I played for about 15 minutes. From what i played they really simplified it a lot feels like this was intended for a younger audience. Feels almost like a different game more like advanced wars for gameboy. I still havent played it much have to get used to a lot of stuff but what do u guys think about the demo?
Thoughts on Demo?
- Thread starter blunt3d
- Start date
NwabudikeMorgan
CEO
I liked a lot of things about it actually, and overall i can't say it let me down at all
for example:
-- I like how units now get Veteran, then Elite, and then get promotions, kind or like how units in Civ II would be veterans after a few battles.
--I like how the only tiles in your borders are the land you are working, that makes a lot of sense to me, I mean, if you've got noone there, what's your claim to it?
--I like how they brought back the offense/defense values from games prior to Civ IV, it just makes more sense.
--Cool Ideas about the levels of economic achievement giving things to your empire (free settler, currency, etc)
--I like only having to capture capitals to win dominaton ( saves on going after those stupid one tile island colonies.
--The interface is nice, the advisors are comical, except for that strange gobledegook they speak.
for example:
-- I like how units now get Veteran, then Elite, and then get promotions, kind or like how units in Civ II would be veterans after a few battles.
--I like how the only tiles in your borders are the land you are working, that makes a lot of sense to me, I mean, if you've got noone there, what's your claim to it?
--I like how they brought back the offense/defense values from games prior to Civ IV, it just makes more sense.
--Cool Ideas about the levels of economic achievement giving things to your empire (free settler, currency, etc)
--I like only having to capture capitals to win dominaton ( saves on going after those stupid one tile island colonies.
--The interface is nice, the advisors are comical, except for that strange gobledegook they speak.
I think the language they are speaking is in some strange way related to Simlish...
I've so far been very impressed with it. It is simplified, but doesn't feel dumbed down at all. The AI is much better than any I've seen before(especially for Chieftain and Warlord levels), and it has gotten my wife interested in playing CivRev
What more could I ask for?
I've so far been very impressed with it. It is simplified, but doesn't feel dumbed down at all. The AI is much better than any I've seen before(especially for Chieftain and Warlord levels), and it has gotten my wife interested in playing CivRev
What more could I ask for?
vale
Mathematician
I was disappointed by the abbreviated Civilopedia. I would gladly trade off some turns of demo to have access to a full civilopedia text.
It is interesting and I am eagerly anticipating getting my hands on the full game (July 8th grr).
Anyone think the gobbledegook advisor speak will be replaced by english in the full version? Or is that just wishful thinking?
It is interesting and I am eagerly anticipating getting my hands on the full game (July 8th grr).
Anyone think the gobbledegook advisor speak will be replaced by english in the full version? Or is that just wishful thinking?
BalbanesBeoulve
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,060
Didn't like it. Maybe because the game seemed to be going at a quick speed, when i'm used to marathon games.
the Intricacy
Khaaaaaaaaaan!
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 84
What I liked:
-presentation
-most of the simplifiying in the name of scaling down game (religion, worker units, tech tree)
-exploration/espionage system
What seemed unbalanced:
-I find Angkor Wat -> Builds me pyramids -> Communism + Iron Working three techs in the game! Crank Legions and conquer.
-The road system seems exploitable to me. I mean, the easiest way to move troops at an enemy is to send a settler first, make a city right next to enemy border, connect road, then send hoardes up that road.
What I didn't like:
-The return to x/x units! Civ IV did many things right, but imho, the switch to a single value rock/paper/scissors mechanic was the main innovation. Very sad to see it go.
When they had the podcasts Q/A about this game half a year ago, I asked about improving the tactics of the combat system, and they replied with something along the lines of "this isn't a tactics game, it's gotta be simple enough on several aspects to function without one aspect upending the other." Well, fair enough I suppose, but speaking for myself, that's not what I wanted to hear. The strength in having a deep tactical system is that there was the possibility that even when stuck with a starting locational, overall size or empire management disadvantage, there was hope in "smarting your way past it" by simply fighting smarter.
-It seemed to me that a 11 to 10 attack has a 10% chance of winning. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I liked in civ IV that there was a bonus for "being right", a reward for smart tactics.
