What changes would you make?

soprismb

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
44
No game is perfect with the exception of chess. I like Civrev because I think it's pretty damn close to that. BUT, there is always an area of improvement. Can you guys think of any changes that you'd like to see made? Remember, make them feasible, you can't say, "I'd like to see next gen HD graphics" or something like that--I'm talking the actual game itself:

I can think of a couple and you can tell me if you think I'm wrong or stupid (well, I know I'm stupid and I'm usually wrong too but...)

1. I'd like to see the ability for you to build roads anywhere in your zone of influence. Maybe make them cost 50% more but still, it should be allowed.

2. I'd like to see a sports related wonder/great person. You can make an argument that a person like Babe Ruth or Muhammad Ali was much more important to world history than Leopold Stowkowski. They could be metaphors for baby booming and alas, great humanitarians.

3. Do you think anti-aircraft guns would be good? Or some sort of tactical bombing system? That is, when you flew over a city with a bomber, you have the option to destroy buildings like you do in Axis and Allies (for you other old school gamers). The counter would be AA guns that could attack only planes to help defend the city, they attack the plane first and if the plane survives the attack, then it gets somthing like the spy's "Steal some gold" technique where a random amount of damage was caused? If not, then the plane is destroyed and no attack ensues.

4. Same lines: I don't think the air war is as good as it can be. For example, if you have a single fighter in a zone with a bomber wing, the wing will be attacked first by a fighter wing because it has the higher rating. But that doesn't mirror warfare when a fighter escorts a bomber--you should have to take out all fighters in a square before you can attack any bombers. Just my take.

Anybody else got any? No wrong answers...
 
Smartass! lol No, seriously, there has to be SOMETHING that makes you mad. Here is a better way to put it: what wonder did they leave out that they shouldn't have? I was serious when I thought that "Yankee Stadium" or something should have been included.
 
I wish it was easier to overcome an unlucky start. If you don't get many barbarian huts, if someone else takes a second capital early on, or if you start on a peninsula with little production and get trapped there, it's so hard to win, you have to count on the other players making major mistakes to win. I wish more games were decided in the later eras than almost always at the beginning. It sort of ruins the fun of it.
 
It would be nice if Civ Revolutions could somehow incorporate more civics choices in a manner similar to Civ 4. Even if they wanted to keep it simple and only offer 3 types simultaneously, i.e. government, worker and religious. It would certainly give greater depth to the game and allow for more options for finding synergy. It might even help a player dig their way out of a less than optimal start.
 
Yeah I agree with that Divathysarmour. Economy, government, and religion should be different categories.
 
I like the chess analogy. It is apropos because of the beginning, middle and end game. Generally, I think that players that still find the game interesting are hoping for changes that would increase the complexity of general city management strategy. For instance, Civ Rev is a simplification of the Civ PC series that is heavy on fun and light on city management complexities. The Civ Rev game also rewards aggression quite handsomly. Somehow cultural wins are more satisfying than racing to combustion then crushing everyone like Hitler through Europe. If I were to offer any changes to gameplay, it would be to enhance the abilities of a peacenick strategy to counter early and middle aggression. I have found that the dove strategy--even with digging in for defense (upgraded defensive units, walls, spy rings)--can be overcome by a skilled hawk. I'm a big sports fan and I can see some interest in building Yankee Stadium or Wembley--it's an integral part of civilization.
 
Well, that's my take on sports. Granted, I'm so sick of baseball with the steroids and Bud Spinless in the Comish Seat (STILL!!) but you can't deny the impact Babe Ruth had not just on America but on the world in general. Before him sports were ALL amateur, from latin meaning "For the fun of it". After Ruth it was all about money. Good or bad. He wasn't called the faith of 20 million people for no reason. Beckham, Renaldo, Pele, they all own there double careers as cultural icons to Ruth. Yankee Stadium is intriguing because it's clearly the greatest venue for sports in history. I'm throwing out the coliseum because I don't think lions v. christians is a "sport". Alas, you had Louis v. Schmeling there. Ali fought there. Ruth, Mantle, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Marilyn Monroe etc... Clearly, it is a metaphor for culture if ever there was one. If you really wanted a sports figure to be a "Great Humanitarian" I see two options: 1. Muhammad Ali or 2. Jackie Robinson. Ali is probably a good choice because I read that he is the fourth most recognizable face in world history behind Jesus, John Wayne and Ghandi.

One other change I'd like to see is Stonehenge increased. It only makes the culture go x1.5 rather 1. PLUS, it only lasts about 20 turns. If it double or tripled the palace output it would be better.

I'd also like to see the Great Generals actually named. It'd be fun to see George Patton lead an Army of Zulu Tanks against Zhukov and the Mongols.

All in all, I truly believe that this game is as close to chess as you can get for gaming perfection. I've played a lot of boardgames and they all have one weakness if you play them long enough--you figure out a system to beat it. This game is SO great because with EVERY civ you have a feature that you think, "I can't lose!" and then you play with someone else and you think the same thing--only then you think, "God, I miss that feature!"

What a great game!
 
Top Bottom