I just bought civ 4 complete edition which has civ 4 + warlords + beyond the sword. Should I just jump straight in and play beyond the sword or should I start with the original first ????
Someone now has a better computer (one that maxes Crysis at playable levels)... and Civ4 still doesn't run very well. It's just the game being on a crappy engine, really. As for the video, it didn't run that badly when I wasn't recording (single core CPU's have issues with recording).
It doesn't run particularly well on an 512mb 8800GT, 2.8GHz Athlon 64 x2, and 2GB RAM. The minimum requirements are 1.2GHz single core CPU, 256mb RAM, and a 64mb graphics card. It's a crappy engine. -_-
I actually think there might be a memory leak in there somewhere that's causing the slowdown.
Yeah, I am running civ 4 on an 8600mgt (laptop GPU) 256mb, 2 gigs of DDR2 RAM and a centrino duo 1.5ghz. Runs at 60 frames for me, with 2X AA and everything maxed. Little slower with all the AA turned on, but yeah.
I remember Civ 3 ran on just about anything...I don't have any problems with civ 4 lol.
Maybe your GPU is not supported or something? When I get my regular PC running again il check it on my 280 and c if its slower.
I'm talking mostly about the endgame not running well. Suddenly you start having really long turn times and lots of stuttering. Hence why I say there's probably a memory leak. It's a gradual thing.
Ahh the endgame. Yeah, it gets a bit slow later on, but I find the long turns are generally because you have more units and stuff to control, although I have experienced a few times when it becomes rather off putting.
I love this game. Me and me and my dad both have a copy and we play each other. We can never win more than once at a time. We give a good challenge to each other which is what we were both looking for. This is the greatest PC game ever.
I hate playing on random maps on this game. I'v had it a long time. But seriously, I can never get good land when I make a random map. Either I get the far south or north and then i get blocked -.-.
@Redmilitiageneral then buy it on Steam (but be sure to turn on the epic war or whatever it was called mod its the only mod that opens new units that are beyond mechanized infantry you get all sorts of cool sh*t like clones mechs etc..)
p.s. sorry i cant remember the name of the mod its been a while since i played civ4
thought very few units were added into the orrigional game new game modes have been added(such as final frontier wich is a space mod changes the gameplay giving you diffrent units and diffrent stuff to research ) that add new units i recall one more mod that gives you a handfull of new units at the most advanced stage
there are more mods just i cant remeber them at the momment
these mods come with the game so no further download is requiered
Continuing my last comment; i really liked how it showed the resources u were getting for different spots in cities... while in civ 3 u would have to go check in the civilopedia n stuff :P they also really improved the AI with good programming rather than just making the comps cheat to get harder anywhere past the 3rd difficulty.
When it comes to playing Civ4... you practically need the manual right in front of you. Once you've played Civ3 for a while (a few weeks to a couple months or so) you don't really need to check the Civilopedia all that much anymore... but I find myself constantly referring back to it in Civ4 despite having owned the game for two years just b/c it's so confusing. Maybe you think it's clearer than previous versions, but I just find the interface convoluted and irritating. Also, too much stacking.
i dont know why so many ppl are saying the 3rd one is better. i have the 3rd and 2nd and i was never huge fans of them but yeah i played them and they were fun... but i played civ 4 at my friends house and it was REALLY GOOD! I could really feel myself using all this strategy and i almost became addicted (even tho i didnt have it) cuz back at my house i couldnt stand playing civ 3 after trying civ 4! also everything is much more clear and layed out then previous versions.
@Lucky466 Many people say the 3rd one was better because they are able to win more reliably in the 3rd edition of Civ. It seems not too many people like to have to come up with new strategies to win and would rather keep their 99.999% winning rate rather than learn some new strategies and take a hit on their win rate for a while, while they adapt to the new.
The problem between Civ3 and Civ4 is basically going from something that's complicated enough to be challenging, but accessible enough to pick up and play... to something that's overly complicated and not very intuitive for anyone who's not used to being bombarded with far more stats than necessary and a combat system that revolves entirely around having the biggest stacks.
As for the "win rate" thing... I rarely win. I still have far more fun playing Civ3 than Civ4. Your argument is invalid.
I hate the expansions.. I mean they don't add anything good and I seem to lose more in Beyond the Sword than normally I would.. That sucks! Those damn Incas are in EVERY game and they are the #1 EVERY time...
Lets sue sid so he stops making expantions for civ 4. It sux period. Hopefully civ 5 will be a transition from civ 3 to civ 5 like it should have been with civ 4 but it wasnt.
