Request: Feedback on CivRev Multiplayer

Hey,

I've only played one game of Civ Rev multiplayer so far. I'm a little reluctant to invest the time to play the game against random enemies, but I may do that soon if my normal MP partner doesn't buy a PS3. Anyhoo, I'd like to think how you guys feel about Civ Rev in MP. What were your experiences so far?

Specifically, I'm interested in your answers to these questions:

1) Does the streamlined, simplified game make it easier for you to take decisions or to see the effects of the decisions you took?

2) Do you feel that luck plays a big role? (Bonus: if you've played any of the PC Civs, do you feel that luck plays a BIGGER role in Civ Rev than it did in the PC Civs?)

3) How long did your games normally take? Did you play with or without a timer? If you did play with timer, what kinds of actions made you run out of time? (For me it was trying to custom-manage the tiles in my 5-6 cities when a war broke out to get 100% production from all of them)

4) (Again, only if you did play the PC Civs) Do you feel that Civ Rev is in any way more "intense" than the PC versions? Do you find yourself actually engaging in war with your human enemy more often?

Of course I'm also interested in all other feedback you have--not so very much interested in bug reports, more in how the simplified gameplay affects your multiplayer game. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm writing an article for my blog about this and I'd like as much input as possible.

1) Does the streamlined, simplified game make it easier for you to take decisions or to see the effects of the decisions you took?

Click to expand...

- For me, it does. In CivIV, I was constantly changing my techs, worked tiles and what improvements I was building, to keep up with everyone else in tech, and depending on what civics I was running. In CivRev, there's no tile improvements and no civics, so it makes it easier for me to micro-manage my city and to decide if I should stay on a certain tech.

2) Do you feel that luck plays a big role? (Bonus: if you've played any of the PC Civs, do you feel that luck plays a BIGGER role in Civ Rev than it did in the PC Civs?)

Click to expand...

- Luck 100% plays a bigger role in CivRev than it does in the PC versions. In Civ4, you could pump out units easier, and had more turns. In CivRev, you have a specific amount of turns you play and pump out units much slower. If you lose 1-2 units in Civ4, it doesn't matter too much because you'll still have loads of other troops waiting. In CivRev, if you lose 2 armies, that could be your entire army attacking that certain city, and possibly making you lose the game.

3) How long did your games normally take? Did you play with or without a timer? If you did play with timer, what kinds of actions made you run out of time? (For me it was trying to custom-manage the tiles in my 5-6 cities when a war broke out to get 100% production from all of them)

Click to expand...

- My games generally take anywhere from 1 hour to 3 hours. I always try to play with a timer, preferably the 30 second one, as I'm always quick on my turns even when I get attacked while micro-managing and exploring.

- I believe the CivRev multiplayer timing is really bad compared to the Civ4 multiplayer. I know Civ4 had lots of problems, but in CivRev it takes forever to for most people to end there turns. In Civ4 it took a while too, but not quite as long, plus the micro-management was much more interesting in Civ4, so you had something to do while you were waiting for another player to finish up their turn.

4) (Again, only if you did play the PC Civs) Do you feel that Civ Rev is in any way more "intense" than the PC versions? Do you find yourself actually engaging in war with your human enemy more often?

Click to expand...

- No for both question. In the PC version, the game was more intense simply because you had more options to customize your city, there was more techs, and religion player a role. You could set up a GP farm but building lots of pastures and farms, or you could cottage the rivers for lots of gold. In CivRev it's move units, then maybe move working tile A to working tile B. CivRev could've had workers and religion, while still being simplified.

- For war, I always declared war early in Civ4, as well as CivRev. For me, I don't war because I want to "noob-rush" them (Take out their undefended city); I don't do that. I do early war to box them in with warriors, and to kill their warriors to get myself more barbarian villages and goody huts. In Civ4, I did this a lot more, because goody huts generally had more worthwhile items in them, instead of a horse.

- Early war also mattered a whole lot more because you had to have a resource in your border to use it, you didn't just have to research the tech and automatically get the unit. Having Bronze or Iron in civ4 generally meant you were going on the attack, but if you didn't have it, you'd generally dig-in for defense, and try to tech and crank out GP's quicker.

To complete the other answer, I would say that most human player like to do war as soon as possible. I was a bit surprised at first but you have to adjust to it. If you play against a Zulu or arab player particulary you need to build up an army quick because you know that they are looking for a quick victory. I call Zulu a kind of gamble civ because the player will try to get as much capitol as they can at the beginning and don't build anything except impi warrior, so that if it don't work they will have a disadvantage for the rest of the game. But they're is also a lot of empire building game that can end up pretty tight and last for up to 2-3 hours.