PDA

View Full Version : Civ Rev 2. What would you like included/excluded?


Baron Axe Wound
09-23-2008, 08:42 AM
What are your thoughts for the sequel?

Personally i'd like to see much larger default maps, everything seemed to get crowded far too quickly. Also a little more consistency with the units. If i've got an army of tanks I don't expect them to be destroyed by a bloke on horseback with a pointed stick!

This is just the tip of the iceberg but I don't want to rant on and on and give the impression I didn't enjoy the game.

MeanMachine00
09-23-2008, 03:41 PM
If there will be another one that will be great!
Changes I think would have being more continents, leaders, better battle sequence. And make multiplayer achievements as well.

J.Waddo
09-23-2008, 08:01 PM
The only things I'd probaly want are:


Units move more squares on each turn.
Larger Maps
And, as mentioned before, more consistency with the units, I mean, how can a few guys with machine guns take down 3 huge bombers after they've just been bombed?

A Satyr
09-23-2008, 08:18 PM
How bout the attack and defense numbers actually mean something? When a legion takes away 2/3 of a pikemen army the game is bullshit... and realistic AI, i mean why do i start with a settlers group and they start with a city and their citys are big high culture high money etc. so how do they have 50 armys coming out of a city?. My tank sat there for 30mins killing legion after legion after legion until the 50 from the city it was outside of and the other 20 that were standing just off screen were dead...

androsmere
09-24-2008, 05:18 AM
Oh man I hope they make a sequel, I loved this game.

I vote for bigger maps. Also, in a way I liked how the matches were very fast-paced, but it would be nice if they had an option to play a long-term PC style game.

Also I agree with the attack/defense number complaint. Those numbers should be a percentage - if your unit has the higher number it will win that percent of the time. I'm not sure how the actual system is based, because a lot of times I would save before a battle where I had a big advantage, and I would reload and try like 10 times and lose every single time. Frustrating...

KamikazeQ
09-24-2008, 05:32 AM
Local multiplayer besides system link would be nice. I love having the option of system link in a game but honestly not everyone has multiple 360s and multiple copies of one game to system link with during an impromptu hangout. Even if it was local co-op versus the AI would be fine with me as most of my friends are more into working together as opposed to competing.

Kami

Red Rowdy 360
09-26-2008, 10:08 AM
I'd be happy if you could attack with more units at the time, sometimes it's too hard to earn a sh#y city.

And yeah, larger maps please.

FoxRacing1234
09-26-2008, 04:55 PM
The game will not have moving more spaces per turn. The original game is the same way, think about it as they have to walk around the continent and the time it takes.

I want things that are more realistic, like not losing a tank army to archers. :/ But, I can understand that they did it so that it's not complete domination if you discover something first.

I want them to bring Diplomats back from the older games so we can negotiate and even buy units from other civilizations.

Larger maps would be awesome as well.

Be able to talk to your teammates in Multiplayer. I don't understand why it won't let you conduct diplomacy if you're on the same team.

Wonkothesane732
01-10-2009, 11:35 AM
I Agree about bigger maps but more future techs could be good as well, like cloning or string theory or something

HungoverTwinkie
01-10-2009, 07:48 PM
i like the conversing with team and buying units and stuff. i also want more leaders (canada poland mexico ect) and the att and def # make a difference i've had an archer army destroy my tank army and when you play multi player your units should be able to go into a team city

Zenquen
01-10-2009, 07:50 PM
I would rather they just gave us the PC version since that is what is truly fun and awesome, not this dumbed down x-box version.

drakehellsing
01-11-2009, 08:22 AM
For me, even more leaders for other countries, like us New Zealanders, or the Australians....I mean, I would like to see New Zealanders as a civilization, would be rather interesting indeed, I mean, if Americans get to be in there with Lincoln, then surely New Zealanders should have a chance with James Cook as our leader :p.

And yes, multiplayer achievements as well ;)

salo90
01-11-2009, 10:14 AM
I'm loving this game, and I'm glad they're making a sequel.

I'd like the local multi-player, like someone said earlier. I'd love it, actually.

