Some more details about Civ Revolutions

[homan1983]

I look forward to crushing you in multiplayer then

Wrong

So you picked a crackpot anarchist from the 1700s(and early 1800s)

Wrong

and a historian who focuses specifically on Persia as the people you wanted to support you?

Oh the humanity, we took the opinion of someone whose entire life was dedicated to history on said subject over someone who makes random comments

I agree that most people have more knowledge of European history

Correct

But I don't agree with your dates, as those empires were no more persian than the portuguese empire is still spanish.

Wrong, they were Persian, of that there is no doubt or global dispute

Hellenistic Persia is not Persia.

Wrong

I consider America America and not european, I consider Oz Austrailia not Britain, I consider British British not Saxon or Roman

But I don't agree with your dates, as those empires were no more persian than the portuguese empire is still spanish.

The fact that you agree to this regarding portugese vs spain just confirms you're confused to even your own beliefs.

those empires are considered Iranian in nature

Wrong

If you're picky then they ARE persian, if you're not then Persia is very close to Iran so either way you're wrong.

I think the Mongols are the only possible civ that could have been cut to make room for the Persians, but that they win out because they held a MUCH larger amount of territory at their height than the persians did.

Wrong

I already gave a list of civs which were much less important and iconic than Mongols, and it wasn't a short list either - and since Persia is > Mongol then its implied that Persia > them

Regarding landmass: Even though landmass is a critical indication of power and prowess; It has to be within context. A lot of the area captured under the mongols was barely contested by the great powers, by your own account then Russia is currently the most powerful country in the world because of its huge landmass.


Edit:
I can't believe you're saying that the poster is naive or bad at civilization because he thinks that -50% rushbuy is amazing as is spending capital as a whole. But then again you are welcome to hoard all your gold, more wins for me

You gotta spend money to make money. Imagine if at the start of the game I just started to hoard my money and production instead of investing it for future return. Pretty soon you'll realize that your 1 city will be no match for my 10city empire. The same principle applies to rushbuying [especially with the trait that makes rushbuying 100% stronger]. Its just a little harder to see because its less in your face obvious but the descerning of the Civ players will have already realized its potential.

 

[Thrallia]

you know what, I researched the people you used for examples...I was not wrong in my conclusions about them, so for you to just say 'wrong' and think you win the argument is idiotic.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong about Hegel being a crackpot anarchist.

Tell me why I'm wrong about the portuguese empire being a completely separate entity than the spanish empire.

You can't, because I'm absolutely correct in those estimations.

Persia ruled by Greece is not a persian empire, it is a vassalized empire...thus, not worthy of mention as a mighty civilization. All the rest of the civilizations you mentioned are IRANIAN in nature, as stated by your own sources(Wikipedia and the historian who focuses on Iran) Just because they are considered Iranian in nature, doesn't make them persian. Iran != Persia !!!! If you cannot understand this, then there's no more point in talking to you about this.

As for the comments about civilization prowess and rushbuying.....I never said that cheaper rushbuying makes someone bad at civ, I simply said I look forward to beating you in CivRev. I shall do so, if you have a 360, that is. Rushbuying is not that powerful a trait as some of the others, and I look forward to showing you how.

 

[homan1983]

I am saying I agree with your notion that portugese are a seperate civilization to spain.
If you read my post, I used your own example to demonstrate why I think "Hellenistic Persia is not Persia" is a false statement just as "Anglo-Saxon Britain is not Britain" would be a false statement or "European America is not America" would also be false.

You say you researched or readup on the people before you made your post, but to be fair, you never explained why you thought someone was a "crackpot" as you put it, just that he is. So I see no reason why the onus is on me to prove you wrong one something you didn't prove right itself.


A completely seperate direction now:

Is Greece a civilization in CivRev? I haven't heard much about them so far if any, and if they are in, does anyone have information as to what their civ traits are?

I'm surprised that the game is coming out in 1-2 weeks and we still don't have information on all 1 civs or aspects of the game [like what Great People do exactly]

 

[Col. West]

The game doesn't come out until July, actually.

 

[Padma]

It comes out in a couple of weeks - in Europe.

 

[warpstorm]

Is Greece a civilization in CivRev?

Yes (or at least they say they are on the official website).

 

[Schuesseled]

Rushing is very expesnive and destroys your chance at an economic victory, so being able to do this at 50% cost, isn't going to make a large amount of difference

Who gives a rats a$$ about economic victory. I know I sure as heck am not going to let my gold set around and do nothing hoping to get a economic victory.

If I am playing as the US I sure as heck will invest most of my gold in rushing out half price buildings, and infrastructure.

if your leading the race for a economic victory and you do taht i'll be waiting for you at the finishing line.