If you like the game its fine. I cant take this game for more than 1-2 min. Anyway, back to civ 3. I gotta device some real tactics.
From what I've seen, Civ5 is just Civ4 all over again with a new coat of paint, hex tiles instead of square ones, and a crappier interface. The great thing about Civ3 was that you could win any way you wanted to as long as you strategized it properly. Civ4 basically forces you to adopt non-conquest methods, which is stupid. Strategy? Not really.
Beyond the Sword actually makes Civ4 playable, to be honest. As an expansion pack it's terrific... of course I play the mods rather than the base game.
The problem with Civ4's complexity is that there's just too much thrown at you to really comprehend everything that's going on. 14 cities isn't an empire. That's barely a *country*. In comparison, Civ3 has a wonderful balance of complexity and simplicity (though the whole "clubs can beat tanks" thing was silly). I could easily support 30 or more cities because everything's so well explained and there's not much of the random "oh, you lose money for no reason" bs that plagues Civ4.
Overly complex + engine problems + requires Beyond the Sword to actually realize its potential + can't find a good way to finance a huge empire = annoying.
Very VERY smart video! 5/5 for the smart idea and the excellent editing. Overall, I think you have proved that Fireaxis really researched what these people looked like, or may have, and I give them much credit for it, and for you for proving it!
whats with the single person??? arent you suppose to have like three warrior ppl in a unit? or did they take that out in beyond the sword??? i love that feature
I had a little more fun with civ 3 (now i play bts) ,because in civ 3 it took about a week to get to the modern age but civ 4 regular game you can fininsh in about 3 hours its just not that fun i hope civ v will be better
Yeah, Civ3 is much slower than Civ4, but I think they made 4 that way to accommodate multiplayer. MP in Civ3 was absolutely terrible. Regardless, I liked it a lot more than Civ4.
Me too, but they added some cooler features for Civ 4, but they totally cut the pace of gameplay... It sucks because I never play multiplayer for this type of game. I recommend that you play epic or marathon mode to slow down the game.
I just didn't have as much fun with it as Civ3. It's still good though. 5 is pretty much reserved for masterpieces... which BtS is (sadly) not.
Basically I hated playing base Civ4 because of all the technical issues. I couldn't even play the game at all for months (it wouldn't even start up due to a severe bug), so that really didn't help its chances. On top of that, the engine is just crap, so playing the game at 15 fps or less on low graphics settings pretty much killed the game for me.
formed from tribes -> became an empire -> became worldempier -> Became Holy Roman Empire of german nation -> Became a part of bavaria -> is now nothing more than just a state of bavaria :D
Yes, he's Charlemagne in English, und ja, Karl der Grosse ist viel besser. Technically he was a Frank though, so that makes his French name more accurate.
"Althochdeutsch" = (Literally) "Old High German" or basically just the overarching form of "Old German."
I'm fairly fluent in modern Hochdeutsch and know some snippets of Bayerisch and Swäbisch. Ich weiss, dass meine Familie von Deutschland ist, aber nicht woher sie kommen.
Back when Karl was around there wasn't a Germany (not until the 1700's). There was Germania and Gaul, basically, but he was a Franks, which were closer to Gauls than Germans.
Is that indicative of the performance? Shoot... A game with graphics like this should run really well on an 8800GT. But from what i can see it's going at around 5FPS.
Yep I do. I've played Rome, Medieval 2, and Empire. Out of those 3 Medieval 2's the best, but Empire's pretty close if you can put up with the ridiculous load times and Steam integration. Didn't like Rome, but that was the demo and I was playing as Carthage vs Rome with nothing but light cavalry...
Haven't played Shogun or Medieval 1 yet, though. Napoleon Total War comes out next year, but it'll essentially be Empire all over again.
Medieval 2 was my favourite -- like Rome but with everything a little better. Not as ground breaking, but great. However, I had to uninstall either Med 2 or empire, but as Empire was a gift from a family member I chose Med 2. I didn't really want empire, i've only played it 3 times. I wish the online was more populated.
Was probably because of my awful Radeon 9250. Now that I've got an 8800GT it runs well except later on, when the engine's limits really show themselves (it just can't render all the stuff on screen well at all).
i'd say it would deserve 3/5 but.. considering this games online isn't where the most fun would be at, UNLESS you're playing with friends.. otherwise. this game online is very bad. hard to get a match started. and the bugs and issues are just completely not fun to deal with.
But I love this game alot. Mainly because it requires thinking.
I find it very hard to achieve a Conquest Victory though.
Glad you liked the review, and yeah, the online is bad... but it's better than Civ 3's online. I could barely get Civ 3 to even connect online, let alone join a game.