Also, multi-player achievements would be nice, I agree.

I'd also like them to fix the 'odds' being compared with the 'outcome'. I've had 5-1 odds and still lost many times, which is very frustrating. I also think the Deity level is a little ridiculous. Doable, but not as much fun. :(

And more civs, of course. <33

drakehellsing
01-12-2009, 04:24 AM
Something else I want to add in is an achievement for building all the wonders of the world you know, or even different achievements for the different wonder of each era, would add more satisfaction to that. I mean, I like to build the wonders to see what they look like in the end you know, but getting achievements for it, or even just one, would be awesome.

knightsljx
01-18-2009, 04:17 AM
units should take into account generation. one modern unit should automatically overrun any ancient unit no matter what. 9 archers versus 1 tank, who do you think will win? anyone still defending with archers while opponents are using tanks and arti deserve to lose anyway

The Globalizer
02-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Personally, I'd rather they make an Xbox 360 version of Alpha Centauri. :-)

That said, I've only played the demo, but I agree that larger maps are always better. On the PC, I would play the Huge maps every time.

The Globalizer
02-12-2009, 05:36 PM
units should take into account generation. one modern unit should automatically overrun any ancient unit no matter what. 9 archers versus 1 tank, who do you think will win? anyone still defending with archers while opponents are using tanks and arti deserve to lose anyway

Agree that there should be a heavy advantage to categorically more advanced troops. I mean, let them take some damage, but spears vs. tanks = LOLtardation.

Dock Vader
02-14-2009, 03:07 PM
What about a map editor? I'd kinda like to see that. More DLC with DLC acheivements too.

Sick l Gator
02-14-2009, 04:36 PM
Take out Ghandi and his indians, they were not fighting people and could definately not figure out technology, but besides that this game is great.

StudlyMuffintop
02-14-2009, 08:19 PM
I don't know how many of you actually played the PC game. But I can tell you why there was such a discrepancy with the power of the units. In the pc version of the game, whenever you discovered a new tech. you could immediately pay a large amount of money for all of your units of a certain type to be upgraded. (Ex. 350 gold for each warrior you wanted to become a swordsman). They took that feature out in this game. The only time I ever saw any of the units upgraded was when I was playing as the Germans. I think that was one of their perks. Anyway, without the ability to upgrade your armies, you would have to replace all of them unit by unit, by making new armies which seems unfair. I think a simple solution to the "realism" problem that people have in archers vs. tanks, would be solved by the ability to upgrade your units as you discover techs.

ColossalKiller7
03-02-2009, 02:05 PM
More natural resources, AA guns because my rifleman shouldn't be able to kill fighters, a city limit like the chinese can't spam 30 cities and the ability for navy to bombard a city.

Munsie
03-03-2009, 04:35 AM
Get rid of the annoying characters that block the corner of your screen and announce fun facts like "falla balla" or whatever they rabble on about. =\

Epic Henchman
03-03-2009, 11:42 AM
it was a great game and i hope they make another but as said above i hope they change the combat on it and i think they should change some of the achievements as the 3 and 6 pointers get realy anoying

NorthernLass
03-03-2009, 11:49 AM
I love this game and keep meaning to go back and try and complete it.
Are they definitely making a sequal?
I agree with the bigger maps request.

wayzey1
03-10-2009, 07:31 AM
They really need a better Online multiplayer system since usually only one or two people are ever online and the games go for usually 1-3 hours at a time.

I used to play this game almost every night with one my mates from school, one of the funnest games ever though it would have been better if we could have versed others and not just each other.

Mike Langlois
03-10-2009, 11:48 PM
No @ MP achievements.

I dont want the online of this game ruined with boosters (a bold statement to make on x360a, but normally i dont care about boosting, unless its a game i love, and this is a game i love.)

Anyway, id like an option to turn off the it telling me that i can build a world bank now EVERY turn. Also remove the fact it goes to a city that isnt building anything during that turn each turn, if i wanted to build something in the city i would, so stop taking me there each and every turn. Annoying especially if im spamming turns just to get loads of culture or something.

