Some more details about Civ Revolutions

[Ikael]

Well, I am quite interested on this game (specially on its ds version since well, who wouldn´t 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! That´s 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 doesn´t 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 civilization´s borders. It seems that they are really pushing exploration this time.

- Leonardo´s 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]

- 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 civilization´s borders. It seems that they are really pushing exploration this time.

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

 

[dshirk]

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]

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.

 

[Ikael]

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 don´t 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.

great. It seems that you guys are pushing the exploration aspect a lot this time. Me likes!

 

[homan1983]

Governments seems <poor> overall, not just republic. I'm really really disappointed

 

[dojoboy]

Governments seems <poor> overall, not just republic. I'm really really disappointed

In what way? How would you like their bonuses?

 

[homan1983]

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% boost, other civics would give specialist +3 or cottage +2 or state property which removed distance corruption, improved workshops by 33%++, gave cities +10%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.
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]

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]

And finally there is that fact that out of 15 Civs, they couldn't give 1 slot to Persians. Thats just shocking.
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]

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]

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]

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 km² (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 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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Civ2 was led by Brian Reynolds.

 

[Thrallia]

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

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.