The point of having artillery is to pound enemy fortifications away, not to damage the units themselves. That's why you combine them with other units when assaulting.
Dont know which details im using, but till now it works. im just in the beginnings though. my questions was will it also work without lagging in modern age?
I couldn't say. It still lags on my current rig when I get to the modern age. That's just the engine being pushed almost beyond its limits, so it can't be avoided.
Hi. I just love your reviews. I have the Civ4 Complete Edition. I'm a total noob at Civ games so I was wondering if I should start with Civ4 or if I should jump straight to BtS? Is BtS harder or is it the same as core Civ4? Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thx.
Yes, but Earth18civ doesn't... your stuck withg Catherine for the Russians, Frederick for the germans, Roosevelt for Egypt but none of the cool guys like Lincoln/Stalin/Bismarck/Mao.
Please elaborate on what your problem is (eg. does it display an error message?). First make sure you've updated your graphics card's drivers and update Civ 4 to the latest patch. I had the problem of Civ 4 not working until I installed the patch, then it ran just fine apart from slowdown issues later on in the game.
You'd be amazed what I could play with on that rig. F.E.A.R. on lowest possible detail still got 15-20fps average, and I could play through on the hardest difficulty just fine. I don't really have that framerate problem now unless I try to play stuff on DX10 mode though (8800GT is sorta entry-level for DX10 but it's amazing for DX9).
Civ 4 and BtS are most likely less than retail price now. BtS was around 30 $US when it came out (if I remember correctly, which I probably don't). You can probably pick up both for around the cost of a new retail game these days.
Would you just install beyond the sword after already having warlords and then run BTS? Or is are there two .exes that come with BTS and one allows you to run both expansions at once?
Actually, I just found out that everything in warlords is in beyond the sword (except for the warlords scenarios, but those are crappy anyway). Those con artists!
I got it as a gift, but you can buy it in stores or online. Online's cheaper but you still need the original Civ 4 (online or disc version) to play BtS. Not sure what it is now.
this game would be perfect....... exept for the fact that there is a "Native American Empire". They should have used the tribe name, instead (Souix/Lakota)
I don't really mind that. There are far too many Native American tribes (and not any that really had an empire by themselves) to say individual ones, so they just went for the whole.
I know, it's just that Native Americans didin't refer to themselves as "Native Americans". Also, it's strange how there's a "Native American Empire", but yet there's just an "American Empire"
Yes, but they're two different entities. The American Empire is the descendants of the British/French/Dutch/Germans/etc. that migrated, while the Native American Empire is hypothetical (it actually says that in the description).
I build up my empire on the continent/island I'm already on first, then put together larger forces to go out and conquer other islands/continents. I normally play with only the conquest win conditions.
how far do you build the empire before you start attacking i aways wants to make it the the near future part but i get bord and kill everyone before bc even ends
I just bought civ 4 complete edition which has civ 4 + warlords + beyond the sword. Should I just jump straight in and play beyond the sword or should I start with the original first ????
david111davies 3 months ago
Doesn't really matter.
DWTerminator 3 months ago
i just go the civilization 4 complete for £5
221evans 8 months ago
@221evans so i got it for free
madmatt6669 7 months ago
The new techs don't have narrated quotes? ;(
Zylo587 8 months ago
They do, but not by Leonard Nimoy.
DWTerminator 8 months ago
@DWTerminator That's like producing a Spielberg movie with a different director! >:(
Zylo587 8 months ago
I know. It's pretty depressing.
DWTerminator 8 months ago
i think you pronounced the celtic leader's name wrong.
evilresidence4 11 months ago
I can't speak Scots or Gaelic. -_-
DWTerminator 11 months ago
Someone needs a better computer.
Yer fps is like...10
m1up 1 year ago
Someone now has a better computer (one that maxes Crysis at playable levels)... and Civ4 still doesn't run very well. It's just the game being on a crappy engine, really. As for the video, it didn't run that badly when I wasn't recording (single core CPU's have issues with recording).
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator
How is the engine crappy? Maybe its you. hahaha lolz.
m1up 1 year ago
It doesn't run particularly well on an 512mb 8800GT, 2.8GHz Athlon 64 x2, and 2GB RAM. The minimum requirements are 1.2GHz single core CPU, 256mb RAM, and a 64mb graphics card. It's a crappy engine. -_-
I actually think there might be a memory leak in there somewhere that's causing the slowdown.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator
Yeah, I am running civ 4 on an 8600mgt (laptop GPU) 256mb, 2 gigs of DDR2 RAM and a centrino duo 1.5ghz. Runs at 60 frames for me, with 2X AA and everything maxed. Little slower with all the AA turned on, but yeah.
I remember Civ 3 ran on just about anything...I don't have any problems with civ 4 lol.
Maybe your GPU is not supported or something? When I get my regular PC running again il check it on my 280 and c if its slower.
m1up 1 year ago
I'm talking mostly about the endgame not running well. Suddenly you start having really long turn times and lots of stuttering. Hence why I say there's probably a memory leak. It's a gradual thing.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator
Ahh the endgame. Yeah, it gets a bit slow later on, but I find the long turns are generally because you have more units and stuff to control, although I have experienced a few times when it becomes rather off putting.
m1up 1 year ago
By slow turns I mean the time it takes between when you hit the "end turn" command and your next turn begins. Its sluggish after a while.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator
Thats what I mean.
m1up 1 year ago
@m1up im running a shitty toshiba, and it runs great all graphics maxed out... well as far as a non modified toshiba can go :)
lsb3340 9 months ago
I love this game. Me and me and my dad both have a copy and we play each other. We can never win more than once at a time. We give a good challenge to each other which is what we were both looking for. This is the greatest PC game ever.
MrSaxophonist23 1 year ago
I hate playing on random maps on this game. I'v had it a long time. But seriously, I can never get good land when I make a random map. Either I get the far south or north and then i get blocked -.-.
defend4ever 1 year ago
Why are the units only one person? in my game there 3. Is that part of BTS?
Malinauskas13 1 year ago
Part of my graphics settings at the time.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
X( i want this. im sick of mechanized infantry being the most advanced unit. I want mechs to spread my authoritarian military dominance >:)
Redmilitiageneral 1 year ago 2
@Redmilitiageneral then buy it on Steam (but be sure to turn on the epic war or whatever it was called mod its the only mod that opens new units that are beyond mechanized infantry you get all sorts of cool sh*t like clones mechs etc..)
p.s. sorry i cant remember the name of the mod its been a while since i played civ4
killer21334 1 year ago
@Redmilitiageneral woops my bad its not the only mod that gives you new units
killer21334 1 year ago
any possibility of a clearer video showing all the new units?!?
Redmilitiageneral 1 year ago
Nope. Sorry.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@Redmilitiageneral there are too many new units
thought very few units were added into the orrigional game new game modes have been added(such as final frontier wich is a space mod changes the gameplay giving you diffrent units and diffrent stuff to research ) that add new units i recall one more mod that gives you a handfull of new units at the most advanced stage
there are more mods just i cant remeber them at the momment
these mods come with the game so no further download is requiered
killer21334 1 year ago
is there a scenario where i can play on space...É
kebyonatin 1 year ago
Yes, actually. It's included in Beyond the Sword and I believe is called Final Frontier. Not totally sure on the name but I know it's in there.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
@DWTerminator cool!! can you do a review about it? if you have time.. ^_^
kebyonatin 1 year ago
I might start doing mod spotlight videos, in which case I might include it. I won't review a mod though.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i have just the standard civ 4 game... should i get warloards or beyond the sword or both?
fillipinodude 1 year ago
Continuing my last comment; i really liked how it showed the resources u were getting for different spots in cities... while in civ 3 u would have to go check in the civilopedia n stuff :P they also really improved the AI with good programming rather than just making the comps cheat to get harder anywhere past the 3rd difficulty.
Lucky466 1 year ago
When it comes to playing Civ4... you practically need the manual right in front of you. Once you've played Civ3 for a while (a few weeks to a couple months or so) you don't really need to check the Civilopedia all that much anymore... but I find myself constantly referring back to it in Civ4 despite having owned the game for two years just b/c it's so confusing. Maybe you think it's clearer than previous versions, but I just find the interface convoluted and irritating. Also, too much stacking.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
i dont know why so many ppl are saying the 3rd one is better. i have the 3rd and 2nd and i was never huge fans of them but yeah i played them and they were fun... but i played civ 4 at my friends house and it was REALLY GOOD! I could really feel myself using all this strategy and i almost became addicted (even tho i didnt have it) cuz back at my house i couldnt stand playing civ 3 after trying civ 4! also everything is much more clear and layed out then previous versions.
Lucky466 1 year ago
@Lucky466 Many people say the 3rd one was better because they are able to win more reliably in the 3rd edition of Civ. It seems not too many people like to have to come up with new strategies to win and would rather keep their 99.999% winning rate rather than learn some new strategies and take a hit on their win rate for a while, while they adapt to the new.