Bigger worlds, if thats not possible, just make the moving tiles smaller.

Backwards compatability with the map packs released for Civ:Rev 1.

Ummm what else? lol

fonzycore
03-20-2009, 06:19 PM
A lot of people say more civilizations, but there aren't really many more great civilizations they could add. Maybe ottoman empire? Nothing really stands out in my mind that isn't already included.

I would personally like to see more civilization specific units added, or in general just more units to the game as a whole. Thats where I felt really jipped with this game. Lack of units.

I don't mind the current map sizes which a lot of other people have complainted about. The large maps are way more space than anyone really needs. The game is meant to get crowded which vitalizes that need to fight for control over resources/land. If everyone is all spread out constantly there would be no such thing as a war victory. Just technological and shit, and that doesn't really sound fun at all.

I'd like some scenario related achievements where you have to do historical scenarios and win as whoever was supposed to win. Also some online achievements would be nice.

stormrider666
03-26-2009, 01:42 AM
I would love to see options for map sizes and map types...huge land mass vs more islands...things like that.

I agree with naval bombardment of cities and coastal units...

perhaps the option to choose your opponents too, and how many opponents you have. Not sure though, I really liked the game as is.

They could change the advisors to actually say something, or nothing at all, instead on the nonsensical blabber...

Elod
05-15-2009, 11:45 AM
I really missed the sophisticated diplomacy system was introduced in Civ3. It was awesome.

KillTheft Gator
05-20-2009, 04:07 PM
Um, don't feel like giving an in depth post now... One thing I would like to see though is more abilities online when you are team mates. I was surprised that my cruiser could not offer naval support to my teammate's units. I found it to be a bit strange.

big red marino
05-21-2009, 11:46 PM
One thing that I would have really liked is the ability to build a bridge over 1 space of water. Constantly having a boat parked there to load and unload my arsenal was a pain. Maybe some choppers to off-load troops would have been great.

Anyone know where you can read about the new game? Or is it just talk at the moment?

halomastercap
06-01-2009, 05:18 PM
Get rid of the annoying characters that block the corner of your screen and announce fun facts like "falla balla" or whatever they rabble on about. ="Lalla flallum!"

I hate that character. -.- Every other person is her with her lalla flallums and falla ballas. SIM SPEAK SHOULD STAY WITH THE SIMS. At least I can KILL my sims when they get annoying.

My vote for next game: No sim speak. It was retarded when sims 1 came out, it is retarded now.

Oh and better/more accurate unit power descriptions, larger maps, etc.

zimzvm
06-02-2009, 07:47 AM
I wish there was an option to turn off the advisors, they were really pissing me off. especially the ones that showed in every single turn informing me I can build a certain wonder to win with Cultural/Economic victory. damn that was so annoying !

FatFingerFerdy
06-06-2009, 07:17 AM
i dont care as long as the 2nd one comes out this game was so amazing

marishtar
06-15-2009, 05:16 PM
I'd prefer them just make another Civilization for the PC. I love the series, but I can't stand this game. It's much too watered down for my liking, which I realize is needed to be on the 360.

zimzvm
06-16-2009, 08:00 AM
the gameplay is very similar to the SM Colonization in my opinion and it is not bad. very simplified ? true. still not bad.

I wonder how the next Civ Rev will look like if there is going to be any.

t3h_wookiee
06-23-2009, 10:44 PM
I'd like larger maps, the ability to turn off the freaking advisers, more choices for civs, and for my tank army to not be defeated by a freaking horseman army.

I've loved the Civ franchise for a long time now. Started playing it with Civ Call to Power II if I remember right, and have played ever since. I hope there's another Civ Rev!

KevScar09
06-30-2009, 03:36 PM
I really hope they make diplomacy more in depth to at least include open borders. It was so annoying having to declare war on another civ just to get to the barb village on the other side of their city.

Also if the adviser's voices are too annoying you can always mute them under sound options.

Channel 8 News
07-08-2009, 02:57 AM
I would like to see the ability to customize games (how many enemies, which enemies, turning off certain victories) and the land mass (lots of islands, large continents, etc.). More civs and more leaders would be great, with different leaders within individual civs having different perks.

