Support NeoGAF

[Chris Remo]

Yeah it's a great game. Dax lets set up a game tonight!

I had a weird game on the weekend. I won by domination but I never invaded any countries. They just kept attacking my cities and I kicked the shit out of them. Then all of a sudden it said I won by domination.

How bizarre. I thought that in Revolution, the domination victory condition explicitly required you to conquer all enemy capitals.

 

[Dyno]

Would they give him the win at the end of a game where he didn't lose many battles?

 

[Slacker]

How bizarre. I thought that in Revolution, the domination victory condition explicitly required you to conquer all enemy capitals.

I think they call it a domination victory if you have the most points at the end of the game.

 

[Chris Remo]

I think they call it a domination victory if you have the most points at the end of the game.

Ah ok, that makes sense.

 

[fortunzfavor]

It's not weird.

The game ends at 2100 no matter what, and a victor will be crowned, no matter what. I think domination is the default victory condition, and although I'm not sure of the precise criteria, it might use your over-all score to crown a winner in the event that victory wasn't achieved prior to the clock running out.

Edit: beaten to the punch...

 

[oneHeero]

I think they call it a domination victory if you have the most points at the end of the game.

That is correct. If no one wins by the time the turns are up, the win is awarded to the person with most points and its called domination.

 

[Chris Remo]

It's not weird.

The game ends at 2100 no matter what, and a victor will be crowned, no matter what. I think domination is the default victory condition, and although I'm not sure of the precise criteria, it might use your over-all score to crown a winner in the event that victory wasn't achieved prior to the clock running out.

I realize that, I just didn't know that was classified as "domination" rather than a more generic victory type, since domination does have a specific victory condition.

 

[Stoney Mason]

No open borders / alliances. I became an ally with someone online and we actually had to declare war in order to help each other out (send troops across borders to fight, etc.)

I noticed the same thing. Very dumb. Hard to believe they shipped it like that.

 

[The Librarian]

How bizarre. I thought that in Revolution, the domination victory condition explicitly required you to conquer all enemy capitals.

No it isn't. If no other civ reaches a victory through domination, cultural, technological, or economic (including yours) by time the game ends, the game automatically awards a civilization a domination victory. Now, as to the reason(s) why it awards that specific civ a dominion victory, I am not sure; it's either the one who is leading in all areas, or the one who has most cities.
Edit: BAH. Fuck you all!
Oh, and Fin, the online thread!

 

[Deku]

I realize that, I just didn't know that was classified as "domination" rather than a more generic victory type, since domination does have a specific victory condition.

In the PC games, if you run out of time, it's a histographic victory (basically a victory by score).

Domination on the PC games are also much more difficult to achieve. I'll just take CivRev rules as being special.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

Unchanged. Same units, wonder, buildings, civs, era bonus etc. Same GOTW map too, though its unranked, but you get to pick your own Civ.

There are some omissions. A few UI screens missing. No civilopedia and you can't disband units though this is more of a quibble since units cost nothing to support and a I'd prefer to have more units than less.


heh.

Ahhh, so that's why I can't figure out how to disband units. Yeah it's no biggie since there's no unit costs and warriors/horsemen make good mid/late game sacrificial lambs to figure out what's defending enemy cities. I do miss the civiliopedia though, there was really no way to fit that in the game?

That said, don't knock on the DS version until you've played it. I've found myself using the touch screen a lot and prefer it to controlling it by buttons. It's a great portable Civ, arguably one of the best strategy games on the DS library.

I thought it'd be a little too light for my Civ4 loving side but I agree it's actually quite good, can't knock Civ on the go. That and I can get in as many full Civ games on the DS as I get on the PC in year so not like I have much choice.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I finally found a copy at Best Buy last night. If anyone wants to pummel me online, feel free to PM me.

 

[Ikael]

So, the only game I've actually lost so far (back on King Difficulty) was with the Mongols. I'm now on Emperor difficulty, have handily won a few games on this difficulty, and I randomly got the Mongols again, and I think I'm going to lose this game.

