All Games Seems To Be The Same

I've started quite a lot of games recently. Haven't had good start. Interesting that my first King game was victorious (heh I guess it's beginners luck). Anyways now that it seems my games are allways evolving same way. I don't know is it because of game or my style.

My guess is that it's bit of how game is. It's allways war and no options. I block easily AIs offensive, play for awhile that way and then I got bored.
Domination recuires huge army and I don't have patience to crate that. Civ 4 also recuired big army but not nearly size than this. Because of certain death of offensive units it's really nerves breaking for me.
And since there's no room for tactics even war seems to be bit of boring.

I know that in this civ game, units are just...well cards with OD numbers. Previous civ game units had meaning. Now it's just create army of certain numbers and try to out beat opponents numbers. It's just too faceless.

Funny but Revolution reminds board game for me.

A lot of the depth found in Civ II-IV is gone with Rev. I've played a couple of dozen games now with Rev, and while it's certainly not a bad game, it is easily my least favorite version simply because it does become rather tedious and a bit shallow. Without diplomacy, the art of war is simply attack and defend. Without religion, the subtle nature of PC versions is completely lost.

A buddy of mine came over and played a round, and he asked me what the big deal was with Civ because I've been a big fan for years. So I took him to my PC and let him experience Civ IV, and he found it to be a world of difference. There is just so much gone from Rev that it's just not a strong version of Civ, no matter how they gloss it and no matter how we players try to justify it.

However, it was never supposed to be a deep Civ game. Sid himself built this one and had a direct influence, so the end result is exactly what Sid wanted. What I don't appreciate is the pre-release hype about the game, because my expectations were far greater than the reality.

With all that being said, I'd recommend Civ: Rev to a noob, but I would never try to sell it to a Civ veteran.

I'd disagree, my games are usually pretty unique, but I play MP so there isn't the predictable AI. MP is how the game should be played.

By the way, I'm a Civ veteran and I do enjoy the game quite a bit.

I do not find the games to be similar at all. In the one game all civs are beating me up, the next game all but one are beating me up and the one that I didnt see all the game launches a spaceship.... and that is about it. I haven't seen a computer opponent win an economic or culture victory yet.

It depends how well you know Rev. After a half dozen games they are end up been more or less the same especially playing at deity. You basically take care of 2-3 AI at the beginning then choose which victory you want to go for. It really doesn't matter which one since one path leads to all victories.

You could of course turtle up and let the AI beat on you with endless troops yet that's not very exciting since the AI isn't that good at war. In every game either you are playing aggressive or the AI will be.

Double Barrel said:

A lot of the depth found in Civ II-IV is gone with Rev. I've played a couple of dozen games now with Rev, and while it's certainly not a bad game, it is easily my least favorite version simply because it does become rather tedious and a bit shallow. Without diplomacy, the art of war is simply attack and defend. Without religion, the subtle nature of PC versions is completely lost.

Click to expand...

Religion wasn't in Civ II though, nor was diplomacy to the extent that you see it in Civ IV.

Rev basically feels, to me, like Civ II without upkeep/corruption/pollution/starvation.