An Early Look At Civilization V

c0mpliant writes "IGN and Gamespot have each released a preview of the recently announced and eagerly awaited Civilization V. Apart from the obvious new hexagon shape of tiles and improved graphics, the articles go on to outline some of the major changes in the game, such as updated AI, new 'flavors' to world leaders, and a potentially game-changing, one-unit-per-tile system. No more will the stack of doom come to your city's doorsteps. Some features which will not be returning are religion and espionage. The removal of these two have sparked a frenzy of discussion on fan-related forums."

Comments

Frosty the poophole

[Anonymous Coward]

Frosty the poophole was a real asshole.

Re:Frosty the poophole

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, here!

Re:Frosty the poophole

[Anonymous Coward]

...with a corn fed stool and an anus for a nose and 2 douche bags made of coal.

RE: the "who do your respect poll"

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that so many of you faggots voted for gayman Turing just shows how fucking homosexual Slashdot is.

The wicked shall burn in the flames of Hell.

Stack o' Doom

[Psychotic_Wrath]

They thought they fixed this with the collateral damage caused by seige weapons. They talk about it on the civ forum. The airstrikes do a pretty good job of weakening the Stack O' Doom

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Rockoon]

..the only problem is, the civ4 stacks of doom arrive thousands of years before aircraft are invented.

It isnt until airships that the stacks of doom start their decline in importance, because prior to that it only takes a few forward units to shield the stack.

The hardest early counter mechanic to stacks of doom would be unit upkeep cost (stacks are expensive), but thanks to the specialist mechanics, early warmongers simply chop out libraries, temples, and markets and run a specialist economy for research and money. Money isnt a problem when you can set your research slider at 0% and still keep up on techs.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[blahplusplus]

"..the only problem is, the civ4 stacks of doom arrive thousands of years before aircraft are invented."

This is what catapults are for, and they come long before aircraft, did you even play Civ? Seriously?

Re:Stack o' Doom

[beleriand]

In civ4, catapults do only damage part of the units in a stack.
So if i send a stack of of 30 Units on attack, and AI smashes a Catapult against that, only a few units will get damaged. A sizeable amount of catapults you have to worry, put when there just a few you can in practise just ignore them mostly.
The only thing cats are really strong at is in city-attack, because they can bombard defences and you can promote them to get a bonus at it.

They could of course change the game-balance so that catapults would damage a stack more, but then there would be crys that catapults are overpowered and need to be nerfed. Better to do away with the "50 units on same square" silliness.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

He already said that catapults are easily defeated because prior to that it only takes a few forward units to shield the stack from catapult attacks. Airships are the first point when you can easily cause collateral damage on stacks.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

Put a small stack in advance of the large stack to intercept the cats. Aircraft could bypass the small stack, but not a siege weapon.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[r_jensen11]

"..the only problem is, the civ4 stacks of doom arrive thousands of years before aircraft are invented."

This is what catapults are for, and they come long before aircraft, did you even play Civ? Seriously?

Maybe he's still playing Civ II

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Rockoon]

It is you that seems to not be playing any competitive Civ4.

Catapults damage at most 4 to 6 units. A stack of doom is 20 to 30 melee units, also with 5 to 10 catapults. You can slam my stack with collateral catapults, but then I slam your city defenders with collateral catapults. Unless your city has a big stack in it, its going down to my stack.

You've got exactly 1 turn to hit my stack with catapults, because I blocked the path to my stack as it approached your city.

In human vs human play, the only defense to big stacks is bigger stacks.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

Competitive turn based play will always have first mover flaws, and it's not like your opponent cannot stack and get bonuses from fortification, so where's the flaw?

I really think competitive play ruin games since Civ was not designed from the ground up to be competitive game but to be a single player experience, the competitive play in civ has always been an afterthought.

Just see catapults vs trebuchets for instance.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Rockoon]

The flaw is that there are no tactical variations that work. The biggest stack wins.

Defensive bonuses are a wash when its stack vs stack. All my attacking units have been given +20%, +45%, or +75% city raider promoted, a bonus meant to counter cultural defenses, walls, and fortification bonuses.

If you sit there in the city waiting for that stack vs stack and your stack is mostly city garrison promoted, I can just wipe your civ clean of land improvements and come back in about 1000 years when you are hopelessly behind. The upshot here is that most of your units need to be tailored for attacking, not defending, so that you can force the confrontation if you have to.

Its stack vs stack, and both civ3 and civ4 were designed to be multiplayer. Civ3 had the army units, and that proved worse than it is in Civ4. Civ5 is forcing the issue by not allowing stacks and I think thats a good thing. Tactics. Tactics. Tactics.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Lars T.]

The flaw is that there are no tactical variations that work. The biggest stack wins.

So all the defender needs is a bigger stack - attacker loses. No, let me rephrase that: the defender needs a good road infrastructure to move a couple of catapults to wherever the "stack of doom" tries to attack (that is a bit over a quarter of units in the SOD), supported by enough horses and melee units to finish off most of the weakened stack, and of course a couple of well promoted defense units. The best defensive is a preemptive counter attack just when the enemy has arrived.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Just wanted to point out that you are saying "unless we are evenly matched, I will win." I am sorry but that is absurd. If you have twice the units he does, you SHOULD win. If you both have a the same sized stack it should be more random.

In real life and in Civ the answer to a big army is ... wait for it ... ANOTHER BIG ARMY! The only real problem here is that it should be a viable strategy to split your stack into 3 stack and attack diffrents spots because this might be more fun. But to look at the same instance in real life, you will see that historically army's did create "big stacks" because it was more effective having the most men in one spot as you had a better chance against an opposing army (hence the term numerical advantage).

There are only a few times in history where a significantly outnumbered force won. They are the extremely rare exception. In almost all cases they either had vastly better training or equipment (both easily reflected in the game). The other two possibilities were better leadership and better terrain. These are reflected in the game but to a much lower extent, your Wall+Hill+River tile bonus does help quite a bit though.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[blahplusplus]

"It is you that seems to not be playing any competitive Civ4."

This is the biggest lie I have ever seen, they've had two expansions since Civ 4, you know this right? If you're dying, you suck at civ. Don't blame the "stacks of doom". It's a big lie.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Rockoon]

Sigh...

You send cats at stack, they die, but stack is weakened. You then send horsemen and axemen on your counter-attack and the best they can do is kill 1 attacker for each counter-sttacker, leaving the counter-attackers themselves weakened. Remaining attacker stack finishes off the now weakened horsemen and axemen that are sitting out in the open. Thats 1:1.

So lets translate what youve just said.. You claim that 1:1 K/D ratio solves the stack of doom problem. Gotcha.

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Lars T.]

In the open? You wait in the city of course. Or is the attacking stack going to not attack the city?

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Rockoon]

What are the roads for, then?

Waiting in the city is exactly what I talked about already. Perhaps you should read the thread before replying, because that post is +4 interesting so unless you only read at +5 you dont even have to do anything other than view the thread to see it.

Waiting in the city offers exactly 1 turn of counter-attack, and stacking up in the city means my catapults get collateral damage on your stack just as yours does on mine.. which is why collateral damage is not a deterrent to stacks. You need a stack big enough to kill my stack in 1 turn, which means having at least as many units stacked up yourself (units throughout most of the game only get 1 attack per turn, so can at most kill 1 unit each.. a hard limit of 1:1 K/D ratio.)

Re:Stack o' Doom

[Lars T.]

What are the roads for, then?

So you don't have to have a full defender stack in each city. And why would I need to destroy your whole stack in one turn, if attacking it means you can't seriously win even your first strike - and that's not even taking into account that you would have to bombard the city first.