How the hell do you use these guys?

The mongols are awesome for two reasons:

1- +50% trade to captured cities
2- +2 extra production to mountains is HUGE

Basically, compensate the suckiness of the barbarian cities by getting them near to mountains and left the barbarian villages that does not fit your city plans for another players. Mountains producing like hills with workshops are already awesome, but wait until you get iron mines and start pumping a war machine.

It is true that until then, things are gonna be hard: build keshik armies to defend your cities: offense is the best defense, and their mobility will help you to save money and avoid building roads for some time.

Needless to say you will try to aim for a balls to the wall domination victory. Focus on the offensive, take the initiative and do not mind loosing some of your own lesser cities or getting the back of your empire unguarded: the captured cities will probably be better placed and will get the trade bonus, you can re - conquer your homeland latter.

Basically: play with them as a mongol would do. They are quite different from the rest of the civs, but they can work really well.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Domination on the PC games are also much more difficult to achieve. I'll just take CivRev rules as being special.

I thought so also. King isn't really very difficult. I was surprised. The CPU doesn't seem to be so great at attacking.

Very fun game btw. It's funny that whenever I play it I think about Civ 4 on the PC and compare the design choices and thinking how clever some of the design calls were for the console market and bringing something as dense and complex as Civ into a bite sized morsel for the console market. I wish more people played on line though

 

[AlexMogil]

Is there a way to sell units back on the DS? I know on the 360 you click the right stick.

Nope. And I will be the only one to answer this one.

 

[platypotamus]

The mongols are awesome for two reasons:

1- +50% trade to captured cities
2- +2 extra production to mountains is HUGE

I guess I need to be more selective in my aggression. My goal is always to take ALL the barb cities, because that means the AI doesn't get the benefit from them. The +50% trade from captured cities does sound pretty godly too, though I've never really got to capitalize off of it. It doesn't seem to apply to cities captured from the barbs?

I'll be giving them another shot sooner or later, but now I'm up to deity and that's a scary thought.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Game needs better final stats...

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Game needs better final stats...

I totally agree. At the end of one of these games, I feel very attached to my civ and hate ending it because I'm only awarded with a pretty much unexplained rank and a graph. I'd love to see some more in depth analysis at the end...

 

[hoos30]

Urrgh! This game is like crack....it is so hard to turn the console off when you're in the middle of a good game. I was up until 4am last night and now I'm exhausted and my eyes are bleary.

From now on, I think I am going to set the Family Timer (360) whenever I play this.

At least I won the game!

 

[Stoney Mason]

Urrgh! This game is like crack....it is so hard to turn the console off when you're in the middle of a good game. I was up until 4am last night and now I'm exhausted and my eyes are bleary.

From now on, I think I am going to set the Family Timer (360) whenever I play this.

At least I won the game!

In some ways it's even more addictive than regular civ in the sense that you know you will be able to complete a game in a sitting which isn't the case with regular civ.

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

Urrgh! This game is like crack....it is so hard to turn the console off when you're in the middle of a good game. I was up until 4am last night and now I'm exhausted and my eyes are bleary.

From now on, I think I am going to set the Family Timer (360) whenever I play this.

At least I won the game!

Ha! That's me now. Quarter to three, time for bed. Been playing since nine, will have to change science to gold tomorrow to conquer my girlfriend again... uh oh, my brain is broken.

I'm not usually a huge turn-based strategy fan (although I love Advance Wars) but this is like pure sugar-coated crack. The only thing is, and this is only my second real go, but I'm at year-2000 and only have riflemen - where dem nukes at?

 

[fortunzfavor]

Being "up till 3" beats being "up till Monday", which was par for my CivIII games.

 

[CzarTim]

I kinda wish they had an option to keep playing after you've won. I'd always do that in the PC game for fun if I didn't feel like starting all the way back at square one.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I kinda wish they had an option to keep playing after you've won. I'd always do that in the PC game for fun if I didn't feel like starting all the way back at square one.

