I have no idea of what the real history of France is, how far off is that?
Well, Gaul (which contained what we now call France) was indeed conquered by the Romans (Gallic Wars & Julius Caeser), but as we all know that didn’t last. Charlemagne did conquer the area later on. There’s just a ton of other stuff in between and much more after, but this is just a game and quite frankly (pun intended) something that would receive an F on a term paper due to being horribly incomplete should probably be accepted as standard fare imho.
Wait until you can hear them read to you as your game is loading, IMO.
Yeah, if they wanted to mention the first guy to rule over all of the Franks (a unified France) they should have mentioned Clovis. Charlemagne didn’t come around until the 700s.
Quaro
1705
Yeah, it’s an abstraction. Otherwise any unit would be ranged in the modern era, they all have guns.
The Romans did establish the province Gallia which was the first time that an area vaguely reminiscent of modern France was comprised in one administrative unit, though of course they did not intend to establish a sovereign nation there. And the inhabitants were not in any way “French” (despite Asterix and Obelix!) but just plain Celts, who also resided in many surrounding areas from Britain to northern Italy.
The rest is all wrong. Charlemagne did not create France but a Frankish kingdom that comprised both modern France and Germany (among others); the split between these two regions occurred when his sons divided the empire. (The eastern part then quickly established itself as the kingdom of Germany, a fact that the manual writers seem completely ignorant of.) The Holy Roman Empire was later headed by the German kings. They claimed supremacy over all Christian kings as spiritual successors of the Roman emperors, but were generally unable to command France or other regions outside of Germany proper. So what the HRE is supposed to have to do with France is completely unclear to me – it really belongs in the (curiously brief) German entry.
There’s a similar whopper in the Russian entry, by the way, where they claim that Russia was “invaded and overrun” by the Goths. The Rus people are first mentioned about half a millenium after the Goths had left the region, and more likely than not it’s them who took over from the Goths, or whoever had succeeded the Goths in the meantime…
razarok
1707
What would be a good game to serve as an introduction to this series? Something cheaper than a new, full-price, release might be preferable.
Thanks
Civilization Revolution is a nice simple game for all consoles from iPhone to 360, if you don’t mind a terrible cheater AI. On the PC, just get a complete package of Civ4 with all expansions.
lordkosc
1709
Damn the reviews coming out are all 9’s or higher… I am really on the fence if I want to get this game on release day… So much back catalog that will only get pushed further back… :s
Well, there’s going to be a ton of changes in V if you’re planning on eventually getting it, so keep that in mind. That said, you can often get IV pretty cheaply on sales and it was very well received, especially with the expansions. However, I would avoid it at full price due to the frequency of these sales and how close the full price is to V.
III was not bad, and Steam has the Complete pack for $5. For a cheap intro, that seems like a good bet if you don’t want to wait for a sale. Just keep in mind that it’s a decade-old game.
I couldn’t recommend that anyone get 3. It’s by far the weakest in the series. Personally, I’d just get V because it appears to be pretty streamlined, but if not then get IV with the expansions.
razarok
1712
Alright, perhaps it might be post prudent to then just wait for the release of civ 5. The demo was supposed to be released that same day, right?
zengonzo
1713
It’s Civ, man … It’s fucking Civ.
You’re going to get it. And you’re very likely going to love it - right up until the point they repossess your primary method of transportation and child services comes for your withered, rasping progeny.
What? twitch Are you twitch implying twich that I twitch cannont twitch control my twitch addictions*.
How DARE you say that twitch
<Loading Civ4…>
Honey… what is that smell?
razarok
1716
I’ll give it a shot, thanks.
Rock8man
1717
Did you play Civ 3 complete, or just Civ 3 when it initially came out? Because the second expansion vastly improved the game and filled in a lot of holes in the base game. I thought after the second expansion, Civ 3 was an excellent game. The biggest compliment I could give it is that I could never go back to playing Civ 2 once I got used to Civ 3. The diplomacy options, especially, were so much better. Plus Civ 3 (until Civ 5 comes out) is still the best looking game in the series.
Thanks Dan and Chris, that was very cool.
ShivaX
1719
Tanks can shoot a hell of a lot farther than 1000m. Hell rifles can do that fairly easily. Most WW2 tanks you’re talking about 2-3km range depending.
Its an abstraction for the sake of balance. It does feel weird though. Theres no way a frigate’s cannons have more effective range than tank and a bow and arrow couldn’t fire anywhere near a catapult. But for the sake of gameplay all bows and ships are artillery, which is fine, even if its a bit wonky when you start looking at late game units vs early game units.
If they did it any other way the early tiers would heavily favor the guy with catapults and archers would just blend in with swordsmen and the like too much.
That is personal opinion, of course, and very peculiar at that. Care to elaborate?