New AI

[sopssa]

I love diplomacy but it sucks when you know the AI is going to cheat. I hope Civ V will finally have an AI that doesn't cheat.

Re:New AI

[hotdiggity]

I love diplomacy but it sucks when you know the AI is going to cheat. I hope Civ V will finally have an AI that doesn't cheat.

You want nations that don't cheat on diplomacy?

If we're going to abandon reality, why don't we just add wizard units and inter-dimensional portals too?

Re:New AI

[moonbender]

Are you joking? I you aren't, he's talking about AIs getting better gaming conditions (things are less expensive, etc) on the difficulty levels above Noble. The player gets similar bonuses on levels below Noble. Backstabbing in diplomacy is available at all difficulty levels.

Re:New AI

[Ailure]

What I would like to see is probably the game being more clear with what each difficulty actually means. Probably would be over the head of most people, but at least marking how much advantage you get vs computer. Other than knowing that me and the AI is on equal footing at noble difficulty... it's not really as clear it could be in Civ IV. :)

Re:New AI

[Brownstar]

You're right for most people, they probably don't care, which is why the Game presents it in basic terms.

But, if you're on of the ones that truly cares, all of that information is in plain text format (marked up in XML) in the /Assets/XML/GameInfo directory. (You can even change it if you want).

The file that addresses the changes in difficulty specifically is: CIV4HandicapInfo.xml

But also realize that some of these factors are also modified based on world size, and turn speed as well. (Possibly some other things that I've forgotten as well).

I know Civ3 and Alpha Centauri had similar files, and If I remember correctly, I beleive even Civ2 stored all of this information in text files that could be modified.

Which is one of the reasons that the various Civ's have always been so modable.

Re:New AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay my morning isnt complete without a dumbshit sopssa comment.

Re:New AI

[T.E.D.]

If we're going to abandon reality, why don't we just add wizard units and inter-dimensional portals too?

I'm with hotdiggity. When is the sequel to Master of Magic comming out?

Re:New AI

[ginbot462]

I've heard Fall From Heaven II for Civ4:Beyond the Sword is in vein with MoMagic. Haven't tried it yet though.

Re:New AI

[PincushionMan]

Err, wasn't that game Master of Magic? I don't think Sid Meier did that one. Nope, that was done by the Master of Orion folks. Whatever happened to those guys, anyway? Wiki is very sparse on details.

Re:New AI

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

It's not exactly a Master of Magic sequel, but Fall From Heaven 2 has wizards, spells, interdimensional portals, and fantastic creatures.

Re:New AI

[spun]

I've heard Fall From Heaven II for Civ4:Beyond the Sword is in vein with MoMagic. Haven't tried it yet though.

It is absolutely amazing, a whole new game. The amount of work put into that mod is simply staggering. If you want Civ with mages, dragons, werewolves, role playing, and a cool fantasy story, Fall from Heaven II and Fall Further are definitely worth a try.

Re:New AI

[Abstrackt]

If we're going to abandon reality, why don't we just add wizard units and inter-dimensional portals too?

Yes, please.

Re:New AI

[Lunoria]

Stardock is releasing Elemental: War of Magic later this year. It is in a similar vein to Masters of Magic.

Re:New AI

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read more than one interview on this topic. While I agree with you about having cheating AI really sucks, the point made in the interviews was that even now it is difficult to get an AI to win at chess. Chess has a large but finite number of moves with only two opponents. In a game like Civ, with random land masses and features, multiple opponents, and variable numbers and capabilities of game pieces, and even more variables when you through culture, religion, civics, and the rest in, it is impossible to make honest and challenging AI. So they let it cheat.

Re:New AI

[ultranova]

If we're going to abandon reality, why don't we just add wizard units and inter-dimensional portals too?

Done.

Altought if you want portals you can pass, you'd need to go back to Master of Magic. Perhaps that could be the defining new feature of Civ 5: allow multiple separate maps, to model the colonization of Moon and nearby planets? It doesn't make any sense to send a spaceship to Alfa Centauri, when Mars is closer and pretty close to habitable.

That, and I'd really like to see undersea colonies/tunnel roads. I think one of the Civ II clones had them. That way, the next Fall from Heaven version could actually include the Octopus Overlords as a playable faction ;). Or maybe they could be included in the current one - I haven't taken a look at the SDK yet.

Re:New AI

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I've read more than one interview on this topic. While I agree with you about having cheating AI really sucks, the point made in the interviews was that even now it is difficult to get an AI to win at chess. Chess has a large but finite number of moves with only two opponents. In a game like Civ, with random land masses and features, multiple opponents, and variable numbers and capabilities of game pieces, and even more variables when you through culture, religion, civics, and the rest in, it is impossible to make honest and challenging AI. So they let it cheat.

They should at least make it cheat more intelligently then. There's nothing worse than carefully planning an attack and seeing it go to pot because the AI, suddenly perceiving the threat, pulls a stack of units or number of technologies it cannot logically have out of its magic hat. It sucks because it destroys the gameplay, you can't plan anything because the planning will be defeated by changing the rules mid-game.

Re:New AI

[Hurricane78]

Not going to happen. Since the developers don’t know what it actually “means”. Because it doesn”t “mean” anything. Just see them as sequential numbers with fancy names for purely decorative purposes.

Internally there are x factors. And the are adjusted in a range from a_x to b_x. Then they are balanced out, until the game is fun and everything works as expected. at which point there is no “meaning” behind the values anymore. Only that the hardest level is adjusted for the best possible player to still have fun, and the easiest level is adjusted for the total noob to have fun. In-between it’s most likely mostly still a point on the gradient.

I don’t think it’s still possible to put all those factors into a single number. Let alone assign meaning to it.

Re:New AI

[T.E.D.]

Yeah, I saw mention of it elsewhere in this story. I'm going to have to go out and buy the second expansion so that I can install it...

Obligatory atheist flamebait

[aaron alderman]

I'm glad they got rid of religion. Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad they got rid of religion. Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.

My bet is the first mod adds it back in.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[PopeRatzo]

My bet is the first mod adds it back in.

Anybody who'd want religion would first have to hire a programmer to make the mod.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[pagaboy]

If you believe it enough, I'm sure it'll happen.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[sackvillian]

My bet is the first mod adds it back in.

Voltaire would think so; since God does not exist, it will be necessary to invent him

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[darkstar949]

Religion actually added a pretty interesting dynamic to the game play in Civilization IV, so I'm actually in the group of people that is disappointed to see it go. It gave another route to victory beyond the military or technological routes.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[delinear]

They prefer to think of it as intelligently designing the mod.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c0mpliant]

The rumor circulating is that it will be part of an expansion pack later on.

Certainly the element of religion is receiving a lot of attention on fan forums. A lot of threads with 70%+ in polls for it to be kept in the game. I also think that given how much community interaction is put into the game (i.e. mod support) that the developers wont simply ignore the outcry of the community

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[RobotRunAmok]

Dude, according to your blog, you belong to a convention-attending "society of atheists" which actively and proudly recruits people. Here's a tip: This is scarier than most religions.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[ThomConspicuous]

FTA

although Civ IV's religion system (which was met with mixed reactions) won't be making a comeback, we're assured by Firaxis that the feature wasn't simply cut without any plans for other new features to replace it.

It's more likely the religion was just merged with culture, in some manner, and no mod will be required.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[chronosan]

You can count me in that category too - as much as one might dislike religion, there's no denying the impact it has had on civilization.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Aklyon]

Eventually.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Lord Ender]

I'm glad they got rid of religion. Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.

