Discussion in 'CivRev - General Discussions' started by Sanveann, Jul 10, 2008.
I detest the fact there are no post-WWII military units. Aircraft carriers and jet fighters anyone?
I love the game in general, but I was hating the king difficulty game I played last night, heh.
I was started on a peninsula to where all five of the cities that I was able to create were coastal. That was fine until three of the other civs started ganging up on me. They blockaded my cities, so that I was unable to create naval units and on top of that, decided to start cheating to keep me trapped! I was sending bombers after cruisers and losing! Losing a 27-9 advantage more than half of the time. What is it in the combat math allows for this to happen with such high frequency? I can understand when the numbers are within 10% or so, but when you have triple their number shouldn't that win every time? Anyone else run into this?
Also, the AI is funny with their demands. No, I am not going to give Gunpowder or Atomic Theory to the people that have been throwing warriors at my city walls for the last 500 years...
Not making excuses for it, but the middle/industrial era units are also pretty spare.
The game jumps from archers to pikes to rifles to modern inf. Missing lots of inbetween units such as muskets, and infantry.
Also, in many Civ PC games, the modern era is usually a wasteland of rarely used units that find more usein scenarios and mods than in the actual epic games.
Since CivRev is largely an epic game experience on SP not having them doesn't hurt. They focused more on the ramp up to the modern era, where they should.
Yeah I definitely was surprised to see gunpowder unlocks riflemen instead of musketmen. That bothered me more than the lack of any modern units.
If you are in the city screen and press the left thumb stick in it immediately takes you to custom worker management.
The biggest gripe I have with the game is that I have to individually move entire stacks of legions and catapults. It's a pain.
Loving: The idea of a well executed civ game on the console
AI: The AI which is garbage and seems incapable of fighting between eachother and will gang up on you unless you give them 3-5 techs for nothing.
The multiplayer: Next to impossible to find and join a match, when you do find one expect to disconnect at mid game for some ******** error.
The techs: Its all well and dandy for a bonus resulting from being the first to a tech, but with almost every tech giving a bonus it allows the leader to pull even further ahead.
The game needed more thought put into it and more work before it was actually shipped.
- Everything that isnt about the AI or advantage/disadvantage
- The AI is terrible. They're overly aggressive and make terrible decisions.
- The advantage/disadvantage thing is sometimes ridiculous. I can understand winning a 3 - 6 fight, but if you have an over 10 advantage on someone, you should win, regardless.
Also, if you attack someone with a 59 to their 45, lose, and then attack with a 33 to a 45 and win, something is wrong.
I'm bugged by the fact some civilizations have 3-4 unique units (Japan, German, Amarca), and some have NONE (China, Egypt, India, Arabia). Every civ should have at least one.
No zoom out feature. I hate not being able to step back and look at the bigger picture. This was a strategy component for my PC civ games. And the lack of a mini-map is a bit weak, as well. Both served important functions, IMO.
While I am enjoying the game for the moment, it's mainly because it's new. I have never burned out of a Civ series. I'd take a break for awhile, but it wasn't burn out. But with Civ:Rev, I can already see myself getting bored with it. The lack of options - like number of civs, size of world - just seem like such a basic foundation for establishing the game that it feels like Civ with training wheels on at times.
Other stuff that needs to be added: moving a stack, more consistent AI, the ability to tailor games (i.e. turning off certain win conditions), and the ability to continue playing even after a winner is declared.
- the game speed
- tech tree
- How balanced the game is overall
- Multiplayer freezing and disconnecting
- Upgrade system (the civ 4 one was a bit better, lot of minor upgrades)
- custom game possibility (so that you could choose how big the map is, how many players,you could invite your friends to play with exact rules, how much water the map has, what victory conditions are included, if there is a AI, what difficulty is it on etc.)
- no hotseat
I don't know what version you have, but on the 360 you can zoom out by pressing the left trigger and zoom in by gently pressing on it.
Yeah, I get that, but you are only seeing part of the world. I was spoiled by Civ IV's 'global' view.
Although, with such a small world in Civ:Rev, it's not that big of a deal.
I love Civ games but this one is just terrible. I played it for 2 days before selling it to someone else. I could imagine how this game might appeal to players new to the Civ franchise but to veteran players I feel this is a dissapointment.
AI is terrible
advisors are annoying
lack of music ( varied music relative to the era always gave Civ the feel of an epic sweep of culture in a game)
no map options
no victory options
lack of units
lack of economy managment tools
online community was lacking
lack of depth that makes a Civilization game compelling
I hate how every tech is a favourite tech.
I didn't know this. Definitely solves my biggest complaint with the game. (Except for stacks, but I'm fairly confidant Firaxis will fix that).
Otherwise, my only complaint is that while the Civ4 style diplomacy needed some improvement, Rev doesn't really have diplo at all. No open borders is really annoying, and the tech trading is so biased toward the AI that it detracts from the game. The AI will only trade five gold for a tech, but wants 85 gold for a comparable tech. I guess they wanted to cut down on the beeline and trade aspect of Civ4, but I personally liked that way better.
Is this thing modable?
The way how its game me off.
An easy system. not full of crap
Easy to play
The way how its pissed me off (again)
Deity is not for 10 years old. ok i'm 21.
The only Civ-type game I've played before was Alpha Centauri, but it's pretty much the same thing in every way (good lord do I miss supply crawlers, though). The changes and concessions made in translation from PC to console are what you'd expect: everything is pretty streamlined and built for a much more casual audience.
I like CivRev a lot because it hits on the big points and, well jeez, it must be doing something right for it to be keeping me up as late as it is. The AI sucks and I'm pretty much at the point where it offers no challenge past annoyance. Alpha Centauri gives me an idea of some of the customizations that units and cities would have available beyond what we have in CivRev, so it can get a little bland when you have 2 or 3 powerful cities and they're just cranking out tanks and modern infantry turn after turn, only to go have them blow up archers and knights. I would like to play a game that I'm not sure I've completely won by the time I discover steam power, but that hasn't happened yet. More of a real challenge would be nice.
I really do like it and will probably spend a few more months playing it tirelessly, but if nothing else, it makes me really want to buy Civ4.
I really wish there was an option for a longer more traditional style civ game for those who want it. This game is sorely lacking options.
I agree. One of my favorite modes is unlimited (no time limit) domination with 16 civs on a huge map. It takes awhile, but that's what Civ is all about.
Hopefully Fireaxis hears our requests and we see some options added soon.
I highly doubt it. That's not what this game is about. This game is aimed at quick games that can be finished in one setting, and providing options like that would completely screw up the balance of the game.
Separate names with a comma.