DesertRidgeline 1 year ago
The problem between Civ3 and Civ4 is basically going from something that's complicated enough to be challenging, but accessible enough to pick up and play... to something that's overly complicated and not very intuitive for anyone who's not used to being bombarded with far more stats than necessary and a combat system that revolves entirely around having the biggest stacks.
As for the "win rate" thing... I rarely win. I still have far more fun playing Civ3 than Civ4. Your argument is invalid.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
I hate the expansions.. I mean they don't add anything good and I seem to lose more in Beyond the Sword than normally I would.. That sucks! Those damn Incas are in EVERY game and they are the #1 EVERY time...
Nikotiini69 1 year ago
I play the mods mostly so I tend not to worry about the Incas, but Civ4 in general makes the AI ridiculous.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Lets sue sid so he stops making expantions for civ 4. It sux period. Hopefully civ 5 will be a transition from civ 3 to civ 5 like it should have been with civ 4 but it wasnt.
If you like the game its fine. I cant take this game for more than 1-2 min. Anyway, back to civ 3. I gotta device some real tactics.
ZergMazter 1 year ago
From what I've seen, Civ5 is just Civ4 all over again with a new coat of paint, hex tiles instead of square ones, and a crappier interface. The great thing about Civ3 was that you could win any way you wanted to as long as you strategized it properly. Civ4 basically forces you to adopt non-conquest methods, which is stupid. Strategy? Not really.
Beyond the Sword actually makes Civ4 playable, to be honest. As an expansion pack it's terrific... of course I play the mods rather than the base game.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
I find it to be a very enticing game. This is dirt cheap right now, play.com are selling the complete edition for a fiver.
baddude1337 1 year ago
@baddude1337 I bought it for 3 bucks in a store
fridgeslayer94 1 year ago
The problem with Civ4's complexity is that there's just too much thrown at you to really comprehend everything that's going on. 14 cities isn't an empire. That's barely a *country*. In comparison, Civ3 has a wonderful balance of complexity and simplicity (though the whole "clubs can beat tanks" thing was silly). I could easily support 30 or more cities because everything's so well explained and there's not much of the random "oh, you lose money for no reason" bs that plagues Civ4.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Overly complex + engine problems + requires Beyond the Sword to actually realize its potential + can't find a good way to finance a huge empire = annoying.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not a big fan of Civ4 as a whole.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
you should take the mic away from you mouth.
evirus 1 year ago
I got better about that in later reviews.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
I got the Civ 4 pack (includes this and colonization) for £6.25 which pleases me a lot :)
BVargas78 1 year ago
Good deal, there, I'd venture.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Hello, hexagon tiles?
LuigiRocks69 1 year ago
Square in Civ, actually.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Very interesting review.This expansion is very good and the original game too.I heard that Civilization 5 will come out soon.Can't wait for it.
LightFykki 1 year ago
Glad you found it intriguing.
Civ5 sadly looks to be *exactly* the same as Civ4 but with improved visuals.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Very VERY smart video! 5/5 for the smart idea and the excellent editing. Overall, I think you have proved that Fireaxis really researched what these people looked like, or may have, and I give them much credit for it, and for you for proving it!
HardWarUK 1 year ago
Uh, ok. Glad you liked it.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Comment removed
Robiluz221 1 year ago
i found out how ty it a butten in the left bottem corrner ty 4 helpeing lol how i go onlin
ProudGermanian 1 year ago
aver time i play i can never see my troopies wtf help
ProudGermanian 1 year ago
Your units are invisible? That's weird. Look on the Civ4 forums and see if there's any help to be found there.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
yea lol i cant find it is ther a site wher i can visit
ProudGermanian 1 year ago
Uh... the forums are on the official Civ4 website. Just Google Civilization 4 and it should be fairly easy to find.
DWTerminator 1 year ago
Could some one give me a list of the 7 gods from the "Gods of Old" scenario from the Beyond the Sword expansion?
Lasgun91 1 year ago
whats with the single person??? arent you suppose to have like three warrior ppl in a unit? or did they take that out in beyond the sword??? i love that feature
kicooi 2 years ago
I think it's a result of my placing the graphics on a lower setting.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Not saying civ 4 is bad i like it, but not that much...
xXcartman1098xX 2 years ago
I had a little more fun with civ 3 (now i play bts) ,because in civ 3 it took about a week to get to the modern age but civ 4 regular game you can fininsh in about 3 hours its just not that fun i hope civ v will be better
xXcartman1098xX 2 years ago
Yeah, Civ3 is much slower than Civ4, but I think they made 4 that way to accommodate multiplayer. MP in Civ3 was absolutely terrible. Regardless, I liked it a lot more than Civ4.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Me too, but they added some cooler features for Civ 4, but they totally cut the pace of gameplay... It sucks because I never play multiplayer for this type of game. I recommend that you play epic or marathon mode to slow down the game.
cyanide444 2 years ago
Good... you came around in this review!
