Civilization Revolution - Page 3

This was exactly the problem that I had with the demo that kept me from buying the full version. I wanted to topple Alexander and every time I went over there I could only move one army in, it just seemed stupid. Yes, I could have sent waves of armies but that isn't really the point. I had the manpower and could have minimized losses, but the game won't let me do that? That just seems counter intuitive.

That's how every Civilization game has worked. It might seem more realistic to mash all the units together at once, but it wouldn't really change anything, except to be really difficult to follow.

Having waves of armies does minimize losses. As does sending in spies first to destroy defenses. And having naval support. And attacking from strong positions. And forming armies. And building barracks. And promoting units in specific ways. And building certain wonders. And picking certain governments.

The game gives you a massive number of ways to affect the outcome of a battle. But when it comes down to it, you will lose a few units/armies from time to time. Whether that happens is one giant roll of the dice, or a handful of smaller ones, doesn't make a difference as far as I can tell.

Exactly. Complaining that the mechanics should work a certain way is beside the point. It's not about realism or historical accuracy, it's about game balance and creating a challenge for the player. You find a way to win within the constrictions of the rules. That's strategy. Saying the game should work another way is just admitting that you don't know how to beat it.

My god, that's lame. I'm surprised Firaxis didn't think of a way to stop that sort of thing. Like maybe each Game of the Week can only be played once. Sure, you could lose a game through sheer dumb luck, but in the long run, the best players would still shine through.

They tried to by not allowing you to pause the game, but I guess they should have just allowed you one wack at it.

It was a demo. It's a logical way for a game to work. It doesn't work that way, which bothers me. Responding with "Oh yeah, well you just don't know how to play it right!" is kind of a dumb response to an opinion tbh.

There's nothing logical about it. You'd just prefer it that way. It doesn't make the game wrong.

So as a big time Civ lover, is this worth it ? Or should I just keep playing Civ 4 on the computer ? Is it different enough to warrant a purchase ?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, my wife is a die-hard PC Civ player, and she's currently bouncing back and forth between the two. She loves them both. Actually, I haven't been able to get on to the 360 for the last few days because of this game.

If you're truly a big fan of the series, you'll probably get your money's worth out of it.

I have both, and I prefer Revolution overall. But I should note that I'm the type of player that has probably started over a million game of Civ on the PC, and finished less than 100. The micromanagement that can be stat-geek heaven early on becomes too laborious for me to stand by the end-game.

CivRev is filled with tweaks and changes that make the game flow so much better. Essentially, if you ever get to the point where you have too much to manage w/o getting bored, you're probably just about to win.

The perfect Civ game for me would be a blending of the changes made in Rev for faster gameplay, with the addition of the stuff that was more likely dropped due to console limitations (like real diplomacy and bigger maps). I really hope the team working on the inevitable Civ5 is paying attention to CivRev; it's far better than a console port.

Yeah I end up quitting a bunch of games mainly due to time constraints. So maybe this is up my alley then.

There's nothing logical about being able to coordinate the attacks of multiple armies? Is that seriously what you just said? I find it interesting that you're taking such a fanboy stance to a fairly simple gripe.

You are coordinating the attacks of multiple armies. In point of fact, this is more realistic than what you're asking for. When you have a thousand men poised for battle, you can't put them all on the front line and overwhelm the opposition. You have to attack in waves, which is exactly what you do here. You throw forces forward to wear down the defenses until they break. And yes, you're going to lose some units. Just like in an actual battle.

The weird thing for me is, I'm coming in to CivRev from years of playing the Total War series, or things like Rise of Nations or Empire Earth. So, yes, I'm used to actually being able to use every unit I've got in the fashion I wish to, and use actual military strategy in combat. I can accept that the same level of strategic depth isn't what Rev is going for, and that's fine. It's their choice. I'm just accustomed to, well...more.

Are you arguing just because you feel like that's what people are supposed to do on the internet?

I can surround Alexandria with armies. Logically, I would then send them in from multiple fronts and stretch the defenses as thin as possible. Logically, I would want to reinforce certain fronts with more than 1 army. However, once I do that I politely have each of my armies take turns trying to take the city. The defense is left with a silly advantage. I know it seems odd to you that I'm asking for strategy in a strategy game, but my opinion is valid whether or not you choose to admit it.

Well, since you're arguing back, you'd pretty much be doing the same thing, wouldn't you? Don't be silly about this.

This isn't a game about military maneuvering. It's about the big picture. Combat is simplified because it isn't the focus of the game. What you're doing is the equivalent of complaining that Soul Calibur doesn't have enough of a roleplaying element. It's not that kind of game. If detailed military maneuvers is what you're after, skip this game. It's that simple. Complaining that it isn't something that it was never intended to be is fruitless.

Yeah Civ is not a military simulation. It has simplified actions for just about everything. That is part of the beauty of Civ. You can be quite successful and never use combat. It is set up so that building a giant military does not guarantee victory.

I will say this: I had never played Civ before and when I saw how the attacking armies thing worked, I was confused. Once I figured it out, I was totally cool with it. It's just a rule of the game.