Agreed.

 

[Littleberu]

Hey, that might sound stupid, but how do you capture a city "easily"? That bitch Cleopatra had like 20 points and I only had 12 on attack. How do you manage to siege a city, then?

 

[Littleberu]

Comon people! I want to enjoy kicking her ass!

 

[The Librarian]

Do you have catapults?

 

[saunderez]

Hey, that might sound stupid, but how do you capture a city "easily"? That bitch Cleopatra had like 20 points and I only had 12 on attack. How do you manage to siege a city, then?

Armies of siege weapons (catapults/canons) with infantry and naval backup and attacking from the right position (Hills give bonuses, rivers give your opponent bonuses).

Verteran units with bonuses help A LOT too.

 

[Slacker]

I'm getting tired of waiting for a PS3 patch. I bought this game strictly for multiplayer, and almost a month later it still isn't working. Time to see if 2K has any magazine racks in their lobby.

 

[Littleberu]

Armies of siege weapons (catapults/canons) with infantry and naval backup and attacking from the right position (Hills give bonuses, rivers give your opponent bonuses).

Verteran units with bonuses help A LOT too.

Ah, that's it. Didn't know you could create an army out of Catapults.

Again, that might sound stupid, but I had support from my Galleon, and the boat didn't attack. That's normal, right? It's only bonus, right?

 

[Ikael]

Ah, that's it. Didn't know you could create an army out of Catapults.

Again, that might sound stupid, but I had support from my Galleon, and the boat didn't attack. That's normal, right? It's only bonus, right?

Armies of catapults are pretty much the basic offensive force in this game for at least half of its playtime. Combine a spy or naval support with a veteran catapult army, and you can pretty much take any city until the arrival of the gundpowder.

Naval support is awesome, but you only have to station your galleon on a square adjacent to the city that you are attacking. That is, naval units can only attack and destroy another sea units, but they can help your ground units both to attack and defend theirselves just by being near to them. I have been able to take rifleman defended cities just with catapults just because they were supported by a fleet of battleships (and yep, you can combine naval unit into fleets in the same way that you can combine ground units into armies).

I guess I need to be more selective in my aggression. My goal is always to take ALL the barb cities, because that means the AI doesn't get the benefit from them. The +50% trade from captured cities does sound pretty godly too, though I've never really got to capitalize off of it. It doesn't seem to apply to cities captured from the barbs?

Nope, cities from the barbs "join" your civilization instead of being captured. And yep, the 50% trade bonus is godly for the beggining of the game, while the mountain production is awesome for the mid - late game. Mongols are a bit deceptive because one would think that their keshiks would be their best asset, but no.

I'll be giving them another shot sooner or later, but now I'm up to deity and that's a scary thought.

Good luck on deity, you will need it. Try with the Romans or the Aztecs, some of the best civs out there!

And yup, the "ending reward" of civ rev is a bit tad lame. I would love to see random and interesting data about the glorious civ that I built (life expectancy, GDP, most awesome cities, etc), in the same vein that Civ4 did.

 

[fortunzfavor]

2K has finally put out an easy to download official high res graphical tech tree for Civilization Revolution. There have been community efforts at civ sites and my own to fill the gap before, but this is pretty swank. You can find it directly at civilizationrevolution.com -> community -> High Resolution Tech Tree PDFs (under community updates). They tried to upload it a couple of days ago, but the link was broken until today. You can also get it at WiiHD.

In addition, there is a new downloadable version of the old Unit, Wonder, and Building Guide available.

 

[GameGamer]

I have the 360 version and the DS version.

But what I really want is a PSP version : (

 

[PhlivoSong]

I've always wanted to try out a Civ game, but never got around to it because of how intimidating it can be to try to learn a new strategy game. I'm still trying to get a complete hold of the mechanics for this game, but each time I play a full game I pickup on a new concept and I'm amazed by how brilliant it is. I think the DS version is the first time I've ever felt wow'd by a handheld game. It's hard to fathom a game being so deep on a handheld system.