If this hasn't happened yet, it's because you don't pray hard enough.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed..

It's kind of funny how Atheism today has become like a religion itself, with the more extreme members of the group doing exactly the things that they despise religious extremists for doing (belittling others faiths, actively and aggressively recruiting, suggesting that their views are the only ones worth having etc)

Maybe I should start an extremist non-religious anti-atheism group...

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

[flamebait'ed but ill assume some idiot really believes your comment...]

an atheist engaging in hope beyond reason? who would have thought?

since religion appears to be an hard-wired in to our brains and since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas, your comment is not only silly, but probably misinformed at its base.

combine with the fact that atheists are one of the highest statistically groups to practice scapegoating, that mosque attendance is a negative predictor of violence and terrorism, and that there is no indication that on average atheists are more rational than anyone else about anything... you get the picture.

read a book or ten and stop making bald statements that make you feel better about yourself.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Enderandrew]

God is a postulate and we all have our own religions.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[thesandtiger]

I thought the religious and corporate aspects of Civ IV were somewhat interesting, but other than just rushing to found a religion so that I could culture bomb my nearby opponents I didn't really care much for it as a gameplay mechanic.

What I did love about it was when Suleiman threatened to war if my Islamic civilization did not convert to Judaism, or when Ghandi insisted that I renounce Hinduism, or Stalin suggesting that I should convert to Buddhism if I didn't want him to slaughter everyone in my empire.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[SuiteSisterMary]

That could work. It's only relatively recently that 'religion' and 'culture' wern't pretty much inextricably intertwined.

Hell, most offshoots of religions come from taking a 'foreign' religion, and changing bits of it to fit your culture.

So,if in, in Civ5, instead of spreading 'hinduism' or 'buddhism,' I'm spreading 'aztec culture' or whatever, great.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[ginbot462]

As a huge Civ3 fan, I felt that Religion sorted of forced you into the route you talk about (Culture Bomb). This meant, you had to focus some time on your tech tree to beat other culture to a certain point to found a religion. Which distracted from my favorite, since Civ1, method of going straight for Gunpowder.

Is that sulfur you smell, Hell yea! Oh, out culture doesn't believe in Hell because I wanted Fu Man Chu units.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[thesandtiger]

In Civ 1 and 2 I would beeline to Republic, then Gunpowder and then whatever tech gave me Armor - every game was pretty much the same strategy, the only difference was how I was able to go about implementing that strategy (do I found 50 cities as close as possible to each other, or do I just build 10 super cities? Do I trade for basic techs while going to Republic, or do I go it alone?) In either case, while there were other strategies that *could* work, this route through the tech tree was pretty much optimal - even on high difficulty level games I would often have an extremely substantial tech lead on my opponents, and the difference between tech levels was VERY pronounced.

What I like about Civ IV is that I can actually use different strategies, and different focuses depending on my starting situation. Rushing towards a high-tech producing civ isn't always the best move, early wars with nearby foes aren't necessarily bad, and it is entirely possible to fight really effectively despite being behind in the tech race as long as you aren't *too* far behind.

I like that Civ IV lets you do other strategies without feeling like you're intentionally hobbling yourself or playing sub-optimally if you try different techniques.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Suddenly_Dead]

Not to mention providing a reason for nations to band together as well as declare war on one another. The diplomatic aspect was made even more interesting by the addition of the apostolic palace in Beyond the Sword.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[jellomizer]

Even if it did... It wouldn't really fix anything though. Crazy Nut jobs will still find an excuse to justify their violence. People will still knock on your door trying to force you to think like them...

But what could happen are the current "God Fearing" people The people who really don't have their own moral value in place, will not have a place to turn to tell them that what they are doing is wrong. Also I am fairly sure new superstitions will pop up without the hundreds/thousands of years philosophy to help moderate it.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Ihmhi]

Yeah, religion has had an impact on civilization. Now I have two options for driving my enemies back to the stone age: nukes, and religion!

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[DavidTC]

I hated having to rush for a religion. I find it exceptionally absurd I can end up without one. What primitive people didn't have a religion?

What I wish that you could do is essentially build your own religion.

Not the tiny details, but if you took over another nation you could, for example, incorporate their gods into your pantheon and gain some extra culture. Or do the inverse, demonize someone else's god in yours, reducing war weariness as you fight those 'evil worshipers'.

Or switch to monotheism, which would keep reduce neighboring cultural exchange, both ways.

Or if a religion was in more than one place, you could attempt to 'hijack' it and make your county the HQ. Or you could fork it.

Likewise, you could have various 'holy people' that showed up, like great prophets, but you'd tell them a bunch of different options, and they'd be remembered, and you could direct which of these 'saints' your society focused on. Like, on of them was a great warrior, one of them feed the hungry, one of them was a great mother, whatever.

And it would be interesting to allow various rules, like how you treat sex, for example. Harsh controls on it could result in a lower birthrate but more financial gain. (As children grow up in supported families and hence aren't a drain on society.) Likewise, perhaps certain foods cause sickness for people unfamiliar with them, so you can outlaw them.

And, of course, changing any of this would cause unhappiness for a bit, as people don't like change.

The problem is that Civ IV used real religions, which people don't like mucking with. (And even then only five of them...where were the Greek Gods, or the Eygption ones?) So all you could do is alter how they interacted with society, and not what they were.

Which was rather dumb...I mean, you can make societies and leaders operate totally out of how they actually were. But whatever...if people are going to complain, just name them random things.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[thesandtiger]

For sure - I think it would have been really cool to have "types" of religions and then have them get an adjective.

For example, instead of "Christianity" and "Islam" and "Judaism" you could just have "(form of discovering civ's name) Monotheism" - so if the Romans discovered Theology, they would have "Romanesque Monotheism".

Further, make it so that there can be "major" religions - created when you discover a key technology, and this gives you a holy person and lets you build a special building - and "minor" religions - which you kind of just have, but they don't give you any of the benefits of a holy person or a special building. Maybe make temples cheaper for civs with a major religion as well, or possibly have a slight effect on corruption or whatever that minor religion temples don't get.

And, even better, you could then provide religion type bonuses that actually differentiate based on the type of religion you choose. For example, polytheistic civilizations could have a slight bonus to specialist production; monotheistic civs could have slightly less civil disorder. Philosophically based religions could have a bonus to tech; Animist religions could yield a bonus to farming or interacting with animal units or less pollution. This way there is actually a reason to have different religions or to care what religion you are in a game as opposed to it being politically convenient to be whatever everyone else is. And, because the religions aren't named, it should make it slightly less likely that whackadoos will get up in arms over any differences that religions cause in gameplay.

What you're proposing - attitudes towards sex etc. being selectable - sounds like adding a second set of civics to what we have in Civ IV, which might be pretty interesting. Maybe more complex than people want, but I dunno - it could be really neat. I don't know how much the religious element adds to the game - from a design standpoint is the game better with it or without it?

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because religion has never been a significant factor in the development of a civilization. Why include it in the game? lol

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[PopeRatzo]

See, now that's funny.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[NoOneInParticular]

Interesting. So you're claiming here that belittling others faiths, actively and aggressively recruiting, suggesting that ones views are the only one worth having is what makes a religion?

Where's belief in a higher being, belief in the power of ritual, belief in a higher state of being, necessity to come together in a place of worship, tithing, creation stories, an infallible book of wisdom... all that stuff that traditionally defined a religion? Why do you define religion by the actions of the most annoying members instead of by its content? And what's the atheist equivalent of all this?

