![]() I like the Apostolic Palace and United Nations systems of Civ IV (I think Civ V only has the United Nations, so you can't recreate the power of the Catholic Church to declare crusades, or things like that). I like the espionage system of Civ IV (you get to move around spy units, which can sabotage mines, roads and railways, etc., whereas you can't do this in the Civ V espionage system). ![]() This means that individual cities can become unhappy (in Civ V, unhappiness always affects every city in a civilization). I like the city unhappiness/happiness system of Civ IV. This makes access to health resources very important. I like the city sickness/health system of Civ IV. I find this an interesting feature, allowing you to recreate the colonial period of history. This also risks an independence war, under certain conditions, like the American War of Independence. Civ IV (Warlords and Beyond the Sword?) allow a faction to make some of their cities into a colony (a vassal-state), thus reducing the upkeep cost of having a very spread out civilization, and allowing the "lord" faction to get benefits, such as free resources from the vassal state, while the colony provides and controls their own buildings and military units. In Civ V only individual cities can be puppet cities, but entire civilizations cannot be vassal-states, whereas in Civ IV, a civilization can make an entire civilization into a vassal-state. I also like the vassal-state and colony system of Civ IV. I prefer the political system of Civ IV ("civics", which enable a player to change between the policies which they have discovered as technologies) and the simple religious system of Civ IV, more than the political system and the more complicated religious system of Civ V (where the player can make their own religion). a player can put their ships into a port of another civilization, if they have an "open borders" agreement. ![]() I like the fact that in Civ IV civilizations can put units on the same square as units from other civilizations, if they are at peace - e.g. Most people also think the combat in Civ V is more realistic, because in Civ IV, any number of units can fit on one square (the "doom stacks" which Keith Fife mentioned), but in Civ V usually only 1 unit can fit on each hexagon. Most people think that Civ V has a more realistic map layout (Civ IV has a square grid, and Civ V has hexagons). I think Civ IV has funnier leader animations, and I love the music in Civ IV. I find Civ IV more fun, and Civ V more serious. These new advisers are still as useful as ever and you’ll have figureheads from your faction give you tips and guidance, except they now speak in looping simlish.I like both games, but I enjoy Civ IV more. Your advisers in Civilization Revolution aren’t the austere and reliable stalwarts of old, but exaggerated CG characters with lurid colours and ample bosom. Where it gets a little different though is in the presentation of all these elements. I was pretty happy then to find that Civilization Revolution is functionally very similar to the older Civilization games – there’s still a selection of starting factions as diverse as the options for the ‘ethnic background’ question on a national census and there’s plenty of customisation to be applied to your ruling style as time goes on. ![]() Then again, my civilizations rarely make it to the end-game – I always get outflanked by one faction or another, spread my forces too thin and end up collapsing on myself like an over-eater who finally achieves critical mass and implodes gorily. You can have military victories by conquering all your opponents, scientific victories by being the first to reach Alpha Centuri, economic victories by being the first to gather 10,000 gold and form the World Bank, or a cultural victory if you’re the first to create Jerry Spinger: The Opera. Speaking of which, Civilization Revolution retains the openness of the original games and there are still a number of different ways to win. When you quash a rebellion or break a peace treaty – what does that say about you as a person? I’ve always loved how these decisions are reflected in the way your government evolves and changes over time, though it is pretty damning that I always end up in some sort of dictatorship by the time the end-game is in sight. Little NapoleonAs someone who has never really had a stomach for the obvious rock-paper-scissors mechanics underneath most RTS games, Civilization has always appealed to me on the strength that it can be used more as a personality quiz in many regards. Below we see if transition is as fluid as could be hoped – or as jarring as breezeblock to the jaw on a cold morning. Still, Sid Meier’s Firaxis studio has never been one to be coy – ambition is what makes Civilization what it is and so the move to an arguably more adrenaline-fuelled and casual audience was inevitable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |