So what are you loving? Not loving?

[dexters]

Also note on all versions PS3/360/DS the map size is the same and on SP mode, you always face 4 AI plus barbs.

It's balanced that way.

 

[Double Barrel]

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.

yeah, you're probably right. I just have to get used to the fact that this game will always be Civ-lite. (Obviously nothing 'wrong' with that, either.)

 

[yarp72]

I havn't played civ rev yet but im getting it soon. it doesnt sound nearly as good as my civ IV which i have, that has lots of choices so you can play a differant game every time, so YOU WON'T GET BORED WITH IT AFTER A MONTH. I could be wrong, but thats the impression im getting so far. At least I'll be able to play it on long car rides on my DS. I dont look forward to the problems of moving large stacks. I still don't know anything myself yet. I can still hope...... sigh......

 

[djcrank]

I am so disappointed with this game that I created this user account so I could vent my fustrations about this sad chapter in Civ history. I cannot believe how optionless and bland this game is. Dont get me wrong, it looks pretty, but it has no soul. I wish I had rented it so I could just continue playing civ4 and not be lamenting the loss of my money.

 

[I-am-a-panda]

loving the fun of it and the MP.
Not loving the unintelligent AI, lack of map choices and poor maps with 60%+ water, and lack of diplomatic options.

 

[SpiritWolf]

Like: No workers
Dislike: Every AI = Civ4 Monty/Shaka

 

[Soon Forget]

Like: No workers
Dislike: Every AI = Civ4 Monty/Shaka

Bingo!

I love Civ4, but is nice to play a game of Civ and not have stacks of spreadsheets and reference material spread out around me. I just wish the game had a better diplomacy interface and less aggressive AI (even good old Abe Lincoln is a jerk).

Other then that, the game is set up very well for a counsel and is still great fun.

 

[shadowplay]

Other then that, the game is set up very well for a counsel and is still great fun.

Them lawyers, hogging all the fun...


hiyooooo

 

[jayeffaar]

same here
also Custom Workers being the last option sucks

That could so easily be fixed if that menu would only wrap around, like some of the other menus. One tick up would put you on the Custom option.

 

[Smidlee]

Noted that the AI isn't very aggressive if you are. For example camp an army of horseman (if it's too late to take their capital) at their capital waiting to receive free settlers. After you capture them they will accept peace. Park the horseman again usually on a hill and wait for the next settler to built.

 

[Carch]

That could so easily be fixed if that menu would only wrap around, like some of the other menus. One tick up would put you on the Custom option.

No need for that...

If you are in the city screen and press the left thumb stick in it immediately takes you to custom worker management.

 

[revcrap]

AI.
Before I got too far into my first game I thought people were overblowing the Aggressive AI. Now that I've hit mid-to-late game I see that every single word is true.

- If you're winning they all gang up on you.
- If you're loosing they all gang up on you.
- If an AI civ is running away with the game, they all gang up on you.
- Every single trun I'm threatened by someone with ridiculous demands whether we're at war or not.
- If I waste my entire treasury to get a nation to attack someone else it lasts for 4 turns of the AI doing absolutely nothing.

I enjoy a good Civ war like anyone else. When every single civ, nearly every single turn of the game is at war with you it doesn't feel like you're leading a civilation through time against other civilizations. It feels like you're playing a video game that artificially ups the difficulty level through unrealistic means and completely removes the feeling of leading a nation.

All in all I think the game is okay, but don't see myself putting in nearly the number of hours I have for previous versions because being at war the entire game against every other civ simply isn't fun for me.

I third your sentiments.

also,
The map zoom out is really crappola as one cannot zoom-out and pan without some serious roller coaster nauseating effects, and it doesn't really provide a decent overview of the surroundings. On more than one occasion I have had a city overrun because I couldn't locate the enemies city with that crappy zoom so that I could send my tanks over. I HATE THE MAP PAN.....

I'm currently trying to get going at deity, and I'm two turns away from tossing this game....

I do my best to manage my city so that I can get some decent tech going asap, and next thing, bam, I'm being hammered by a neighbour who has rifleman....WTH...how did he get there so quickly.....just doesn't seem logical and therein lies the issue for me, so much about this game is illogical that it's unplayable.

as I said, two turns away from the trash can....

 

[Shinseng]

Yeah, the AI in this game is plain screwy. Everyone wants a piece of you, even if you can clearly wipe them off the map. Some send endless waves of forces that you pulverize over and over (which is a nice way to get elite forces), others declare war, are land locked from reaching you, then several turns later sue for peace since you proved the 'might of your armies'. Huh? Was there some secret war that I missed?

All in all, I really enjoy this game though. Of course, I'm pretty much a dedicated console player, so I'm a civirgin and don't have expectations based on previous versions of it. Still, all the veteran civ players make several good points that I hope make it into the next incarnation of this game for the consoles. Options, non-aggression treaties, better AI, bigger maps, modern units, etc... Are you getting this Firaxis?