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[DavidTC]

Yeah, what I was thinking was essentially having a second civic's screen, or in fact one for each religion. You set the rules of each religion, along with which one get government support and whatnot.

Although it should do what I also wish they'd do with the real civic screen....let you switch over a longer period of time, with less unrest. I.e, you can transition via revolution, with two years of unrest, if you want...or you could transition via social change, over 20 years or so.

And the same with with changing parts of the religion. Slow change, over the years...or you wait until a great prophet comes along, and does whatever. (In fact, it might be interesting if you could only change civics fast that way, also.)

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[thesandtiger]

I haven't looked into it in a long time, but is FreeCiv remotely the same as Civ IV, or is it more Civ 2 on steroids still?

Actually, I wonder - is Civ IV moddable enough to allow the addition of those features? I've seen some pretty extreme mods...

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that you can start off any post sounding intelligent, then put a "LOL" after what you said, and always look like a dumb ass by the end?

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[DavidTC]

Civ IV is certainly that moddable.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[ajlisows]

I wouldn't say that you would "End up without one" unless your game ended really quickly. Obviously you are trying to say you may not found one. When you think about it....did the Romans really "found" their religion or did they pretty much adopt their Religion from the Greeks, just as you would adopt Buddhism from the neighboring Isabella. Eventually, you can start a Crusade to take over Jerusalem...er....Madrid. The holy city of the Religion.

In a way, you can "Hijack" a Religion by building the Apostolic Palace. If you are the major practitioner of that religion, you are more likely to end up being the leader of that Religion. You don't get the benefit of the Shrine city, but you do gain some pretty nasty diplomatic benefits (Give me that city back or your people will be really pissed.)

And not to nitpick, but Civ IV actually had seven religions, not five. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Confucionism, and Taoism.

I do however, like your idea of being able to start a Holy Crusade against a civ that followed a different Religion and gaining the benefit of less war wariness because of it. Something like that would make a lot of sense. Perhaps even let you burn that Religion out of cities and any city you conquer...or something like that.

I think in the end it did not have a major enough impact unless you were going for a cultural victory. Sure, shrine cities produced some nice income and it did have some effect on diplomacy...but just not enough. Some of the other suggestions you had seem cool but at that point it starts making the Religious aspect waaay too complicated for what may amount to minor gains in terms of actual effects on the game itself.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[DavidTC]

I wouldn't say that you would "End up without one" unless your game ended really quickly.

I usually play where everyone gets a continent, so, yeah, I'd often not end up with one until some other nation would actually go and manually spread one to me.

I'm not actually seeing what I proposed as religion more complicated than other civic stuff.

I mean, you're supposed to be playing a civilization, right?

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c6gunner]

Exactly. He clearly has no clue of the actual reasons behind rejection of religion. The details he lists are relatively minor compared to the stuff you brought up.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c6gunner]

since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas

Now that's funny. What do you do for an encore? Claim that recent research shows that even homosexuals harbor strong heterosexual attractions?

I mean, it's nice to see you've been reading things other than the Quaran, but just because someone claims they're doing "research" doesn't mean it's accurate or reliable. You have to learn to think for yourself!

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c6gunner]

That's stupid. You can't make up something called "religion" and then say "even if you reject this, you're still religious". I mean, you can, but if you do then you're an idiot. And you're certainly not saying anything useful about my beliefs.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Enderandrew]

A religion is defined as a "specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Even atheists have a fundamental set of beliefs.

Next, look up the definition of postulate: something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning.

I have a friend who is an atheist. He believes in all kinds of things that aren't proven. In the field of physics, it is generally taught that all matter in the universe is finite, even though it breaks all understandings of physics to suggest that at the barrier/edge of all mass, nothing exists beyond that, but the mass isn't sucked into the resulting vacuum. Yet conversely, the concept that mass is infinite breaks most understandings of physics as well.

We don't have proof of reason to operate under the assumption that mass is fine, but we accept it without reason.

Dark matter and dark energy are largely postulates at this point.

A good chunk of math and science is heavily dependent on believing in things that can't be tested or proven.

In most any field you will find postulates. We all have things we simply believe. To suggest the one person has the right to believe in something that can't be proven, where as another doesn't is discrimination.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[twelveinchbrain]

A religion is defined as a "specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Even atheists have a fundamental set of beliefs.

Atheists do not share a fundamental set of beliefs; they share a common disbelief. There may be widespread similarities between other beliefs that atheists do have, but those similarities have no part in defining one as atheist.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c6gunner]

Even atheists have a fundamental set of beliefs.

Wrong. At best, you could argue that Atheists have one specific belief in common. One belief is not a "fundamental set of beliefs". In all accuracy though, as "twelveinchbrain" already pointed out, Atheists don't actually have even ONE belief in common.

In the field of physics, it is generally taught that all matter in the universe is finite, even though it breaks all understandings of physics to suggest that at the barrier/edge of all mass, nothing exists beyond that, but the mass isn't sucked into the resulting vacuum.

What?

I'm sorry, but that was the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time. Your grasp of physics must be tenuous at best. Mass that is already in a vacuum cannot be "sucked into the vacuum". Suction requires a pressure differential. That simple fact easily demolishes your entire argument, without even bothering to discuss your misunderstandings about the shape of the universe.

We don't have proof of reason to operate under the assumption that mass is fine, but we accept it without reason.

I dunno. Mass is just fine with me :)

A good chunk of math and science is heavily dependent on believing in things that can't be tested or proven.

Sheer nonsense. Mathematics, pretty much by definition, consists of postulates which have been proven. Science, on the other hand, may propose hypothesis which have not yet been tested, or theories which are poorly supported - however all such postulates must be testable and falsifiable. If they're not falsifiable, they're not science.

None of which has anything to do with what I said. My comment to you was that it is idiotic to make up something called "religion" and then claim that even those who reject it are "religious". Your first two sentences made a weak attempt to refute that statement - the rest of your comment was completely unrelated.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Enderandrew]

Wrong. At best, you could argue that Atheists have one specific belief in common

No, we all have a variety of beliefs about a number of things that can not be proven.

Suction requires a pressure differential.

That is precisely the problem. You have a finite amount of mass. What happens just beyond the boundary where there is no mass? You'd literally have absolutely nothing and a pressure differential. What would stop constant expansion? And is there a finite barrier? These wholes in physics where brought up to me by an atheist with a Master's in physics.

Sheer nonsense. Mathematics, pretty much by definition, consists of postulates which have been proven.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Open a dictionary and look up the definition of postulate. A postulate can not be proven. Nor can they be tested. A postulate is something we simply accept because it can not be tested, hence my statement that God is a postulate.

If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of math or science, you would understand this. Instead you're being contrarian about concepts you don't understand.

Furthermore, while there are "proofs" in math, the scientific principle can only disprove, not prove.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Enderandrew]

I did not say all atheists share the exact same beliefs. I said we all have our religions, that is, we all subscribe to subsets of larger cultural beliefs that can not be proven, nor tested.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c6gunner]

No, we all have a variety of beliefs about a number of things that can not be proven.

Apparently you missed the part of your own definition where it says "agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

That is precisely the problem. You have a finite amount of mass. What happens just beyond the boundary where there is no mass? You'd literally have absolutely nothing and a pressure differential.

You are, in effect, asking how come everything from the earth doesn't get sucked into space, since space is a vacuum. Except, you're not really asking even that - you're asking how come everything doesn't get sucked out from one vacuum into another. I'm trying to think of a way to explain this to you nicely. I need to stop before I either say things which would be very very mean, or I develop an aneurysm.