Combat needs to be revamped, as it is irritating losing over and over even though you have the numerical advantage. Bridges would be a great addition, as would airlifting units to different cities (like in the PC games).

An option to turn off the advisers would be great, as well as an option to just build nothing in a city.

Definitely no multiplayer achievements. They are the worst. Once a game wanes in popularity you are unable to get those achievements.

All in all, Civ Rev is awesome, and I can't wait for any sequels.

netscorer
07-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Everyone makes a big deal of outdated military units defeating tanks and bombers. But think of it this way: even tanks and bombers started from a very humble beginnings. Early tanks were very easy to defeat - just build a trench and camouflage it. I am not even talking of mine fields that buried quite a few tanks in the WW1. Early period planes could easily be brought down with a machine gun fire from the ground. Besides, in all history periods there were dumb generals that managed to lose battles even with much superior forces.

ZakkuHiryado
07-20-2009, 05:37 PM
I also want those annoying advisors to shut their traps! Also, why is Condoleezza Rice an advisor? Just sayin'... But what really bothers me is how long it's taking to get all the great persons. I still haven't gotten the last one (Homer) and I've been playing forever. It's just too random for my taste. And please, PLEASE don't add multiplayer achievements to any sequel. It's bad enough I have to skip turns over and over just to speed up the process of winning a game on my own; there's no way in hell I want to waste hours on a single match online.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this game :) Just my two cents.

Mastashake89
07-22-2009, 06:11 PM
They NEED to improve diplomacy. How am I supposed to help one of my allies if i can't even step into their territory without starting a war between us?! It also wouldn't hurt to add more leaders for the civilizations, instead of just one per civ. I would also like to see them implement a worker system to improve the area around your city, but idk that may be too much to ask for. :p

That being said, I really hope they make a sequel to this game.

ShazamFTW
08-24-2009, 06:11 AM
A few minutes, then I have to pretend to be a useful member of society... :-)

A)As echoed by previous posters, more civ's is yes. Bumping the # up to 24 (even if this is achieved thru DLC), would be wonderful. Some that I could think of off the top of my head....

Ottoman / Turks
American Indians (maybe pick a particular known tribe)
Mexican (Hey, they did win at the Alamo and all...)
Swiss (Yes, I said the Swiss... they wouldn't be the best at war,, but you could civ up a good chocolate.)
Austrian
Italian (not just Roman)
Norweigans/Scandanavian (Can't we get some Viking love?)
And for the 24th... you could make your own civilization. Not to the point of brokeness where you choose their ability, but a random ability from each era is given to your civ, and you have to make do. Would add a bit of helter skelter to a game. Sometimes amazing, sometimes crappy. That's what random is.

On top of having era-specific benefits, also add detrements to each civilzation. Indians couldn't attack for instance (but obviously their abilities would be better to support this), and the Zulus & Aztecs would never enter the Modern Era (they didn't...). The Swiss would be excellent at banking, but the poorer countries would be at a disadvantage fiscally. Would definately add some more bite to who you pick going into battle.

And, speaking as a person who played Civ last before the 360 on Civ2, I don't know a whole lot about the Diplomats... but adding a Diplomat wouldn't be a terrible thing. Since negotiating with the AI is insane right now when it comes to techs (Yours is worth 5 bucks, but mine is 500), Diplomats could be use to close the gap on that, and make bribing to attack other nations easier, etc, along with making peace easier to attain with warlike tribes (Have some modifier, I dunno). Would add a whole new element to the game.

I don't want to see this game turn into Civ4. That game is a damn marathon, and just too much going on for a console player. If you want that, get a PC. Part of the allure of CivRev is the ability to finish a game in a few hours, and removing a lot of the micro-management that exists on the PC. And NO Multiplayer achievements! This game has shown it can still have a reliable online base without them. If you have to, just make them simple like "Get a ranked win or 10" (not 200.... I still hate you Culdcept...)