You should have given it 5 out of 5 though...
tsjoencinema 2 years ago
I just didn't have as much fun with it as Civ3. It's still good though. 5 is pretty much reserved for masterpieces... which BtS is (sadly) not.
Basically I hated playing base Civ4 because of all the technical issues. I couldn't even play the game at all for months (it wouldn't even start up due to a severe bug), so that really didn't help its chances. On top of that, the engine is just crap, so playing the game at 15 fps or less on low graphics settings pretty much killed the game for me.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Great review
Robiluz221 2 years ago
Glad you liked it.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Nice review. Why do some white boys croak when they talk? they have this stereophonic voice. Very robotic with a very dry voice.
tigerex777 2 years ago
franconians WUHU! :D
you played the best empire of the world.
formed from tribes -> became an empire -> became worldempier -> Became Holy Roman Empire of german nation -> Became a part of bavaria -> is now nothing more than just a state of bavaria :D
wuhu!
ForsakenProt 2 years ago
Ja, ja. Bayern'st wunderbar.
In BtS most civ's are good, but I'm just partial to the HRE because... well... it's the HRE!
DWTerminator 2 years ago
i got one question through.
is he really called charlemagne in english? :X
the french name is just..goargh x.X
Karl der Große ist just much better :D
ForsakenProt 2 years ago
Yes, he's Charlemagne in English, und ja, Karl der Grosse ist viel besser. Technically he was a Frank though, so that makes his French name more accurate.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
well,im also a franconian guy.ein franke.
france ist just the western part.
but as far as i know it,karl was an east franconian.
also aachen is in today´s germany.
and the statelanguage was "althochdeutsch".
i dont know the exact english name :X
ForsakenProt 2 years ago
"Althochdeutsch" = (Literally) "Old High German" or basically just the overarching form of "Old German."
I'm fairly fluent in modern Hochdeutsch and know some snippets of Bayerisch and Swäbisch. Ich weiss, dass meine Familie von Deutschland ist, aber nicht woher sie kommen.
Back when Karl was around there wasn't a Germany (not until the 1700's). There was Germania and Gaul, basically, but he was a Franks, which were closer to Gauls than Germans.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
How come the demo only gives you the space campaign,theres no action it that what-so-ever.
Shroshoe 2 years ago
Dunno. Haven't played the demo.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
can u buy this and play it without having civ 4??? or is this just an upgrade?
Unbox2Review 2 years ago
It requires Civ 4 to play. It's not an "upgrade," it's an expansion pack.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Is that indicative of the performance? Shoot... A game with graphics like this should run really well on an 8800GT. But from what i can see it's going at around 5FPS.
MrVersipellis 2 years ago
This was made before I upgraded my rig... on a Radeon 9250. -_-
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Oh, yuck!
Do you liek the Total War series? I think Rome was amazingly good, not so sure about Empire,
MrVersipellis 2 years ago
Yep I do. I've played Rome, Medieval 2, and Empire. Out of those 3 Medieval 2's the best, but Empire's pretty close if you can put up with the ridiculous load times and Steam integration. Didn't like Rome, but that was the demo and I was playing as Carthage vs Rome with nothing but light cavalry...
Haven't played Shogun or Medieval 1 yet, though. Napoleon Total War comes out next year, but it'll essentially be Empire all over again.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Medieval 2 was my favourite -- like Rome but with everything a little better. Not as ground breaking, but great. However, I had to uninstall either Med 2 or empire, but as Empire was a gift from a family member I chose Med 2. I didn't really want empire, i've only played it 3 times. I wish the online was more populated.
MrVersipellis 2 years ago
That's strange I run civ 4 on a 6600gt fine at high graphics.
ArnoldSlate 2 years ago
Was probably because of my awful Radeon 9250. Now that I've got an 8800GT it runs well except later on, when the engine's limits really show themselves (it just can't render all the stuff on screen well at all).
DWTerminator 2 years ago
I LOV WALORDS
Agomongo1235 2 years ago
wow its gay...
sophiarox123 2 years ago
What?
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Im thinking of buying Sid Miers(misspelled his name) Civilization IV Complete, so in that game there will be ALL expansion packs?