Oh well, that's just my initial impressions. Overall I will buy it and play it, but probably won't get as obsessed with it that I did with Civ IV. Oh well.
-presentation
-most of the simplifiying in the name of scaling down game (religion, worker units, tech tree)
-exploration/espionage system
What seemed unbalanced:
-I find Angkor Wat -> Builds me pyramids -> Communism + Iron Working three techs in the game! Crank Legions and conquer.
-The road system seems exploitable to me. I mean, the easiest way to move troops at an enemy is to send a settler first, make a city right next to enemy border, connect road, then send hoardes up that road.
What I didn't like:
-The return to x/x units! Civ IV did many things right, but imho, the switch to a single value rock/paper/scissors mechanic was the main innovation. Very sad to see it go.
When they had the podcasts Q/A about this game half a year ago, I asked about improving the tactics of the combat system, and they replied with something along the lines of "this isn't a tactics game, it's gotta be simple enough on several aspects to function without one aspect upending the other." Well, fair enough I suppose, but speaking for myself, that's not what I wanted to hear. The strength in having a deep tactical system is that there was the possibility that even when stuck with a starting locational, overall size or empire management disadvantage, there was hope in "smarting your way past it" by simply fighting smarter.-It seemed to me that a 11 to 10 attack has a 10% chance of winning. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I liked in civ IV that there was a bonus for "being right", a reward for smart tactics.
Oh well, that's just my initial impressions. Overall I will buy it and play it, but probably won't get as obsessed with it that I did with Civ IV. Oh well.
Did you guys also have the feeling, that you can just spam the whole island with cities, and still have no penalty from that?
I set up 3 or 4 cities far away from my capital. In Civ4 this would mean i literally would have no research until same time after inventing legislature. But in CivRev, thats perfectly fine... no penalty at all...
Has anyone found out, if you can still theoretically farm 2 fiels around your city? I somehow had the feeling it's just one field around it. Therefore I forsee continents that are just spammed with cities...
I generally never had the feeling like a city that was badly placed would give me any penalty at all.
Also, when conquering a city, you are taking it over instantly... Not a word about maybe just plundering and destroying it...
It's like a small arcade version of Civ, but by far nothing compared to Civ4. But thats just after the first 2 hours with the Demo. Maybe it'll get better.
... still buying it though
I set up 3 or 4 cities far away from my capital. In Civ4 this would mean i literally would have no research until same time after inventing legislature. But in CivRev, thats perfectly fine... no penalty at all...
Has anyone found out, if you can still theoretically farm 2 fiels around your city? I somehow had the feeling it's just one field around it. Therefore I forsee continents that are just spammed with cities...
I generally never had the feeling like a city that was badly placed would give me any penalty at all.
Also, when conquering a city, you are taking it over instantly... Not a word about maybe just plundering and destroying it...
It's like a small arcade version of Civ, but by far nothing compared to Civ4. But thats just after the first 2 hours with the Demo. Maybe it'll get better.
... still buying it though
JesusOnEez
Emperor
I would have liked the demo to have included random maps as opposed to the one we get...I'm assuming the full game has random maps.
What I like:
UI. I'm genuinely impressed that they've made this easily playable with a gamepad.
Bonuses from finding a tech first.
Armies.
Workers come from your population, not 'built' units.
Veteran, Elite etc system.
What I don't like:
Where's my BFC!
Food OR Hammers OR (Beakers OR Gold/Trade) - Brackets for water tiles...
Graphics...mostly because everything looks too crowded...same complaint I had for SM Railroads.
Oh, and I found it difficult to make some things out on my 32" tube telly...this really has been designed for HD, so that's worth noting especially if you're playing on a small tube telly.
I may rent to get the overall picture, but generally I feel disappointed...which is kind of what I expected, and yeah, one of my first thoughts was, "Why are they talking Simlish?"
What I like:
UI. I'm genuinely impressed that they've made this easily playable with a gamepad.
Bonuses from finding a tech first.
Armies.
Workers come from your population, not 'built' units.
