008, 07:01 AM
Well, I really don't think anyone can argue that the Zulu were more important than the Persians; however, they are in in order to give "geographic diversity."

homan1983
May 26, 2008, 12:59 PM
I look forward to crushing you in multiplayer then
Wrong
So you picked a crackpot anarchist from the 1700s(and early 1800s)
Wrong

and a historian who focuses specifically on Persia as the people you wanted to support you?
Oh the humanity, we took the opinion of someone whose entire life was dedicated to history on said subject over someone who makes random comments

I agree that most people have more knowledge of European history
Correct

But I don't agree with your dates, as those empires were no more persian than the portuguese empire is still spanish.
Wrong, they were Persian, of that there is no doubt or global dispute

Hellenistic Persia is not Persia.
Wrong

I consider America America and not european, I consider Oz Austrailia not Britain, I consider British British not Saxon or Roman

But I don't agree with your dates, as those empires were no more persian than the portuguese empire is still spanish.
The fact that you agree to this regarding portugese vs spain just confirms you're confused to even your own beliefs.

those empires are considered Iranian in nature
Wrong

If you're picky then they ARE persian, if you're not then Persia is very close to Iran so either way you're wrong.


I think the Mongols are the only possible civ that could have been cut to make room for the Persians, but that they win out because they held a MUCH larger amount of territory at their height than the persians did.
Wrong

I already gave a list of civs which were much less important and iconic than Mongols, and it wasn't a short list either - and since Persia is > Mongol then its implied that Persia > them

Regarding landmass: Even though landmass is a critical indication of power and prowess; It has to be within context. A lot of the area captured under the mongols was barely contested by the great powers, by your own account then Russia is currently the most powerful country in the world because of its huge landmass.


Edit:
I can't believe you're saying that the poster is naive or bad at civilization because he thinks that -50% rushbuy is amazing as is spending capital as a whole. But then again you are welcome to hoard all your gold, more wins for me ;)

You gotta spend money to make money. Imagine if at the start of the game I just started to hoard my money and production instead of investing it for future return. Pretty soon you'll realize that your 1 city will be no match for my 10city empire. The same principle applies to rushbuying [especially with the trait that makes rushbuying 100% stronger]. Its just a little harder to see because its less in your face obvious but the descerning of the Civ players will have already realized its potential.

Thrallia
May 26, 2008, 02:47 PM
you know what, I researched the people you used for examples...I was not wrong in my conclusions about them, so for you to just say 'wrong' and think you win the argument is idiotic.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong about Hegel being a crackpot anarchist.

Tell me why I'm wrong about the portuguese empire being a completely separate entity than the spanish empire.

You can't, because I'm absolutely correct in those estimations.

Persia ruled by Greece is not a persian empire, it is a vassalized empire...thus, not worthy of mention as a mighty civilization. All the rest of the civilizations you mentioned are IRANIAN in nature, as stated by your own sources(Wikipedia and the historian who focuses on Iran) Just because they are considered Iranian in nature, doesn't make them persian. Iran != Persia !!!! If you cannot understand this, then there's no more point in talking to you about this.

As for the comments about civilization prowess and rushbuying.....I never said that cheaper rushbuying makes someone bad at civ, I simply said I look forward to beating you in CivRev. I shall do so, if you have a 360, that is. Rushbuying is not that powerful a trait as some of the others, and I look forward to showing you how.

homan1983
May 26, 2008, 03:32 PM
I am saying I agree with your notion that portugese are a seperate civilization to spain.
If you read my post, I used your own example to demonstrate why I think "Hellenistic Persia is not Persia" is a false statement just as "Anglo-Saxon Britain is not Britain" would be a false statement or "European America is not America" would also be false.

You say you researched or readup on the people before you made your post, but to be fair, you never explained why you thought someone was a "crackpot" as you put it, just that he is. So I see no reason why the onus is on me to prove you wrong one something you didn't prove right itself.


A completely seperate direction now:

Is Greece a civilization in CivRev? I haven't heard much about them so far if any, and if they are in, does anyone have information as to what their civ traits are?

I'm surprised that the game is coming out in 1-2 weeks and we still don't have information on all 1 civs or aspects of the game [like what Great People do exactly]

Col. West
May 26, 2008, 03:54 PM
The game doesn't come out until July, actually.

Padma
May 26, 2008, 06:58 PM
It comes out in a couple of weeks - in Europe.

warpstorm
May 26, 2008, 07:52 PM
Is Greece a civilization in CivRev?

Yes (or at least they say they are on the official website).

Schuesseled
May 27, 2008, 05:07 AM
Rushing is very expesnive and destroys your chance at an economic victory, so being able to do this at 50% cost, isn't going to make a large amount of difference

Who gives a rats a$$ about economic victory. I know I sure as heck am not going to let my gold set around and do nothing hoping to get a economic victory.

If I am playing as the US I sure as heck will invest most of my gold in rushing out half price buildings, and infrastructure.

if your leading the race for a economic victory and you do taht i'll be waiting for you at the finishing line.