I borrowed the game for a loooong weekend and I am not nearly as enamored of it as most here were. I'm not a huge fan of the cartoony advisors and leaders and whatnot. It's a bit buggy (my Leonardo's workshop NEVER seemend to work). The diplomacy is shallow. The AI is none too bright and i found myself able to exploit it fairly often. Success was greatly dependent on starting location. I always wanted to kill off my archers who somehow still have a place in my tank heavy army. Every time I finished a game I felt dirty.

Then 20 minutes would pass and I'd start another game. It is pretty addicting.

But I have no urge to reborrow it.

Here's a funny AI story. I had just about steamrolled to a domination victory on Emperor. I've eliminated two civs entirely. All have fallen before me. Shaka is licking his wounds somewhere but Tokugawa Ieyasu still has a decent civilization despite my lightning capture of Kyoto (silly of him really to build that convenient road).

The only way for him to not lose is to recapture any of my capitals. So does he unleash the fury of his armies on me? No. He asks for Advanced Flight. I don't want to bribe my way out of this. I want to fight. I decline so he... suggests we make peace. I decline again. He should be furious right? No. He offers me 26 gold to make peace with him. I figure if someone wants to pay me to win, who am I to say no. I win by default.

Anyways, my template for victory in case any people care:

1) Never underestimate culture. Attracting great people is beneficial to every aspect of the game.

2) Oxford University is worth it at twice the price. I always shy away from Wonders that eventually use their utility.

3) Generally speaking if you have walls, the only thing you really need in a city is one army of veteran defensive units and one army of artillery (more advanced the better). Use the defenders to defend and the artillery to sortie without leaving the walls. Eventually as you develop more advanced units the less advanced units will give you some defensive depth.

4) Building cities on hills is fun for the whole family, too.

5) Roads make it easy for enemies to move as well as you. Keep antiquated units entrenched along friendly roads to prevent getting blitzed.

Hope those tips help.

And I've never cared much for the games you've listed because I have little interest in the micromanagement of every part of my military. Civ is not a battlefield-level strategy game. it's an EMPIRE-level strategy game. Where you see a lack of combat strategy, I see all the aspects of Civ that the titles you mention don't (or barely) even attempt. None of those other games is even trying to match the overall level of strategic depth of CIVILIZATION.

The reason you're getting negative responses is because you're implying that Civ is lacking in strategy, which is not a valid opinion; it's an indefensible position.

If you're looking for Civilization to be a real-time wargame, you're going to be disappointed. RISE OF NATIONS is the game trying to do that (fairly successfully). You're not looking for more, you're looking for -different-.

You misunderstand me. The game has strategy. My very simple statement that started this whole thing was basically "The demo showed me this portion which I didn't care for, so I didn't buy the game". I'm not saying they're doing it wrong, I'm saying I don't care for the way they handle that portion of the game. So really, my position is easily defendable.

The fact that the response I got was basically "You're too stupid to understand the game" is what has me shaking my head. I understand the game. It's great that other people enjoy it. I don't care for how they've handled that particular portion and it is large enough to me to keep me from enjoying the overall game. See? Easily defended.

Those are opposing statements.

You previously implied the game was illogical, and stated that an aspect was silly. That -is- saying they're doing it wrong.

Sure, now that you've rephrased your opinion.

I don't believe anyone insulted you, merely disagreed with your criticisms of the game. I know the intent of my response was more akin to, "You appear to have been looking for a different game from the get-go", which seems accurate.

My apologies. I should have said "more" strategy which was what I had in mind (and which honestly I feel my statement more than implies).

Well, once my easily defendable position was attacked I tried to go into a little more detail. I didn't add "in my opinion" or "to me this is" to each statement as it's pretty easy to see that I'm voicing and defending my opinion. If it will help you, however, in my opinion the way that they handle the military strategy is illogical and keeps me from enjoying the game as much as I might have otherwise. So to me, yes, they are doing it wrong. If I somehow didn't jump through the proper hoops on this one let me know.

My opinion has been consistent. Smiley faces to try to pretend that you're not making a dig are weaksauce.



Saying the game should work another way is just admitting that you don't know how to beat it.

This was Greg David's first response to me. This is not intended to be insulting? Of course it's meant to be insulting. This is all quite a bit more posting than I ever intended to do to be honest. I posted agreement with somebody on not caring for how this game handles the military portion. Really, look at my first post and where this has gone and you try to figure it out because this has gone a little bit beyond being worthwhile.

I think the responses would have been the same. Saying that Civ needs more strategy is like saying that GTA needs more action.

Speaking only for myself, I was always aware it was your opinion. But it is possible to discuss the validity of an opinion, especially if you feel one is based on false premises. If I say, "In my opinion, women are dumb." I'd probably get responses questioning the validity of such an opinion.

The smiley is there to reinforce the intended tone of a statement - ie that it's a lighthearted remark, as opposed to a stern criticism - we're talking about a -game- after all. That it's a dig was never in doubt.

I've been playing this bitch on King difficulty since the day it came out, and today I finally -- FINALLY! -- was victorious. (Tech victory with the Japanese.) It sure was nice to see all those achievements come rolling in.

Now I feel spent. Maybe I'll try a game on Live against real-life folk.

My review- http://chud.com/articles/articles/15...ION/Page1.html

What is all this talk about separate armies? If you move 3 warrior troops into the city you get the option to merge them into one single army, pretty sweet.

It was in the demo.

They're talking about merging together all the troops you have on one square. Different types, I'm assuming.