I ended up buying the 360 version as well, and like a poster a few posts up... I accidentally stayed up until 5:00 am with it. I finished a game on the 360 version at around 12:30 am, and won by technological victory with very little fighting. Then the plan was the lay in bed and play a few rounds on DS then go to sleep. That match ended up being completely different, and quite the struggle. Where the 360 match I played felt like a science battle, the battle on the DS was a straight up war. I was amazed at how two matches of the same game felt so different. I was also quite angry when I finished at almost 5:00 am.

 

[TomServo]

I just picked a new copy for 360. Two firsts for me:

1. First time I've paid full retail price for a 360 game
2. First time a demo has completely sold me on a game I had no plans of buying

I'm not a huge Sid Meier fan. The last Civ game I played was Alpha Centauri, which I really enjoyed. I was skeptical about a Civ game on a console, but after reading enough positive things about it I downloaded the demo. Great game, great demo. Really looking forward to playing the retail version.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

Been playing the DS version a bit but is it just me or is the game too easy to get 5 cities, go for democracy, set all cities to focus on gold, buy things like crazy? It just seems like rushing buildings and units is way too cheap. I had a game where I was almost making as much gold per turn as it cost to rush a world wonder.

 

[fortunzfavor]

What difficulty are you on Bending?

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

What difficulty are you on Bending?

King and emperor, I didn't get a chance to get to democracy the one time I tried deity. Even if I'm not just minting gold like crazy every turn it doesn't seem too hard to simply ignore the military side of things since the computer hasn't been in a position to attack me for at least 5 turns after declaring war, so I can just go over to minting and buy a ton of units after the war starts. Again, on deity it's a bit different since I was at war pretty much non-stop. I do imagine against human opponents neither strategy would work as well though.

 

[Littleberu]

One question, again :

People on 1up yours were kind of negative about the game this week (surprinsingly, with all the praise they gave to it last week).

I'm worried, is the game a one week love affair, or is it longer than that?

 

[farnham]

is there still a wii version in the works.? (I think it was originally announced) i did not really like the 360 demo because of the controlls.. I would rather just point at stuff...

One question, again :

People on 1up yours were kind of negative about the game this week (surprinsingly, with all the praise they gave to it last week).

I'm worried, is the game a one week love affair, or is it longer than that?

happens all the time with 1up

 

[Memles]

One question, again :

People on 1up yours were kind of negative about the game this week (surprinsingly, with all the praise they gave to it last week).

I'm worried, is the game a one week love affair, or is it longer than that?

For me, Achievements are what is really making the game for me. It's an incentive for me to win/understand each civilization, and the other achievements are again incentive to keep playing along. Yes, each game is very similar, but they are remaining fun for me at least. The game is a real time sink if you let it be, and I'm at least gonna keep playing until I get that final great person or the win before 1000 AD etc.

If you've got a version that's not 360...still fun.

 

[Dazzla]

I'm worried, is the game a one week love affair, or is it longer than that?

I think it's longer, if the downfalls are really big downfalls for you then you'd probably know about it before you buy it.

I hate the fact that you can't continue after the end game, but then I own Civ 4 on the Mac so I can always play that if it bothers me that much. Clearly it doesn't...

I own this on both the DS and the PS3, picked up the PS3 today and haven't played it but I love the fact on the DS you can be China and build the great wall and effectively make everyone your bitch. You can attack them, take a city and then they ask you to make peace; all the way up until you take their last city. Before they know it they're out of the game. A bit of a game breaker, dunno if it's like that on the PS3 version.

 

[Deku]

I suffer from Civ burn out all the time, I'm in burnout right now as I haven't touched my game in about a week an d a half. The true test is if I can go back to it a few months later and play another marathon session of games.

Only time will tell, but I can tell you the game is extremely fun, it doesn't 'wear thin' after multiple plays and it's not frontloaded like most games where the first 10 hours is OMG awesome and then it just drops off with nothing to do because all the resources were spent in the front end of the game.