 

[Double Barrel]

Rev puts a high value on military tech. Even if you are going a peaceful route to a win, you still have to put a lot into your military to be able to defend your territory. Even if you give away/trade all of your money and tech, as soon as the AI discovers that you are way ahead and building SS parts, they all declare war on you. I even had the Greeks change governments just to declare war on me because of my endgame.

These are just the parameters of the AI that Sid has chosen. Not much in the way of diplomacy (to be honest, the diplomacy is a joke with Rev), so just be prepared for perpetual war with this version of Civ.

 

[ICNP]

I Love the fact I can now play civ on my DS which while being shallow is enjoyable as I'm still working out strategy in my head. Just my main strategical points are Research... and Declare War on...

Yeah War seems like the best option. Armies of defenders in each city and you may just stand a chance. Diplo really needs fixing. In previews it looked cool how the AI was more dynamic in making demands and how it was with comprimise but the fact that there is not even Open Borders is such a joke. Considering the maps are so small and relationships are random I see no point to even including a diplo screen.

However Relics are awesome and not having workers is actually nice. I don't think their are any huge bugs but more just Design flaws which show that they didn't pick a very good QA test group. IE one that goes for Domination win everytime.

 

[logical_psycho]

Love:
-Hardly any micro management
-Short but intense games
- graphics are great (for a civ game)
-concepts such as artifacts, naval support


Hate:
-no configuration with maps
-no strategic use for resources, almost every tile in the game is useful and everyone can have the same units.
-simple AI. Computer opponents can make your life hard by dumping a load of units onto your city nearest to theirs, but tactics aren't anywhere to be found. I can leave cities barely unprotected and they wont get lost in battle. A roaming siege weapon will keep them cleared from trouble.
-AI doesnt utilize spies as much as they should
- multiplayer doesnt work
-war often is often the only real option

 

[777]

What is perhaps best thing about rev. is city management. I love it. It makes game so much faster.

What I hate that good combat system from IV has been ruined totally and replace it ******** old school combat. Defense numbers are insane. Even if you use spies to destroy fortress denfensive numbers are allways ridiculous high. Perhaps after bombers things change but until that..."joy". I just had 5 cannon armies, 4 knight armies and 3 fighter wings. And couldn't take even one whole rifleman army. +40 defense is stupid. Before bombers you never can get so high numbers. With bad luck even if you have 3 times bigger army than defensive opponent your going to lose. Changes beign not hurted is annoying.
Altough I remeber that I had modern infantry army with 60 defense and it lost against +80 germany bomber wings. But that was special unit.

 

[777]

Yeah War seems like the best option. Armies of defenders in each city and you may just stand a chance. Diplo really needs fixing. In previews it looked cool how the AI was more dynamic in making demands and how it was with comprimise but the fact that there is not even Open Borders is such a joke. Considering the maps are so small and relationships are random I see no point to even including a diplo screen.

Haha, yeah I forgot about open borders. I have little understanding that crossing territories are out of option. But that you can't even go thru unit on open terrain is just silly.

I.e. I built road from capitol to another city. Ai parked unit on my route and it took two extra turns to move unit from city to another. That was super annoying. I couldn't pass it without declaring war.

 

[NaZdReG]

Like:

surprisingly good adaptation to a controller over a keyboard.. refreshing.
ease of micro on the cities, which still can make an impact
not having to mirco workers to build roads and such

dislike
I must echo the defensive issue. once you hit modern infantry its time to start looking at the other victory conditions.

an army of modern inf behind a wall with a general, loyalty, fortified, veterans, can get over 90 defense. even with artillery or bombers it becomes a sketchy proposition

if they're aztec forget it.. if you lose the fight they took no damage. better at that point to entrench and force a stalemate while you go for econ or spacerace win. prey they forget that the aztec are an econ civ (why does everyone in multiplayer assume they're aggressive?)

rush buying needs to be fixed... a civ that booms can be unstoppable when combined with an ICS strat.

 

[777]

Like:
an army of modern inf behind a wall with a general, loyalty, fortified, veterans, can get over 90 defense. even with artillery or bombers it becomes a sketchy proposition

if they're aztec forget it.. if you lose the fight they took no damage.

Yes. That trait is weird. I think that's even out of rules. Say if you don't have any unit what come +90, you'll lose with high odds. You can waste all your units against one army. If there are more of them waiting, it's useless. That's capturing one city, you'll lose your life to capture more of them

I still can't understand battle system. It has got real poor attention and design. They've made it simple and keep it that way, without paying attention that it hurts gameplay itself quite bad.
Perhaps better quality and balanced offensive units and traits qould have been option for that.