Interestingly enough, our universe IS expanding. I suppose if I just wanted to blow you off I could say "SEE - the vacuum out there is sucking up OUR vacuum!". But that would be dishonest. I'd rather leave you with no answer at all than offer some half-baked claims such as the ones you're making.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Open a dictionary and look up the definition of postulate. A postulate can not be proven.

postulate /v. pstlet; n. pstlt, -let/ Show Spelled [v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Show IPA verb,-lated, -lating, noun ...
6. Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.
7. a fundamental principle.
8. a necessary condition; prerequisite.

The fact that Math works means that it's postulates are true. When Mathematics stops functioning, we will have a reason to doubt their validity. If you are insisting on a different definition of the word "proof", then you are simply playing word games since, using that definition, nothing would ever be provable.

Furthermore, while there are "proofs" in math, the scientific principle can only disprove, not prove.

Yep, you're playing word games, and I'm not interested.

You've veered so far off the original topic that there's no point continuing, so I'm just going to restate my original claim:

That's stupid. You can't make up something called "religion" and then say "even if you reject this, you're still religious". I mean, you can, but if you do then you're an idiot. And you're certainly not saying anything useful about my beliefs.

If you think you can provide an intelligent refutation, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise ... please, just stop.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Enderandrew]

Apparently you missed the part of your own definition where it says "agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

I'm a huge stickler for semantics. I don't miss parts of definitions. Other postulates (such as mathematical postulates) are widely accepted in academic circles.

I could expand to countless examples of widely accepted beliefs that we can't test, but I don't see the need.

You are, in effect, asking how come everything from the earth doesn't get sucked into space, since space is a vacuum

No, I'm not. I'm saying there is a dilemma with finite space having a boundary that we can't explain. Furthermore, the current conventional belief is that the universe has a "skin" akin to a balloon since we believe the universe both expands and contracts. We we have no way to explain or test these theories. In fact, they fly in the face of other basic precepts of physics we also assume to be true.

You've done nothing but make ad hominem attacks while demonstrating that you don't understand basic concepts. Apparently I need to quote you again. You said:

all such postulates must be testable and falsifiable

This boils down to you getting upset at my statement that God is a postulate. Your reaction seems to step from the fact that you don't know what a postulate is.

You paste a definition now which entirely refutes your entire previous statements.

There is a very simple flow of logic here.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there are 7 religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Confucianism, Christianity, Taoism, and Islam.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c6gunner]

There is a very simple flow of logic here.

No, there's no logic here. You don't understand physics, and you don't understand how we evaluate postulates, and you refuse to actually address what I was saying. Instead of admitting that you have no argument to make, you keep moving goal posts and throwing out completely nonsensical claims. Next you'll be telling me that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, because "an atheist physicist" told you that. So, we're done. As long as you insist on basing your views on ignorance and rhetoric, I have no interest in discussing anything with you.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait

[c6gunner]

Actually, I just realized that you're trying to argue that Math is a religion. Not even figuratively, but quite literally.

....

Really? Are you THAT desperate to defend your silly superstitions? And that poorly equipped?

One unit per tile is dumb

[OrwellianLurker]

It should be around three or something. One doesn't really make sense.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[Rockoon]

The pieces can represent anything (battalions or regiments, for instance), so it makes perfect sense.

I think you have fallen into the "OMG IT DRAWS A SINGLE WARRIOR, IT MUST BE A SINGLE MAN!" trap.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[bazorg]

I remember starving entire cities by surrounding them with Diplomats during peace times. It was the Bureaucracy Choke attack :p

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[FlyingBishop]

For me it's the "why should I pay $60 when I could just play Westnoth for free with no DRM" trap.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[OrwellianLurker]

I think you have fallen into the "OMG IT DRAWS A SINGLE WARRIOR, IT MUST BE A SINGLE MAN!" trap.

No, I understand the concept of a unit. However, the fact that you can't have different types of units on the same tile is stupid.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[TheCycoONE]

Not saying you should; but Civ and BfW are completely different games. If anything BfW is a lot like Panzer General, mentioned in the article as inspiration for some of the unit changes in Civ V. BfW is very unit focused but has no city management, technology, culture etc.

You could have asked why you should pay for it when you could get FreeCiv for free; and the obvious answer to that is more polish - whether it's worth $60 is a subjective issue.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[Rockoon]

What makes you think that the stats the unit carries doesn't already reflect "different types of units?"

What you are asking for is attribute customization via an ill placed stacking mechanic. The very same mechanic which so totally dominates human vs human civ4 play today because there is no alternative other than stack of doom vs stack of doom.

Consider this mechanic:

You have Warriors, and you have Swords. You can combine them, to make Swordsmen.
You have Warriors, and you have Horses. You can combine them, to make Horsemen.
You have Swordsmen and Horsemen. You can transfer the Horses to the Swordsmen, making a Knights unit and a Warriors unit.

See how silly your objection is? Your desire to have "different types" can easily be accounted for in other ways. The Knights units attributes can full account for the fact that it consists of Men + Swords + Horses.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[Dun Malg]

It's only stupid in the context of the assumed game mechanics in your head.It's entirely possible to build a game that works with a one unit per hex limit.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[chronosan]

Missionforce: Cyberstorm!

Re:One unit per tile is dumb

[FlyingBishop]

I recognize that Civ and BfW are completely different games. I've played most of them, as well as FreeCiv. But the stuff they're pushing for Civ V doesn't sound extremely compelling next to BfW (or the library of Civ games I already play.)

Honestly, if I want to waste time playing Civ, I go with Alpha Centauri.

I'm already excited

[buruonbrails]

One unit per tile system will certainly add some realism, as you (and your enemies) can't achieve infinite troops concentration any more. Hope the new Civilization combat system will be well-thought, or it risk turning into micromanagement hell.

Re:I'm already excited

[Inda]

I too am excited about wasting more of my life playing addictive games :-)

CIV4 only just plays on my laptop with most of the settings turned down. So how much money am I going to need to purchase a laptop capable of playing CIV5?

Re:I'm already excited

[millwall]

If you can't get civ to play on your laptop, check out civ on the iphone, it is pretty good - and will leave you with even less spare time ;)

Re:I'm already excited

[Shihar]

Eh, I think from that short little preview I am indifferent. I could see how it could be good, but frankly, nothing in that preview really hit on the 'heart' of Civilization.

Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat? Who cares if the diplomacy screen has the guys walking around instead of just portrait?

The stuff that makes Civilization games either great or suck is in how it deals with culture, expansion, technology, city management, improvements, government types, etc. Frankly, I don't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games. They added some neat futures, but they also managed to dumb down a lot of interesting things from earlier Civs. The civics from Civ4 were especially vapid and uninteresting.

For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri. That game had interesting world events, awesome civics, and each nation had a real sense of personality. I personally hope that they go down that road for Civ5 and give the game more personality, rather than strip it down further like they did with Civ4. Granted, it is really still far too early to make any judgments on the game, I am just not terribly hopeful.

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Another way the stack of doom problem can be solved is by applying "coordination" penalties on stacks with a large number of units, as in Hearts of Iron 3.

The danger with forcing only 1 unit per tile is that the battles will become too tactical, which is great for games like the old Panzer General where there are relatively few units, but may not work for grand strategy games like Civ. Endgame wars already take too long in Civ4 due to the sheer number of units to move, and making combat tactical means you also have to be concerned about the formation of your units as you move them through hostile territory (imagine the nightmare of manually coordinating 2 fronts with 100 units on each front). They'd need to have some pretty spiffy unit and unit-group automation to make sure this doesn't become too annoying to more casual (i.e. non-grognard) players.

