# Civilization Revolutions



## Felon (Jul 3, 2008)

I played the demo version of this game twice, and enjoyed it right up until the demo's end both times. Never played a Civ game before, so I can't compare it to its predecessors, but this was pretty great.

Anyone know whether or not previous games would let you synchronize attacks with different units? I kept trying to dogpile legions and catapults and horsemen on the Zulus, only to have the units attack individually and inflict virtually no casualties. I suppose toppling an enemy civilization's captial isn't intended to be easy, but the catapults were destroyed almost instantly. I figure there was something I was missing.


----------



## stonegod (Jul 3, 2008)

Except in armies (Civ III and IV), attacks have always been serial as far as I recall. I think their even semi serial in armies.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 3, 2008)

Felon said:


> Anyone know whether or not previous games would let you synchronize attacks with different units? I kept trying to dogpile legions and catapults and horsemen on the Zulus, only to have the units attack individually and inflict virtually no casualties. I suppose toppling an enemy civilization's captial isn't intended to be easy, but the catapults were destroyed almost instantly. I figure there was something I was missing.




Cities typically give units in them a defensive bonus based on fortifications or culture.

What you do with the catapults is bombard the city and reduce the defenses.  Once you get the city's defenses down, then you send in the troops.  Whenever possible, site your catapults and legionnaires on defensive terrain like forests and hills; while the catapults won't get the defensive bonus, the legionnaires will, and they'll get attacked first.

Brad


----------



## babomb (Jul 5, 2008)

Felon said:


> Anyone know whether or not previous games would let you synchronize attacks with different units? I kept trying to dogpile legions and catapults and horsemen on the Zulus, only to have the units attack individually and inflict virtually no casualties. I suppose toppling an enemy civilization's captial isn't intended to be easy, but the catapults were destroyed almost instantly. I figure there was something I was missing.




There's no way to do that, exactly.

You can combine three units of the same type into an army (put them all in the same square and press Y), where at least those three units in the army will attack at the same time. And as a previous poster mentioned, putting your units on hills or forest will grant them a bonus.

Other options for helping your units win are to build barracks or have 'em win enough easy fights that they get upgraded. Veteran units get a 50% bonus, and elite units gain special abilities, one possibility of which is +50% to attack cities. You could also try using a spy to destroy the city walls.


----------



## hong (Jul 5, 2008)

stonegod said:


> Except in armies (Civ III and IV), attacks have always been serial as far as I recall. I think their even semi serial in armies.



Huh? Armies are in Civ4? Since when?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 6, 2008)

babomb said:


> There's no way to do that, exactly.
> 
> You can combine three units of the same type into an army (put them all in the same square and press Y), where at least those three units in the army will attack at the same time. And as a previous poster mentioned, putting your units on hills or forest will grant them a bonus.
> 
> Other options for helping your units win are to build barracks or have 'em win enough easy fights that they get upgraded. Veteran units get a 50% bonus, and elite units gain special abilities, one possibility of which is +50% to attack cities. You could also try using a spy to destroy the city walls.




Ah, that's from Civ 2 or 3.

Barracks in this one give XP, which you get for winning fights.  It's still a very, very good idea to build barracks.  I had one unit in my last game get up to 50xp and level like 10 or so before it went down.

Brad


----------



## Felon (Jul 7, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Cities typically give units in them a defensive bonus based on fortifications or culture.
> 
> What you do with the catapults is bombard the city and reduce the defenses.  Once you get the city's defenses down, then you send in the troops.  Whenever possible, site your catapults and legionnaires on defensive terrain like forests and hills; while the catapults won't get the defensive bonus, the legionnaires will, and they'll get attacked first.



OK, but the catapults attack by moving into the enemy territory just like other units, right?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> OK, but the catapults attack by moving into the enemy territory just like other units, right?




I know in Civ IV they have a "Bombard" option.  They can also attack via the normal method, and inflict collateral damage, but at least take the defensive bonus down first via bombardment.  Their lack of strength means they'll take fearsome damage and often go down.

Brad


----------



## hong (Jul 8, 2008)

I'm pretty sure the bombard option is only for reducing city defenses. If you want to damage units, you have to attack as normal.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 8, 2008)

hong said:


> I'm pretty sure the bombard option is only for reducing city defenses. If you want to damage units, you have to attack as normal.



Unless you go suicide catapulting.

After you bombed down the cultural defence with your catapults (or whatever siege units you use), you attack with at least four of them to deal heaps of collateral damage to the defenders.

You usually lose the catapults, but your attacks then have a field day with the defenders.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 8, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> Unless you go suicide catapulting.
> 
> After you bombed down the cultural defence with your catapults (or whatever siege units you use), you attack with at least four of them to deal heaps of collateral damage to the defenders.
> 
> ...