Finally, the battle system. Oddly, I'm not going to say it's as bad as some people are. Archers beating tanks could theoretically happen if they were sneaky enough, but the odds are pretty slim (not like they're just going to shoot them, you need some GI Joe stuff to pull that win off). But more options with training troops, and developing strengths/weaknesses without over-complication would be a good thing. Perhaps make the attack/defense more skill based. Not anything as high up as a full blown mini-game for each attack, but on a micro level something to that effect (not button mashing, but something that relies on thought & planning)

I dunno, I'd mark like a 5 year old for a sequel. As long as they don't overdo it, and add enough to warrant having a second one, I'll have it pre-ordered when it's announced.

Darf Spud
11-05-2009, 07:16 PM
I would have the following things:
-Much Larger Map
-Longer game time/more opponents (like all civs at one time)
-Have a mode that is super-realistic, with like set times to advance eras (I once got into the Modern Age in 1800) and a massive world map, with all major countries on, with their overseas territories (So if you were France for example, you could use St Helena in the South Atlantic as a military base while fighting wars in South America or Africa).
-For nations such as Britain and America have more than one leader avalable, like for America have George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Ronald Regan, JFK, George Bush and Barak Obama. And when you choose to be Britain and have a Democracy instead of a Monarchy you can choose a Prime Minister instead of a King/Queen or both. Just imagine having Tony Blair and Henry VIII ruling at the same time!

Weinorok
11-18-2009, 07:26 PM
They could simply give attack/defense bonuses to higher tier armies against lower tier armies, or attack/defense penalties to lower tier armies against higher tier armies. For example: Archer army vs. Cannon army: Archer army receives 50% defense penalty for being one tier lower than cannon, or cannon could receive 50% attack bonus for being one tier higher than archer. That would probably help make the outcomes a little more realistic.

Tactful
12-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Everyone makes a big deal of outdated military units defeating tanks and bombers. But think of it this way: even tanks and bombers started from a very humble beginnings. Early tanks were very easy to defeat - just build a trench and camouflage it. I am not even talking of mine fields that buried quite a few tanks in the WW1. Early period planes could easily be brought down with a machine gun fire from the ground. Besides, in all history periods there were dumb generals that managed to lose battles even with much superior forces.

This. The units are representitive, you don't actually have three soldiers against three tanks. You have an army of soldiers against a unit of tanks. Similarly you wouldn't be able to pull up on the coast of england and bomb London. The tiles and characters in the game are representitive of what they contain. Three trees isn't a forest etc.

I want full customization, including diplomacy, game setup etc.

vince271121
02-15-2010, 07:33 PM
upgradeable units i dont want to have 30 knights during the modern era. In th pc version you would pay gold to upgrade units

CrAzY EpIc
02-27-2010, 04:05 PM
for my opinion civ rev. is perfekt, but maybe the second one will have better graphics

Grummy
03-04-2010, 01:16 AM
Pay to Upgrade units
Option to remove advisors
Option to choose map size and world type (Archipelagos, Continents, Single Land Mass etc)
Able to pick your oponents if you want
Map Designer/Creator
Under no circumstances include Multiplayer achievements. If you want to play multiplayer, thats cool, and allowing you to unlock achievements in mp as well as offline is fine, but no good can come from putting mp only achievements in the game as those who don't want to play mp matches will just boost them.
Get rid of that bloody achievement for all the Great People. Damn thing has ruined my experience of this otherwise excellent game.

PaulKemp
03-04-2010, 11:06 AM
I am surprised so many of you love the game. I like the game itself but it is way too annoying and badly made. I altleast need to be able to turn off advisors and turn off animations. Make the game quicker and less annoying.

Grummy
03-04-2010, 04:01 PM
Im beginning to truly hate this game

When you're just playing casually or going for the majority of achievements, all teh annoying crap doesn't really bother you too much.

But when trying to grind for the Great People, it all comes piling on. The animations become annoying because they just take up pointless seconds. The constant stream of shitty information that is really not at all helpful or interesting, the advisors forever popping up telling you things you already know are all irritating as hell. Then you get the stupid ai and 'diplomacy'. As soon as a civ starts demanding things from you, you're screwed, there's no way to avoid a war, you can delay it, but eventually their demands get too much, or you don't have anything they want and they attack you anyway. And if you refuse their demands or offers for tech trades they just keep coming back over and over and over again with the same ones. I gets so goddamn annoying that it drains all the fun from the game.

More things they need to change

Turn of advisors completely
Better diplomacy options (be able to blanket refuse offers so you don't have to go through the same shit over and over, also other options should be available, long term peace/alliance, agreements for being able to move through someone elses territory.
Remove animations, I'm fed up of having to watch the omputer trundle back and forth all the bloody time.

OSU Brutus OSU
04-06-2010, 10:47 PM
Agree...bigger maps, attack/defense balance, and less amazing CPU building armies faster than I can think...carriers for planes would be cool too...spies stealing tech could help as well

OSU Brutus OSU
04-06-2010, 10:48 PM
I'd kill for civ rev 2 though...hope it's in the works somewhere

I Am The Clarkie
05-27-2010, 07:43 AM
More diplomatic options. In stead of the usual 'give me or die', more complicated alliances and peace treaties.

missiloon
06-08-2010, 12:13 PM
I hope there will be a sequel, and i think that a more futuristic theme would be fun or any other theme. But like the theme this game had as well.

KillTheft Gator
06-08-2010, 10:22 PM
Mexican (Hey, they did win at the Alamo and all...)

Haha, good one. Since 12:1 battles are difficult to win and all...

Huxy87
08-01-2011, 09:28 PM
I would like to be able to upgrade units with gold so freaking annoying having archers you cant upgrade when your rolling with tanks :)

ZacAttack159357
08-11-2011, 11:37 PM
I would like to be able to upgrade units with gold so freaking annoying having archers you cant upgrade when your rolling with tanks :)
THIS
im getting tired that the only way to upgrade a unit is Leonardo's workshop which works once and some1 else can build, Civ4 has that ability
also is ur sig from battlefield bad company?

E1Conquistadork
09-07-2011, 04:20 PM
I'd love to be able to blast land units with my ships, personally.

soloabound
10-15-2011, 05:59 PM
gotta say i'd appreciate more realistic ai, for eg ghandi being anti war, french and english at war constant until modern era. and more leaders per civ as others have recommended.

more civs (thinking the maori for new zealand, scotland (braveheart!), the koreans (with the US taking a 50% penelty for every battle against them), al queda for afghanistan (say hello to my suicide bombers destroying chunks of your city! not sure if that covered by arabs tho) and maybe cubans (c'mon castro is a (in)famous leader))

although i dont have a problem with combat as it stands, i would like to be able to re-assign great generals and would prefer they redesign the predictive program that decides the outcome of each battle (makes winning piss easy, just save before the battle, learn the result, make a small change before entering (ie attack another unit) and the outcome of the first battle will normally change, (i know its cheating but on diety level i needed it to destoy egyptians before they launched final space componant)). a tier system would be great but i struggle to see how that would work. defence units and ships both have 4 unit varieties, but combat units have about six and siege only 3.

also upgrades for ships and aircraft would be good (eg more support fire, units recieve support fire from nearby allied fleets or units on shore if close enough). also fix the friggin medic upgrade or remove it, its useless for tanks and all siege units! they dont survive if they lose 2 parts and always regen if they only lose 1.

and an ultimate game with every civ on the same map!

Sirfacee
11-06-2011, 08:56 PM
They Need To Fix The Diplomacy So They Can Stay Permanent Friends, Instead of constantly forgetting to take thy're anti-physcotics!

Aluminum Cook
04-25-2012, 02:39 PM
If there was a sequel, they could do better with the controls. I actually enjoyed this game the most when playing it on my Nintendo DS. That felt the most natural.

Studli Wan XII
12-17-2012, 09:39 AM
I bought this because I hadn't played any of the series since Civ II, and in that one it had these brilliant little live action clips of the various advisors when they wanted to pipe in. They were comical and endearing and brought a proper sense of importance to my 11 year old self : ) Bring 'em back!