Civ is never like that. The best measure though is how it 'feels' as a strategy game. And I can say unequivocally than its a fantastic TBS and sets a very high bar for future 4x games to come. The fast paced casual feel games is just awesome.

 

[FightyF]

I was so busy this last week, I was itching to play but I couldn't so I haven't been burnt out yet, but I can see exactly why. The game progresses at a pace where you can experience everything about it, rather quickly. I can play 10 matches in a week, trying very different things, and from that I'd have a very good grasp of the game.

It's a catch 22. Personally I love Revolution and the fact that it is the way it is. But the bad side is that yes, I can see myself burnt out.

I agree Memles, the Achievements are what I'm after now, and what will keep me playing. Deity is something I'm not looking at right now, but because of the Achievements that involve that difficulty.

 

[marvelharvey]

I think I just experienced my shortest game ever.

My first warrior, I sent east. The second warrior, south. Next turn, an American unit arrived from the west, positioned next to my capital and offered me peace. The very next turn, it was "PREPARE FOR WAR!" and my unguarded city fell.

Much to my surprise, I was ranked 13th in the charts, 2 places above the bottom. You must have to seriously suck to get the 14th and 15th positions... but I can't imagine sucking anymore than I just did :lol

 

[sciplore]

I think I just experienced my shortest game ever.

My first warrior, I sent east. The second warrior, south. Next turn, an American unit arrived from the west, positioned next to my capital and offered me peace. The very next turn, it was "PREPARE FOR WAR!" and my unguarded city fell.

Much to my surprise, I was ranked 13th in the charts, 2 places above the bottom. You must have to seriously suck to get the 14th and 15th positions... but I can't imagine sucking anymore than I just did :lol

:lol :lol :lol
Thats crazy I am actually afraid that will happen to me if I go higher than warlord. What setting was your on?

 

[Deku]

I think I just experienced my shortest game ever.

My first warrior, I sent east. The second warrior, south. Next turn, an American unit arrived from the west, positioned next to my capital and offered me peace. The very next turn, it was "PREPARE FOR WAR!" and my unguarded city fell.

Much to my surprise, I was ranked 13th in the charts, 2 places above the bottom. You must have to seriously suck to get the 14th and 15th positions... but I can't imagine sucking anymore than I just did :lol

YES! never leave your capital undefended if an AI is close. They will sometimes attack you.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

One question, again :

People on 1up yours were kind of negative about the game this week (surprinsingly, with all the praise they gave to it last week).

I'm worried, is the game a one week love affair, or is it longer than that?

I think it has a problem with having the draw of Civ without the usual depth. It suffers from a bit of sameness between the games because there's not enough units, buldings, techs, and room (not to mention same size map, same style, same number of civs). So I want to play but ultimately when I start up a game it's just too much like the other games I've played. I still like it though, it's just that even if I had the time it couldn't pull me to drop 40 hours a week into it like I used to with Civ2. Which I suppose that's a testament to the series that that's a complaint.

 

[marvelharvey]

:lol :lol :lol
Thats crazy I am actually afraid that will happen to me if I go higher than warlord. What setting was your on?

Deity.

By the way, is there a list online somewhere, stating the differences between the difficulty settings? I noticed that even on Emperor, sometimes the AI has immediate access to archers.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I think it has a problem with having the draw of Civ without the usual depth. It suffers from a bit of sameness between the games because there's not enough units, buldings, techs, and room (not to mention same size map, same style, same number of civs). So I want to play but ultimately when I start up a game it's just too much like the other games I've played. I still like it though, it's just that even if I had the time it couldn't pull me to drop 40 hours a week into it like I used to with Civ2. Which I suppose that's a testament to the series that that's a complaint.

There are definitly fewer play options and strategies to pursue versus Civ PC. (Personally I wish the diplomacy path was more intact) but I think that is more of a single player issue although that is a legit complaint because the single player is pretty darn fun in the PC version. I still think the multiplayer is where it's at in Civ Rev.