Veteran, Elite etc system.
What I don't like:
Where's my BFC!
Food OR Hammers OR (Beakers OR Gold/Trade) - Brackets for water tiles...
Graphics...mostly because everything looks too crowded...same complaint I had for SM Railroads.
Oh, and I found it difficult to make some things out on my 32" tube telly...this really has been designed for HD, so that's worth noting especially if you're playing on a small tube telly.
I may rent to get the overall picture, but generally I feel disappointed...which is kind of what I expected, and yeah, one of my first thoughts was, "Why are they talking Simlish?"
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Not a chance. Pirates was done the same way.
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
I've so far been very impressed with it. It is simplified, but doesn't feel dumbed down at all. The AI is much better than any I've seen before(especially for Chieftain and Warlord levels), and it has gotten my wife interested in playing CivRev
Just remember the rest of us in the PC world. 
NikNak
Warlord
Seconded. I also liked the general "speed" of the game which seemed just right for a console audience. I think I'll be picking this up.
I liked the game overall. Exspecially being able to spend gold to finish production quickly right at the beginning. It seems like happy/upset factor has been tossed out of the game as well.
The control system is easy to use as well and I think the game will bring other console gamers who have yet to become fans of TBS like CIV.
The control system is easy to use as well and I think the game will bring other console gamers who have yet to become fans of TBS like CIV.
I loved the demo. Ordered the game right away after playing it through. Then I also promised myself not to play the demo no more as it´s kinda hard to only play it for X turns.. But the itch is too hard. Gotta play another round of it tonight.. to a White Russian 
I found it a nice game. The UI is done incredibly well, I never would have thought it could be done. I'm not sure on the speed of the game, though... I guess I'm used to playing civ4, where I can take over a civ or two, then switch to focusing on winning a space race, take over a couple more civs later, then finish culturally. It seems like you will have to be doing one thing from the beginning... I think it will fit console audiences perfectly, and I really am looking forward to picking it up.
So far it feels like playing a TBS game at RTS speeds. It's a lot better than Civ4 quick mode since the rules and maps are specially designed with this speed in mind.
I'm going to continue to practice up on the demo some since it seem obvious to me multiplayer will be tough and fast. As someone noted place a city at your enemies border then build a road and have huge armies in the enemies borders within one turn.
I'm going to continue to practice up on the demo some since it seem obvious to me multiplayer will be tough and fast. As someone noted place a city at your enemies border then build a road and have huge armies in the enemies borders within one turn.
I enjoy the game, I try to avoid comparing it to Civ4. It really feels like a console game so the pacing is a bit more action oriented. I wish there was more than one map size (only one size in full game too). I wonder how many civs you can play with at once? Just five? I was hoping you could slow the gamespeed down (via epic, marathon) but it doesn't appear that will be an option either. That being said it is defintely going into my collection.
KAZUY4
Warlord
Agree, If u compare the game with CIV 4 af course u are going to find the game horrible, but I'm been playing the demo like a new game and is very kool, a lot of new features and I jsut hope u can change the game speed, that will be awesome. 
IMO changing the game speed and playing large maps wouldn't work that well since everything in Rev is about speed. For example
1) No penalty for spamming cities, thus bigger maps equals more city spamming.
2) roads are built instantly with no movement cost
3) ships carries unlimited amount of units
4) very powerful wonders and bonuses
5) Capturing all the capitals is all that needed to win by Domination.
Slower speed wouldn't necessary mean longer and more "epic" games but more likely would mean a lot of the games would end in Medieval period by Domination.
1) No penalty for spamming cities, thus bigger maps equals more city spamming.
2) roads are built instantly with no movement cost
3) ships carries unlimited amount of units
4) very powerful wonders and bonuses
5) Capturing all the capitals is all that needed to win by Domination.
Slower speed wouldn't necessary mean longer and more "epic" games but more likely would mean a lot of the games would end in Medieval period by Domination.
donovant22
Chieftain
It's a really stripped-down version that will be good for faster-paced multiplayer but I'm still going to prefer the computer version unless they do some serious changes before the finished product comes out.
Similar threads