PheonixesHearte 2 years ago
1. Sid Meier.
2. Yep. It includes Civ 4, Beyond the Sword, and Warlords.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Does Beyond the Sword let you have a vassal-state like you did in Warlords? :)
Nettsapi 2 years ago
To tell the truth, I've never been able to get anything like that, so I dunno. I guess it's possible, but I'm really not sure.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Yes, currently i have two ;)
Evilsobchak 2 years ago
and you dont have Warlords installed? :)
Nettsapi 2 years ago
Nah, don't have it installed. It's kinda pointless since they put alot of its content in BtS anyway.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
I've never installed BtS without Warlords, but if you install both that option is still in.
HarpoonsTheMan 2 years ago
Cool. Might check it out.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
WW2 scenario sucked.
It takes long time and no sound.
Mesina2 2 years ago
Haven't played it yet.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Its fun when you get fan made scenarios from CivFanatics :-)
combatdstar 2 years ago
I've not played fan-made stuff yet apart from maybe that space scenario that comes with BtS. I'll have to look for those good scenarios then.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Do you know where I can download this game for free? btw. Nice Review
Ahmedmega10000 2 years ago
No, I don't know. Glad you liked the review though.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
i'd say it would deserve 3/5 but.. considering this games online isn't where the most fun would be at, UNLESS you're playing with friends.. otherwise. this game online is very bad. hard to get a match started. and the bugs and issues are just completely not fun to deal with.
But I love this game alot. Mainly because it requires thinking.
I find it very hard to achieve a Conquest Victory though.
Oh and 5/5 on your review. ^^ liked it.
jonnyknows 2 years ago
Glad you liked the review, and yeah, the online is bad... but it's better than Civ 3's online. I could barely get Civ 3 to even connect online, let alone join a game.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Nice review
awattscurnow 2 years ago
Thanks, glad you liked it.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
im sorry but your voice makes you sound like a total loser
Willthedisturbed1 2 years ago
i agree
or it could be a bad micro
ncwarrior 2 years ago
Bad mic and allergies mostly.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
i'm sorry to hear that
btw i love this game
ncwarrior 2 years ago
also is there an upgrade of the artillery unit because they're really weak compared to mechanized infantry and modern armors in the modern age?
XIIIEagles 2 years ago
The point of having artillery is to pound enemy fortifications away, not to damage the units themselves. That's why you combine them with other units when assaulting.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
do u have to have the warlords expansion to play this one?
XIIIEagles 2 years ago
No. You just need base Civ4 to play BtS.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Got a question: i got a laptop, dual core 1.6,
graphics: Mobility Radeon x1400 and
2046 MB Ram, using Vista. Is it enough to play civ4?
DanielSisar 2 years ago
Well, considering it's Vista, you'll probably have a hard time running it. You'll be able to play Civ4 but max detail will be an issue, I'm sure.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
thanx. just bought it today, it works.
Dont know which details im using, but till now it works. im just in the beginnings though. my questions was will it also work without lagging in modern age?
DanielSisar 2 years ago
I couldn't say. It still lags on my current rig when I get to the modern age. That's just the engine being pushed almost beyond its limits, so it can't be avoided.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
You get more if you want them. Custom games (which are quite awesome, I might add) let you specify everything.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
if you want ... more turns ;) open end
sovonet 2 years ago
did you have to download a patch when you installed it?
lowenjennings 2 years ago
I don't remember, but I know it worked fine after first installing it.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Hi. I just love your reviews. I have the Civ4 Complete Edition. I'm a total noob at Civ games so I was wondering if I should start with Civ4 or if I should jump straight to BtS? Is BtS harder or is it the same as core Civ4? Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thx.
jepsen1977 2 years ago
BtS is just a little more complex than base Civ4 is, but it's not really much harder until you put it on higher difficulties.
Glad you like my reviews and hope that helps. ^_^
DWTerminator 2 years ago
I played Earth18 civs but I hated it because I couldn't choose to play at Bismarck or Stalin.
I want to find an Earth map that allows me to choose any leader of any civ(like I could have Stalin for the Russians instead of stupid gay Catherine)
GeneralSturnn 2 years ago
Beyond the Sword has Stalin as one of the selectable leaders.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Yes, but Earth18civ doesn't... your stuck withg Catherine for the Russians, Frederick for the germans, Roosevelt for Egypt but none of the cool guys like Lincoln/Stalin/Bismarck/Mao.