Re:I'm already excited

[blahplusplus]

"For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri."

It was also the weirdest, nerdiest and buggiest game in the series. Lots of the features were neat but the 'design your own unit' things were god awful looking, even though it was cool to do so. I'd love to see AC updated with modern graphics and real effort put into it, a lot of AC was so campy it was a bit disturbing - i.e. religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

Yeah, it's not like they ever put religion in sci-fi, young padawan.

Don't tell me atheists are offended by the very idea that religion may not die out in the next few hundred years? If so, I'm glad sci-fi can still challenge you with unorthodox ideas :)

Re:I'm already excited

[mikael_j]

I have no trouble imagining that religion will still be around hundreds of years from now but I am offended by your use of Star Wars as an example of sci-fi with religions in it, Star Wars is to sci-fi as watching a counter strike match is to professional sports.

Re:I'm already excited

[mister_playboy]

i.e. religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

Why not? The papers you sign for the Co$ say you will provide them with a billion years of service!

Re:I'm already excited

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, it's not like they ever put religion in sci-fi, young padawan.

Well, if you're going to put princesses and swords, you might as well throw in religion.

In what universe is a meter long "light-sabre" preferable to a handheld particle weapon?

Civilization games are supposed to be somewhat realistic. The specific sci-fi you speak of is not.

Re:I'm already excited

[Ailure]

I personally find the best Civilization to be Civ IV. In hindsight, Civ III is probably the most "disapointing" version, but I still think it's better than the previous one. Nowadays if I feel like doing old-school civilization I just play FreeCiv with it's default ruleset. Similar enough to Civ 2, but way more balanced (especially for multiplayer),

I love Alpha Centauri too, but it suffers from a few gameplay problems. Such as that the game is usually decided relativly early on in the tech tree (compared to other Civ games), yet there is a long road to the end... which is annoying. Plus I got a strong feeling it was suffering from feature overload, which explains some of the balance problems.

The social engineering system was slightly more interesting than the Civics one in some aspects, but on the other hand the Civics system made more sense as a replacement for the old "goverment" system of Civ I-III. I found out that as I got better, the civics was more balanced than I first thought.

Re:I'm already excited

[Ailure]

Before Alpha Centauri there wasn't any notable differences between the different civilizations. With Alpha centauri they wanted to have different factions with way different strategies and "beliefs". I thought this was intresting, especially seeing how people picked a diffrent faction depending on their playstyle.

The backstory of Alpha Centauri tries to explain why there's different factions. Perhaps Alpha Centauri is a little campy, but I always thought most of the technologies in the tech tree seemed rather realistic for me (although some of them are probably in a odd order).

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention it doesn't really have much to do with religion. Sure, there are guys (and gals) with what look like mystical powers to the layman, and we interpret some of the overtones as religious because it's what we recognise from the real world, but it's not really religion, any more than it would be religion for one of us to travel back to the middle ages with a modern laptop - certainly inexplicable and mystical to the layman of the time but still with a purely scientific basis (thanks to god damn midiclorians).

Re:I'm already excited

[delinear]

In what universe is a meter long "light-sabre" preferable to a handheld particle weapon?

One where light travels slowly enough that you can react to and deflect dozens of said particle beams with said lightsabre? Seriously, missile attacks seem so easily circumvented by anyone carrying a lightsabre, you have to wonder why the whole universe hasn't reverted to melee combat (although I guess guns are still good for mass, mobilised oppression).

Re:I'm already excited

[FatLittleMonkey]

I've often wondered if Civ would work if the subsequent branches of each option on the tech tree were semi-random. A different "universe" created for each game; you wouldn't know what lay ahead.

For example, is a universe technological or magical, with corresponding unit types. Do psychic powers exist in a particular universe, and how early are they discoverable. Genetic engineering, discovered early enough, affecting unit types. etc.

Every new game would be a "new game".

Re:I'm already excited

[Dun Malg]

The key point you seem to have missed is that lightsabers are largely ineffective in the hands of rubes. Some background training, force ability, etc. are the prerequisite.

Seriously, did you not get that from the movies?

Re:I'm already excited

[bradley13]

Absolutely: the animated leaders are just dumb. The clouds and water effects are cute the first time you see them, and afterwards irrelevant. Civ2 and Civ4 have the best gameplay of the bunch (Civ3 was just a waste). But the resources that CIV-4 eats while just sitting idle (even while minimized!) are just ridiculous.

Reading the description, they are making a lot of changes just for the sake of change, and spending way too much effort on irrelevant graphics. Civ5 promises to be another odd-numbered disappointment.

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?

ME!

I've always wanted to play some hybrid of Nectaris and Civ.

Being able to play more of a tactical game means everything doesn't devolve into a resource war, treaties carry weight, and multi-player is just that much more involved.

If they include surround bonus and zone of control... SQUEEE!!

Re:I'm already excited

[CptPicard]

I really, really hope they do not go overboard with the different "natures" of civilizations. It's really boring to know beforehand what kind of an opponent you're dealing with just by knowing which civilization they are, and by being really pushed into some play-style by the civilization you are playing.

If the player wants to stress a certain direction in his game, he should build towards that, not get bonuses handed to him to make it easier...

Re:I'm already excited

[IndustrialComplex]

The key point you seem to have missed is that lightsabers are largely ineffective in the hands of rubes. Some background training, force ability, etc. are the prerequisite.

Seriously, did you not get that from the movies?

I didn't. It seemed like there was only a single character in 6 movies who wasn't a jedi and touched a lightsaber. Considering how much melee combat IS involved in the movies (vibroblades, etc) It did not make sense that they wouldn't be used.

Hell, even having one as some sort of emergency cutting device seemed like it would be pretty damned useful in a lot of circumstances. That the technology that powered lightsabres wasn't used in a wide variety of applications was a glaring omission.

Re:I'm already excited

[MRe_nl]

I have to agree Civ 4 wasn't a step forward.
But for me personally a top down 2D map is easier for tactical Civ type games.
An ideal mix, AFAIK, would be Civ III Conquest as the basis, Priest, Slavers, Future Techs and Space Combat from Civ Call to Power, and battles/combat like Rome Total War Gold/Barbarian invasion. A hex based map is nice. Alpha Centauri-style "design your own" units are nice.
But 3D only in the battles, not in the "worldview"-mode.

Re:I'm already excited

[Bakkster]

Seriously, missile attacks seem so easily circumvented by anyone carrying a lightsabre, you have to wonder why the whole universe hasn't reverted to melee combat (although I guess guns are still good for mass, mobilised oppression).

Correction: missile attacks are easily circumvented by anyone with a lightsaber and a command of the Force. Note that Luke was shit with the lightsaber at the beginning, and he only improved because of natural affinity with the Force.

Re:I'm already excited

[SteveFoerster]

Well, if you're going to put princesses and swords, you might as well throw in religion. In what universe is a meter long "light-sabre" preferable to a handheld particle weapon?

So, then what you're saying is that hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side?

Re:I'm already excited

[magarity]

religious people in the far flung future, seriously?
Yeah, it's not like they ever put religion in sci-fi, young padawan
 
GP did say *future*. Star Wars was a long time ago.

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Dune, then? Does that work for you?

Re:I'm already excited

[An ominous Cow art]

Yeah, and it doesn't take a Kwisatz Haderach to foresee that religion will be around for a long time...

Re:I'm already excited

[loudmax]

I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.