Yes, this.

1) Put the catapults and their defending legionnaires (or any unit) next to the city, preferably in forest or hills.

2) Every round, bombard the city to wear its defenses down. (There will be a little percentage number in the lower corner of the city.) Take as many turns as you can to do this.

2b) The enemy may or may not come out of the city to attack your pile of units. If you've got good defense, he may not risk it. He knows he is safer behind the walls.

3) When the city defenses are reduced to 0%, attack first with all the catapults. They will cause "Collateral Damage" to more than one unit. If you're really lucky, some of your catapults will even withdraw after attacking and you won't lose them. But if you do lose them, don't sweat it.

3b) When I produce catapults anew, the first upgrade I give them is _always_ bonus collateral damage, for this reason.

4) After all of your catapults have attacked, then you can start attacking the city with your regular troops.

But I can tell you for certain I would never attack a city with less than a 2:1 advantage in units. Even better if you can manage 3:1 or 4:1. 

Remember, you have to hold it after you take it.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 8, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> I know in Civ IV they have a "Bombard" option.  They can also attack via the normal method, and inflict collateral damage, but at least take the defensive bonus down first via bombardment.  Their lack of strength means they'll take fearsome damage and often go down.



 Yes. And as has been said, suicide catapults are a good idea. Just treat one or two as disposable per city you plan to conquer.

Bombers can "<S>trike" instead of "<B>ombarding", which softens up units too.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## stonegod (Jul 9, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Remember, you have to hold it after you take it.



No you don't! Scorched earth, baby!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 9, 2008)

stonegod said:


> No you don't! Scorched earth, baby!




I suppose if you play a _very_ aggressive, militaristic strategy, that will work out in the long run-- but razing cities is really not good for diplomatic relations.

Civs tend to notice that sort of thing.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 10, 2008)

Nifft said:


> Yes. And as has been said, suicide catapults are a good idea. Just treat one or two as disposable per city you plan to conquer.
> 
> Bombers can "<S>trike" instead of "<B>ombarding", which softens up units too.




Heh.

"What's that?  Your Anti-Tank units are at half strength after my bombers levelled the city?  Oh, for shame."

I swear, last game I spent half of my bombers' turns moving them as the front kept galloping forward.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I suppose if you play a very aggressive, militaristic strategy, that will work out in the long run-- but razing cities is really not good for diplomatic relations.
> 
> Civs tend to notice that sort of thing.




I almost never destroy the city, unless they've really ticked me off, like changing hands 5 times in 6 turns.  Then I lost my temper.

Imagine my surprise when the inhabitants of the razed city formed infantry units.  And here I'd thought partisans were a thing of Civ2.

Brad


----------



## Felon (Jul 14, 2008)

Again, I'm not familiar with the previous Civ games, but hearing what other have said, including in the official FAQ (which seems to consist mostly of explaining how much of the older games' features have been pared away), I get a strong impression that Civ Rev has been given the D&D 4e treatment, having been "dumbed-down" or "streamlined", depending on your point-of-view.

There is no scorching of earth, there's no "collateral damage" option for catapults, there's no queueing up items for future production. There aren't any sliders or anything that provides a deep level of customization. When you initiate an action like contacting another leader or sending a spy into an enemy city, you just get a few options that are purely take it or leave it. When a unit gets enough victories to earn an upgrade, you get two choices to pick from, also take it or leave it. Also, there's only one nuke in the game, period. 

I guess it was decided that Civ making the move to consolves necessitated a more "accessible" level of simplicity. But I think they may have gone overboard. Winning through the art of diplomacy is pretty much non-existant. The AI decides what's on the table and sets non-negotiable costs. All leadeers are pretty belligerent, and seem to take little stock of how badly you've troucned them in the past or how many caravans you've sent to their cities. If their units encounter unguarded settlers or caravans, you've losing'em or paying a hefty fee. If they catch them again next turn, they won't cut you slack because you've already paid them off. 

Still having loads of fun of the "just a couple more turns, then I'll go to bed" variety, but I do begin to see where there's some sparseness. 

And yes, catapults rock, particularly firing from a hill.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I suppose if you play a _very_ aggressive, militaristic strategy, that will work out in the long run-- but razing cities is really not good for diplomatic relations.
> 
> Civs tend to notice that sort of thing.



In Civ 4, the attacked civ will usually hold the grudge. Since a civ you're at war with will want to attack you at some point, you should usually destroy/vassalize that civ (if the civ is out of game, if also negates negative diplomacy scores due to "at war with our friends"-stuff).

Hence, scorched earth is actually an useful strategy if you're starting the war. And really, if they start the war, they're probably war-mongers and will try to destroy you anyway, so going for them is still a good option.

Cheers, LT.


----------

