Is the game worth it?

[treeko411]

I have been playing CIV since CIV III and i have CIV IV and BtS (which won't work) And i was wondering if this game was worth the $60. A lot of people are saying that its a watered down version of CIV and focuses more on the combat than anything and is less in-depth when it comes to creating the world or running cities and researching tech. is this true? would a person like me who plays these games for the in-depth startegy element (i usually do go for domination or conquest victories though) like this game?

 

[Carch]

If you're the type of person who likes to micromanage every little detail, then this game probably isn't for you.

Otherwise, it's not so much a "watered down" Civ as it is a streamlined one. Civ Rev has fewer kinds of units than Civ IV, fewer technologies to research, and you don't tell your workers every little thing to build. It still has the big picture strategy, exciting combat and "one-more-turn" gameplay that makes all the Civ games great.

 

[treeko411]

I might just rent this game to see how it is because from what you told me it has some things i like and don't like in it. I don't like to micromanage every little thing and i usually get so frustrated with my workers that i just automanage em. But i dislike the fewer techs and units thing....... but that seem pretty in significant. maybe i'll just try the demo before renting.

 

[bonafide11]

I think there is plenty of micromanaging available in Civ Rev though. There aren't as many ways to manage everything, but in some ways, there is more. Research/gold is no longer controlled from a central location, instead you manage each city's income individually. You no longer have to have say 70% research and 30% economy, now it's easier to specialize it so you have specific research cities and specific gold cities. Of course, you needed to do specialize cities before, but you couldn't determine which the specific invested in because you had to choose for your whole empire. This meant you'd get extra gold in science cities and extra science in gold cities that went to waste.

Not to mention, as far as I can tell, extra research does not count towards the next tech, so you want to get as close to the exact tech amount as possible, and any extra breakers go to waste, so you're better off converting the extra beakers into gold, which gives another way to micromanage your cities.

 

[Leopeo]

Not to mention, as far as I can tell, extra research does not count towards the next tech, so you want to get as close to the exact tech amount as possible, and any extra breakers go to waste, so you're better off converting the extra beakers into gold, which gives another way to micromanage your cities.

They actually converts to gold automatically.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

I prefer Civ Rev infinitely more than the rest of the Civ games. The combat is the main focus and, as a result, it's actually done well (no more of that 99.9% loss crap in Civ 4). You no longer have to worry about what unit counters what and witness the destruction of your tank to a spearman. There are two stats which dictate battle, attack and defense.

If you are attacking, you go up against the opponents defense. It's so much better than the whole "Oh, my elephants have 8 strength and the opponent has 4 on his archers, I should win... WHAT I LOST AND DIDN'T TAKE OUT ANY OF HIS STUFF WHEN THE CHANCE TO WIN WAS 67.4%?!"

You also have the ability to run from combat (only during the first two seconds I believe) which gives the enemy a free upgrade but is very useful for scouting out how much the defending units defense is.

Each unit feels like it has a purpose that doesn't revolve around "spears counter horses, horses counter archers, archers counter axes, axes counter swords, swords counter spears" gameplay that makes Civ 4 warfare a chore. No need to worry about having X resource in order to counter Y unit, just tech up.

Because the combat has been focused on greatly in this game, it has become less of a chore and more of a viable focus in the early game, which was very lacking in Civ 4. Also, because the combat is less of a guess (Will my spears be able to beat this cavalry this time?) other victories are much more accessible.

The only thing I feel they've watered down are the victory types. With only 4 ways to win, I feel like just a little something is missing, but it's nothing to make me want to play Civ 4 ever again.

Sadly, my PS3 is bricked and I'm forced to play Civ 4 for my Civ fix and it just does not cut it anymore. The biggest draw back for me in Civ 4 is the combat and how poorly it's implemented. I always feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle with game mechanics instead of fighting an uphill battle against the AI. Civ Rev doesn't feel like that.

 

[treeko411]

I like that whole thinking of spears trump horses and horses trump archers etc. i play games like the Total war franchise (its a bit like CIV but much less detail on city management and way more focused on battles and you're family and heirs. Like a unit of archers is 70 men and when theres a battle it zooms in and you control you're 70 men and 140 horses and stuff like that. i suggest it if you like CIV but wished that there was more realistic and detailed battles) and i'm not quite sure what you meant by how the CIV REV battle play out. I happen to like CIV 4s combat very much and i love the fact that no matter how late in the game it is, macemen trump everything!(or at least mine do) SO i'm not sure if i'm going to like CIV REV, but like i said i'm going to download the demo on my PS3 and try it. i'll let you know within a day or 2 if i like it.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

My issue with Civ 4 is that the counter to units does not always work. I like the idea that spears should be able to take out cavalry, but when my stack of pikes die to a single cavalry unit, the counter isn't realized. I think Sid realized this when he made the units the way they are in Civ Rev.

There are still counters, it's just that you don't have to know everything about every unit ever to be able to counter a unit like in Civ 4. You don't have to know that there is a difference between Chariots and Horse Archers when sending your spears to battle that horse. You don't have to learn the hard way that axes, despite being great at taking out melee units, don't really do much of anything when attacking a city. You don't have to learn that there is more to that 4 strength than just that - everything is labeled clearly for you.

There is no real mystery about what unit can take out what. Units are clearly labeled as offensive or defensive by the stats they have.

 

[treeko411]

There are still counters, it's just that you don't have to know everything about every unit ever to be able to counter a unit like in Civ 4.

In my opinion its more realistic to have to know every little thing about every unit. If you were an actual general then you would have to know all of that. If you didn't then you wouldn't live long enough to conquer much. But i can see how you would like CIV REV. Its more of a game than the others. But i play the others because in my opinion i think it's one of the most realistic games for micro-managing out there. But CIV REV still sound like it would appeal to me when i don't want to play a CIV game for 7 or 8 or even more hours (i never save) and just want to jum right in. Would i be mistaken if i said that it would take like 1/2 to 2/3 of the time it would take to beat you're average CIV?

 

[Chinese American]

The whole rock-paper-scissors units in Civ4 doesn't work well because there is no tactical way to deploy the units to take full advantage. Abilities works great in games like Master of Magic where you move units on an actual battlefield and direct them to fight. Then you can move pikes next to enemy horses, etc.

CivRev combat may be simplified, but it still requires adequate set up to take down a city defense. Things not tied directly to one-on-one fights, but still affect the outcome of battle. You want catapults for sieges, spies to take to remove defense bonuses, ships for naval support. Etc.

 

[erislover]

I loved Civ II so much, I didn't get bored with it until Civ III was already in the bargain bin at 9.99. I loved CivIII so much, I never bothered to pick up 4. My hope for CivRev was to get a streamlined game so that I could finish in one sitting, while still giving me the typical rush of trying to gather defensive units and get that next tech (OK, one more smoke, then I'm going to bed) and this game has that. If anything, its pace makes one that much more likely to play and play and play...

So, yeah, I'd recommend it.

 

[canisnoir]

I have to admit, I like both BTS and CivRev, it just depends on what I'm in the mood for at the time. Where Civ IV BTS gives me the epic feeling of guiding a people through time, CivRev gives me that "It's a game" feeling; the focus is vastly different. I have to admit, I sometimes find myself wishing that I could find an artifact when playing BTS or I could just specialize my city, but then again there are sometimes in CivRev when I wish I could grab a stack of armies and move them in a simple button click like in Civ IV.

The Upshot is that CivRev feels more like a game; there's a decided Beginning to End feeling and the strategies seem to be more simple and straight forward. Also, like someone upthread mentioned, it's nice to sit in the comfy chair and play a civ game on my TV

 

[Quotey]

CrimsonEdge, how do you complain about the RNG in Civ4 but not in Rev? They're both fine. A 64.7% chance to win doesn't mean automatic win, and doesn't mean the opponent takes damage either. And the spearmen vs tank thing isn't from Civ4. You lose 99.9% battles because it's not 100%. These things happen in both games. 'Cept it's more Pikeman vs Tank or Archer vs Tank.

Combat in Civ3 was pretty much attacking skewed, in Civ4 it's attacking skewed due to siege, and in CivRev... I dunno. When you get to Modern Infantry it's very defencive, bt you can sill take a Modern Infantry down with an Infiltration Tanks Army with Fleet Naval Support. I'd go with defence skewed, because a Tank Army doesn't beat a Rifle Army in a city often enough, but it doesn't show odds so I dunno.

The game's certainly less detailed and if you don't like conquesting, multiplayer is unlikely to be your cup of tea.

 

[bonafide11]

I think I would like to see Civ Rev combat made a little deeper, so certain units got bonuses against other units in the rock-paper-scissors way. I don't think it would slow the game down too much. Offense/defense simplifies it too much, in my opinion. It sort of renders the catapults and cannons insignificant because you can just use other offensive units (knights, tanks) to attack defenses. I know catapults usually come before knights and are slightly cheaper, but it doesn't make enough of a difference for them to have a purpose in the game. They don't have a city attack bonus, so they are just slower and weaker knights. They should have a more distinct purpose.

 

[bonafide11]

CrimsonEdge, how do you complain about the RNG in Civ4 but not in Rev? They're both fine. A 64.7% chance to win doesn't mean automatic win, and doesn't mean the opponent takes damage either. And the spearmen vs tank thing isn't from Civ4. You lose 99.9% battles because it's not 100%. These things happen in both games. 'Cept it's more Pikeman vs Tank or Archer vs Tank.

Combat in Civ3 was pretty much attacking skewed, in Civ4 it's attacking skewed due to siege, and in CivRev... I dunno. When you get to Modern Infantry it's very defencive, bt you can sill take a Modern Infantry down with an Infiltration Tanks Army with Fleet Naval Support. I'd go with defence skewed, because a Tank Army doesn't beat a Rifle Army in a city often enough, but it doesn't show odds so I dunno.

The game's certainly less detailed and if you don't like conquesting, multiplayer is unlikely to be your cup of tea.

I'm not sure if I'd go with defense skewed in the modern era. I'd disagree, it definitely favors attacking. No matter how good your technology and military is, it's almost impossible to defend against bombers and battleships. There is nothing that can defend bombers.

 

[Disturebd One]

Is the game worth it for the DS cuz i've always wanted a protable Civ game
besides graphics is gameplay good?

 

[Raw Power]

I'm not sure if I'd go with defense skewed in the modern era. I'd disagree, it definitely favors attacking. No matter how good your technology and military is, it's almost impossible to defend against bombers and battleships. There is nothing that can defend bombers.

I haven't tried this, but wouldn't a fighter wing defeat a bomber wing?