I haven't played the newer Civ games, but Alpha Centauri was so full of awesome that I don't find that hard to believe. And you're right, it wasn't about the tactics. Being able to build your own units was cool, but what made it a great game was the narrative. There was a real sense of different, evolving cultures fighting for the soul of the planet. In my experience, what made playing Civilization so enjoyable wasn't just the conquest strategy, it was the sense of playing out history. Alpha Centauri got that right. If the rest of the Civ franchise hasn't, they may be fun games, but they won't be anything special.

Re:I'm already excited

[bertoelcon]

I didn't. It seemed like there was only a single character in 6 movies who wasn't a jedi and touched a lightsaber. Considering how much melee combat IS involved in the movies (vibroblades, etc) It did not make sense that they wouldn't be used.

Han cut open a Tauntan with Luke's lightsaber, that is the only time.

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of the features were neat but the 'design your own unit' things were god awful looking, even though it was cool to do so.

I think my favorite unit ever was when I built orbitally-inserted battleships, and started dropping them all over my remaining opponent's grasslands.

Re:I'm already excited

[Hatta]

Frankly, I don't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games.

It was not. It was a return to form after the turd that was Civ III. Still not up to the greatness that was Civ II. IMO, the best thing they could do is re-release Civ II with better graphics.

Re:I'm already excited

[SMACX guy]

For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.

I concur.

Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?

I think there's another way to look at it. Some people like tactical games too; not an either-or kind of thing. But when you play a tactical game (my favored example is Kohan, simply because I'm mainly only familiar with games that have been ported to Linux), you often sort of want a strategic/empire_building element added to that. Maybe Civ5 could be in both markets.

Re:I'm already excited

[SMACX guy]

a lot of AC was so campy it was a bit disturbing - i.e. religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

Oh no! There's something disturbing in the dystopian future!

SMAC is a game. Sometimes you want to grab your opponents by the lapel and shout in their face, "You idiot, quit being difficult and let's just cooperate," but if they actually did that, it would be a boring game. Fortunately, people don't all get along. They're divided by economic ideals, ecological ideals, civic ideals, etc. Why not religion? Religion is a great divider. I don't want to know what kind of people Miriam or Dierdre would be like if they weren't bat-shit insane; I like them how they are.

Re:I'm already excited

[religious freak]

+1 to both you and GP. I think Civ is a great game, but they've just been tinkering around the edges and dumbing the thing down for the past couple games. I think a re-imagining like you're talking about would be awesome and probably long overdue.

Re:I'm already excited

[Delusion_]

"For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri."

Seconded.

It's also the last game of its sort that allowed me to play the epic scale game I prefer: preposterously large maps and unreasonable amounts of cities. I enjoy that sort of gameplay, with very long-form games.

Every game since Civ 3 has seemed to make a mission out of forcing me to play a single-player game as if it were a multi-player game; short, small, and decisive. I wish the licensing for Alpha Centauri was such that it could have a proper sequel. But I also suspect they'd shrink it down for multiplayer expectations the way they did with Civ3 and Civ4.

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, it's retarded to think that religion won't be around in the couple-hundred-years-from-now timeframe in which SMAC takes place.

Re:I'm already excited

[orkysoft]

i.e. religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxB7Xl2r3aY

Re:I'm already excited

[AuMatar]

Bad idea on the 3d wars. As much as I love total war as an idea, I no longer buy those games. It gets freaking annoying to wait several minutes to load a battle, then unload. I vastly prefer civ becuase it *doesn't* try to do the rts stuff. Improve tactics, but if i want an RTS, Starcraft 2 is around the corner.

Re:I'm already excited

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd really like a variable tech tree, which would make the game a new game each time around. With the static tech tree of Civ4 you could plan out your strategy in advance, and many decisions were made by players before they even saw their starting position. If they could make a game where the required tech points or the tech tree was somehow randomized (with some technologies only becoming available much later, or not at all like you said), it would make this game much more interesting and probably fairer to non-pro players because you have to adapt to a different situation and can't try out a strategy in advance to find the weak spots of balancing.

Re:I'm already excited

[Dyolf Knip]

Commander Cody handed Obi-Wan's lightsaber back to him after he dropped it. The stormtroopers who captured Luke and delivered him to Darth Vader disarmed him of his lightsaber as well. R2-D2 was carrying around Luke's lightsaber in preparation for his attack on Jabba's palace. But none of them turned the things on, that we know of.

Re: the "who do your respect poll"

[Inda]

We'll save you a seat, don't worry. In fact, you can sit next to me, big boy.

Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[nanoakron]

My pet gripe with Civs 3 & 4 (never played 2 but LOVED 1) was the time-constrained tech tree.

I used to love dumping all my resources into tech just to get nukes by 1000AD and then quickly ruling the world. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that in later Civs?

Why can I only get electricity within 100 years of when we discovered it in the real world? Or metallurgy? Or whatever I choose to dump my nation's resources into?

(Oh, and please do an updated version of Alpha Centauri as well...)

-Nano.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[sonicmerlin]

You can get your techs very early relative to the time period if you play the marathon or epic versions. I've always been more disappointed in the lack of future techs. I know a few mods tried to address that, but they simply weren't as well thought out or professional as Firaxis's work. I want techs extending into the science fiction future. That would just be so cool. It feels kind of silly that the greatest weapon on earth is... a 40 hit point armored tank.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[Ailure]

There is no time-constraint to the tech tree in Civ IV. Civ IV simple made it harder to tech really quickly (especially since SmallPox/ICS was majorily nerfed). I play FreeCiv with friends at times, and it's almost ridiculous how fast you can go through the tech tree in a 1 vs 1 game.

Unfortunatly Firaxis have already stated there's licensing issues regarding Alpha Centauri due to the rights being owned by EA Games.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[T Murphy]

I've only played Civs 3 and 4 (civ 4 is nice for a change, but 3 is better), but I know in Civ3 there is an accelerated production option which lets you finish the tech tree before 1300 AD on a large, full game. You can make a map and remove the 4-turn minimum, which would probably allow you to start nuking by 1000 AD if you lead in GNP.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[mister_playboy]

I want techs extending into the science fiction future. That would just be so cool. It feels kind of silly that the greatest weapon on earth is... a 40 hit point armored tank.

That was the best aspect of Call to Power, IMO. The gameplay doesn't end until 3000CE.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[wjousts]

I playing CtP 2 right now (got it from GOG.com). It lacks the personality of the Civ series, but it does have some good features that I'd like to see in Civ, like the removal of worker units. It always annoyed me towards the end of the game in Civ that you'd have dozens of worker units with nothing to do.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[afxgrin]

Yeah, I agree with the lack of future techs.

With all these military things going unmanned, I would argue the benefit should be ... reduced war weariness? Since losses of unmanned vehicles means less of your own people dying.

Airborne laser would be cool to have, Missile defense systems, something a little less - non-existent - like the orbital laser thing? wtf?

More space based warfare would be interesting, specifically having to make spy satellites, undermine foreign efforts in trying to make the same. Orbital nukes. UN treaties banning these things. Then being able to violate the treaty. :-)

I think a really cool feature would be adding The Political Compass to mark your nation-state's socio-political disposition. And your position on that graph would change, in addition to your opponents, depending on the decisions you make. :-)

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[Mongoose Disciple]

Out of curiousity, what did you prefer in 3 vs. 4? I really liked 2 and 4, but found 3 to be unplayable (as in, I literally never was able to finish a game without getting bored and switching to something else) and I'm wondering what I'm missing.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[T Murphy]

I'm sure a good part of it has to do with 3 being my first Civ game, so I'm most used to it. I prefer to play on a large map, full game of AI and leave conquest as the only victory option (though sometimes leaving Domination on so I don't have to slowly mop up at the end). Combat was more simple in Civ3- now you upgrade your units and it gives you the odds, which forces me to try and optimize and adds more hassle. I do find the odds helpful, but only because of all of the bonuses that would be too hard to follow otherwise. For example, I didn't like Oblivion due to the leveling system encouraging grinding if you wanted to optimize your stats (the skills you improved change how much you can improve your stats, and too few or too many skill improvements can hurt you). I like some complexity to keep things interesting, but sometimes it's nice to be able to just throw anything with a green health bar at the enemy city.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[GasparGMSwordsman]

I found both 3 and 4 to be have some major holes in game play, UNTIL the expansions. Both games with all expansions on seemed like complete and very fun games.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state

[spiralx]

You too? I don't think I've ever completed a game of CivIII either, CIV was much better.