I am saying I agree with your notion that portugese are a seperate civilization to spain.
If you read my post, I used your own example to demonstrate why I think "Hellenistic Persia is not Persia" is a false statement just as "Anglo-Saxon Britain is not Britain" would be a false statement or "European America is not America" would also be false.

You say you researched or readup on the people before you made your post, but to be fair, you never explained why you thought someone was a "crackpot" as you put it, just that he is. So I see no reason why the onus is on me to prove you wrong one something you didn't prove right itself.


A completely seperate direction now:

Is Greece a civilization in CivRev? I haven't heard much about them so far if any, and if they are in, does anyone have information as to what their civ traits are?

I'm surprised that the game is coming out in 1-2 weeks and we still don't have information on all 1 civs or aspects of the game [like what Great People do exactly]

Great people can be used for a once off ability, or a permanent bonus. Engineer: rush building, or 50% production bonus)

You can't say persians are the biggest longest empire, and include dates after they were conquered/destroyed.

England dates from 100/200AD to now, you can't say that the english have been around for 1000BC to now because the romans were ruling the english, that would just be moronic.

DRJ
May 27, 2008, 12:58 PM
Sorry, but after having read all this, I cant dispose a feeling, that civ rev is going to be much too simplified for my taste - acuminated: a not very deep game for not very strategic, but pretty numb console players.

All the official comments heavily negating this preconception make me even more suspicious - the reason for this is that usually there is a certain amount of thruth in akward generalizations...

Regarding this threads bonus system comments of homan, it seems civ rev will lack of the so much loved complexity.

As I like very complex games and even complexer mods for these complex games (like, in civ 4 case: Rise of Mankind), I dont think I will be interested in this game.

I dont have a console and, having read the comments and having seen the screenies, I most certainly wont buy one for civ rev.

A little cynical hit at the end: dumb kiddies money is easier to get in a shorter amount of time (- with less deployment efforts).

homan1983
May 27, 2008, 01:03 PM
I don't personally like complexity for the sake of complexity.

However even I think that some aspects of Civ Rev have gone too far.

I refer of course to the information that a game can have a maximum of 4 players [even single player].

The other aspect that I think could have used a LOT more work is diplomacy. I've seen literally no screenshot of anything about diplomacy apart from peace and war, and whilst I'm sure there are more options, this gives an indication that its not much.

The final thing that bothers me I don't really wanna delve into too much (since I don't have all the info yet) is that the makers of civilization decided to split the civilization community into xbox and ps3. It really bothers me that the ps3 and xbox players will NEVER be able to play together.

This isn't so bad for shooter games, but with civilization the community is very dear to me.
Consider this version of civ is very much multiplayer oriented, I'm surprised they didn't set up their own server and have both ps3 and xbox players connect to this central server.
I so badly want to get the game on PS3, but because I know 80%+ of people will be getting it on the xbox, I am forced to order the xbox version and borrow my sisters console to play it. Its really detrimental to ps3 game sales.

It wouldn't have really been that difficult, considering one of the core aspects of CivRev is that the game-core is the same with a layer on top for each of the consoles.

Thrallia
May 27, 2008, 03:54 PM
that information was wrong, each game contains 5 players, which is the same size as a small civ4 map.

and the developers didn't decide to split the community between DS, 360, and PS3...they have no choice in the matter. I don't understand the outcry over this when it has been a part of console multiplayer ever since online multiplayer became possible on consoles.

Shiggs713
May 28, 2008, 07:42 AM
I just wanted to say that CivRev looks very disappointing.... When I saw screen shots I nearly cried. More like a little 10 year olds playground than a grand strategy game. :(

Thrallia
May 28, 2008, 01:52 PM
so...brighter, more 3d and detailed graphics=not a good strategy game to you?

DRJ
May 28, 2008, 03:31 PM
so...brighter, more 3d and detailed graphics=not a good strategy game to you?

not if its spreading foggy dumbness, more 2d thinking and less detailed strategies... :mischief:

Schuesseled
May 28, 2008, 06:16 PM
civ rev is pleanty complex, picking research now is going to be quite a challenging decision, do you go for a tech other people have got because its useful or do you go for the first to research bonus on a less useful tech.

dennis580
May 28, 2008, 10:37 PM
Persia is one of the top 4 Civs along with China, Egypt, and Rome.

What I want to know is how in the heck did the Zulu make. There not even close to being one of the top 50 civs let alone top 16.

Lone Wolf
May 30, 2008, 10:43 PM
What I want to know is how in the heck did the Zulu make. There not even close to being one of the top 50 civs let alone top 16.

Racial representation.

Thrallia
May 31, 2008, 12:34 AM
not racial, geographical.

Thrallia
May 31, 2008, 12:35 AM
not if its spreading foggy dumbness, more 2d thinking and less detailed strategies... :mischief:

how about you try playing it before bashing it...and if you don't have a console and thus can't play it...why bother posting about it unless you are just jealous that you can't?