I am saying I agree with your notion that portugese are a seperate civilization to spain.
If you read my post, I used your own example to demonstrate why I think "Hellenistic Persia is not Persia" is a false statement just as "Anglo-Saxon Britain is not Britain" would be a false statement or "European America is not America" would also be false.

You say you researched or readup on the people before you made your post, but to be fair, you never explained why you thought someone was a "crackpot" as you put it, just that he is. So I see no reason why the onus is on me to prove you wrong one something you didn't prove right itself.


A completely seperate direction now:

Is Greece a civilization in CivRev? I haven't heard much about them so far if any, and if they are in, does anyone have information as to what their civ traits are?

I'm surprised that the game is coming out in 1-2 weeks and we still don't have information on all 1 civs or aspects of the game [like what Great People do exactly]

Great people can be used for a once off ability, or a permanent bonus. Engineer: rush building, or 50% production bonus)

You can't say persians are the biggest longest empire, and include dates after they were conquered/destroyed.

England dates from 100/200AD to now, you can't say that the english have been around for 1000BC to now because the romans were ruling the english, that would just be moronic.

 

[DRJ]

Sorry, but after having read all this, I cant dispose a feeling, that civ rev is going to be much too simplified for my taste - acuminated: a not very deep game for not very strategic, but pretty numb console players.

All the official comments heavily negating this preconception make me even more suspicious - the reason for this is that usually there is a certain amount of thruth in akward generalizations...

Regarding this threads bonus system comments of homan, it seems civ rev will lack of the so much loved complexity.

As I like very complex games and even complexer mods for these complex games (like, in civ 4 case: Rise of Mankind), I dont think I will be interested in this game.

I dont have a console and, having read the comments and having seen the screenies, I most certainly wont buy one for civ rev.

A little cynical hit at the end: dumb kiddies money is easier to get in a shorter amount of time (- with less deployment efforts).

 

[homan1983]

I don't personally like complexity for the sake of complexity.

However even I think that some aspects of Civ Rev have gone too far.

I refer of course to the information that a game can have a maximum of 4 players [even single player].

The other aspect that I think could have used a LOT more work is diplomacy. I've seen literally no screenshot of anything about diplomacy apart from peace and war, and whilst I'm sure there are more options, this gives an indication that its not much.

The final thing that bothers me I don't really wanna delve into too much (since I don't have all the info yet) is that the makers of civilization decided to split the civilization community into xbox and ps3. It really bothers me that the ps3 and xbox players will NEVER be able to play together.

This isn't so bad for shooter games, but with civilization the community is very dear to me.
Consider this version of civ is very much multiplayer oriented, I'm surprised they didn't set up their own server and have both ps3 and xbox players connect to this central server.
I so badly want to get the game on PS3, but because I know 80%+ of people will be getting it on the xbox, I am forced to order the xbox version and borrow my sisters console to play it. Its really detrimental to ps3 game sales.

It wouldn't have really been that difficult, considering one of the core aspects of CivRev is that the game-core is the same with a layer on top for each of the consoles.

 

[Thrallia]

that information was wrong, each game contains 5 players, which is the same size as a small civ4 map.

and the developers didn't decide to split the community between DS, 360, and PS3...they have no choice in the matter. I don't understand the outcry over this when it has been a part of console multiplayer ever since online multiplayer became possible on consoles.

 

[Shiggs713]

I just wanted to say that CivRev looks very disappointing.... When I saw screen shots I nearly cried. More like a little 10 year olds playground than a grand strategy game.

 

[Thrallia]

so...brighter, more 3d and detailed graphics=not a good strategy game to you?

 

[DRJ]

so...brighter, more 3d and detailed graphics=not a good strategy game to you?

not if its spreading foggy dumbness, more 2d thinking and less detailed strategies...

 

[Schuesseled]

civ rev is pleanty complex, picking research now is going to be quite a challenging decision, do you go for a tech other people have got because its useful or do you go for the first to research bonus on a less useful tech.

 

[dennis580]

Persia is one of the top 4 Civs along with China, Egypt, and Rome.

What I want to know is how in the heck did the Zulu make. There not even close to being one of the top 50 civs let alone top 16.

 

[Lone Wolf]

What I want to know is how in the heck did the Zulu make. There not even close to being one of the top 50 civs let alone top 16.

Racial representation.

 

[Thrallia]

not racial, geographical.

 

[Thrallia]

not if its spreading foggy dumbness, more 2d thinking and less detailed strategies...

how about you try playing it before bashing it...and if you don't have a console and thus can't play it...why bother posting about it unless you are just jealous that you can't?