GeneralSturnn 2 years ago
Ah ok. I haven't played Earth18civ yet.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
for some reson I cant play this, i have civ 4 and all the requierments, sombody help please please pleeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
neckarsulme 2 years ago
Please elaborate on what your problem is (eg. does it display an error message?). First make sure you've updated your graphics card's drivers and update Civ 4 to the latest patch. I had the problem of Civ 4 not working until I installed the patch, then it ran just fine apart from slowdown issues later on in the game.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Thanx for the tip i'll check the patch, i think that may b the glitch
neckarsulme 2 years ago
If the problem persists then you might want to check Civ 4's official forums and see if anyone else has the same problem as you.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
lol your machine is way too sluggish for this game dude.
how can you play like that!
guardcorp 2 years ago
You'd be amazed what I could play with on that rig. F.E.A.R. on lowest possible detail still got 15-20fps average, and I could play through on the hardest difficulty just fine. I don't really have that framerate problem now unless I try to play stuff on DX10 mode though (8800GT is sorta entry-level for DX10 but it's amazing for DX9).
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Did anyone win Earth18 mode? I did! I conquered all world!
bemymiss 2 years ago
Haven't played Earth18 mode.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
so t oplay this you HAVE to buy the original Civ 4 then this one?
DylanSime 2 years ago
Yes.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
well thats sucks, so does that mean the Civ 4 beyond sword will be cheap?
DylanSime 2 years ago
Civ 4 and BtS are most likely less than retail price now. BtS was around 30 $US when it came out (if I remember correctly, which I probably don't). You can probably pick up both for around the cost of a new retail game these days.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
It's worth it dude, you will get your money's worth for sure.
natedogstyles 2 years ago
thats good to hear
DylanSime 2 years ago
wat the hell you need to buy civ 4 too!
webytime 2 years ago
Yes. That's the idea behind an expansion pack. The only time you don't is when it's a stand-alone expansion, which Civ 4 BtS is not.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
i got civ 4 great game, but sucks time. Took me about 2 hours to win.
shard1234567 2 years ago
Civ 3 would take me upwards of 2 and a half or 3 hours to win a game. Civ 4 is roughly the same.
These are games MEANT to take a long time to play. They're not like the console games that are considerably faster-paced.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
my first game took me like 4 hours.
It was awesome
metalliholic 2 years ago
My first in Civ 3 took about 7 or 8. ^_^
DWTerminator 2 years ago
LOL it was funny cuz it took me 5 months to win a game. dam it was hard. lol
Whoeezit 2 years ago
Sometimes they take forever. It's the nature of a turn-based strategy game of this scale.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
It's possible to run beyond the sword and warlords at the same time, right?
yupko 2 years ago
As far as I know, yeah.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Would you just install beyond the sword after already having warlords and then run BTS? Or is are there two .exes that come with BTS and one allows you to run both expansions at once?
yupko 2 years ago
Actually, I just found out that everything in warlords is in beyond the sword (except for the warlords scenarios, but those are crappy anyway). Those con artists!
yupko 2 years ago
Thought that might be the case... It does have Warlords stuff in the game directories so yeah...
DWTerminator 2 years ago
Are Stalin, Churchill, Brennus, and Shaka in BTS? If so, then beyond the sword has warlords stuff.
yupko 2 years ago
Yeah they're in there.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
how do u get beyond the sword and how much is it
shayansyk 2 years ago
I got it as a gift, but you can buy it in stores or online. Online's cheaper but you still need the original Civ 4 (online or disc version) to play BtS. Not sure what it is now.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
I getting it from a book order for 15$ but
but the price is 30$
darnu123456789 2 years ago
Kickass review, Im gonna install beyond the sword right now.
willythesilly 2 years ago
Thanks, and hope you like it!
DWTerminator 2 years ago
u need to have peace then pick everone off and get the others to help
jelyk101 2 years ago
Yep, that usually works.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
this game would be perfect....... exept for the fact that there is a "Native American Empire". They should have used the tribe name, instead (Souix/Lakota)
EasterEgg159 2 years ago
I don't really mind that. There are far too many Native American tribes (and not any that really had an empire by themselves) to say individual ones, so they just went for the whole.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
I know, it's just that Native Americans didin't refer to themselves as "Native Americans". Also, it's strange how there's a "Native American Empire", but yet there's just an "American Empire"
EasterEgg159 2 years ago
Yes, but they're two different entities. The American Empire is the descendants of the British/French/Dutch/Germans/etc. that migrated, while the Native American Empire is hypothetical (it actually says that in the description).
DWTerminator 2 years ago
i have this game i never make it past bc when you play do you just have wars or do you do other things
jemar200 2 years ago
I build up my empire on the continent/island I'm already on first, then put together larger forces to go out and conquer other islands/continents. I normally play with only the conquest win conditions.
DWTerminator 2 years ago
how far do you build the empire before you start attacking i aways wants to make it the the near future part but i get bord and kill everyone before bc even ends
jemar200 2 years ago