Hmmm...

[denzacar]

The pieces can represent anything (battalions or regiments, for instance), so it makes perfect sense.

But then it would also make perfect sense to be able to combine two or more decimated companies into a battalion, while maintaining the experience and combat abilities.
Also... combine companies into a battalion, battalions into regiments, regiments into armies.
You know... as it is not a single tank (or a man) out there on that hex.

Also, turn your infantry or marines into air cavalry by combining them with helicopters. Make a decimated artillery unit into a "artillery support" bonus for your infantry or armor.
Balance it out with experience bonuses and additional turns necessary for combining (training turns).

Re:Hmmm...

[Rockoon]

But then it would also make perfect sense to be able to combine two or more decimated companies into a battalion, while maintaining the experience and combat abilities. Also... combine companies into a battalion, battalions into regiments, regiments into armies.

This may very well be the case. I could see leaving the current healing mechanic behind, instead requiring units to recruit from cities (or combining existing units) in order to regain full effectiveness. City recruitment costs could be used as a balancing mechanic as well, by requiring production proportional to the "damage" being "healed." Currently we can have a hundred units all healing for free simultaneously, which is equivalent to an amount of production far greater than the entire civ commanding those units.

Re:Hmmm...

[TheRaven64]

I recall one game I played back when I had an 8086 with an EGA display (maybe called something like Realms?) that had this mechanic. It made it important to protect your veteran units, because when half of them died you either had a small elite unit or recruited some new soldiers and diluted the the average experience. I don't think there was a way of combining units, but I might have just forgotten it.

Re:Hmmm...

[Rockoon]

In Civ4 its important to protect your veteran units as well, especially because many of the unit promotions get progressively better. First City Raider promotion is +20% city attack, second promotion is an additional +25% city attack, and third is an additional +30% city attack. The same is true for the City Garrison line (+20%, +25%, and +30% City Defense = +75% City Defense)

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sword of Aragon/Aragorn.

Re:Hmmm...

[PincushionMan]

I believe you are referring to Warlords, a turn based game from the late 80s/early 90s. Here's the link for the game Realms that you mentioned. I didn't play this one, but the Wiki makes it sound more like a RTS game than a turn based one.

Re:Hmmm...

[Princeofcups]

The pieces can represent anything (battalions or regiments, for instance), so it makes perfect sense.

But then it would also make perfect sense to be able to combine two or more decimated companies into a battalion, while maintaining the experience and combat abilities.

You're trying to make sense in a game where it takes 20 years for an airplane to fly around the globe? Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but I also gave up on it making any sense a long time ago.

Re:Hmmm...

[moonbender]

Hmm. I had the Warlords map (there was only one in the original) printed out as a kid to be able to plan out assaults when I wasn't allowed to use the computer. I don't remember it having the kind of unit veterancy the GP describes, though of course I could have forgotten.

Removal Of Religion?

[FinchWorld]

Religion, whilst not game changing as many other factors (Hello pratorians!), made an interesting difference to diplomacy and a slight boost to gold. It was also useful to spread to opponents cities to allow spying/gold generation, and was one of the few reasons to consider open borders. It'll be interesting to see how the civics will be altered to reflect the lack of religion. On a side note anyone know of a decent guide to get Civ 4 (or generic guide for games) running under Ubuntu 9.10 x64 with ATI propriety drivers (HD4600)? I've got it working on a different comp using a Geforce card but not the ATI.

Re:Removal Of Religion?

[moonbender]

Wasn't open borders worth it for the income boost from trade connections alone? Can't help you with that ATI card, though I also got Civ4 working beautifully with an Nvidia card.

Re:Removal Of Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have resorted to using VMWare with winXP to get Civ4 working :(

Both Good and Bad

[sonicmerlin]

I'm excited about the removal of "stacks of doom" for the increase in strategy with battles, but I'm rather disappointed in their PC move of removing religion. Religion has been a huge driving force, if not the greatest motivator, of the last several thousands of years. To remove it and just leave "culture" is a rather silly cop-out to the overly sensitive fools out there.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[CODiNE]

Maybe the next Civ will remove culture then we can all get along as one big happy family. Right?

Re:Both Good and Bad

[blind biker]

I'm excited about the removal of "stacks of doom" for the increase in strategy with battles,

I think you confuse strategy with tactics.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says they removed religion to be more PC? I only read the gamespot article, but I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Any evidence to back that up or just your claim?

Re:Both Good and Bad

[T.E.D.]

You are absolutely right about the sillyness of removing Religon from a game about recreating history.

OTOH, Sid Meyer is rather famous for removing gameplay features that detract from the fun of the game. Quite often over the loud objections of simulation purists. It could just be that this was one of those cases. Religon's biggest long-term effect in the CIV4 was just to give AI Civ's one more thing to get pissed off at you about. There was no winning with it either, as no matter which you picked, you'd tick somebody off. This made persuing one of the peaceful victory options (like a cultural win) damn near impossible. At least for me.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with being PC. Start a game of Civ IV. There are times it makes sense to grab an early religion tech -- the bonus for a religion can be quite substantial. However, after doing so, you can run into an AI who attacks you because they founded their own religion, and different religions = hate.

The problem here is that this is an awful strategic idea. Early attacks against a prepared opponent (and you'll see it coming a mile away) cause both players to lose. This is great for "historical realism" but utterly terrible for a strategy game. Unless and until that problem is solved, religion was a bad game mechanic.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[Kjella]

Well, I sorta agree but with the tie-in between religion and culture and gameplay it's rather rather annoying that religion is a must - if you don't use religion or religious buildings you lose out on things, even though for many societies it hasn't been a big driver either. Not to mention that when you min-max things often some religions turn out to be "better" and whatnot. It just doesn't feel much like real religion, it's more a power-up you take because it's convenient to use. I was never about to be offeneded by it, but I'm not really going to miss it either.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rather disappointed in their PC move of removing religion

PC? Are you kidding? The term PC has now reached the stage of meaning anything and is therefore meaningless. Further use is prohibited.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[ianare]

I like them. If you can found 2 of the first 3, send different missionaries to your neighbors, thus dividing them and making money off them.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[Mongoose Disciple]

Religon's biggest long-term effect in the CIV4 was just to give AI Civ's one more thing to get pissed off at you about. There was no winning with it either, as no matter which you picked, you'd tick somebody off. This made persuing one of the peaceful victory options (like a cultural win) damn near impossible.

I will respectfully disagree with you:

- Yes, your choice of religion will most likely piss somebody off. (It's not completely unheard of for everyone in a Civ IV game to end up with the same religion, but mostly rare.) But that's just a reflection of the nature of diplomacy in Civ IV in general: nearly everything you do pisses somebody off. Sign a defensive pact with Russia or trade and you make them happy, but their enemy Germany gets surly about it. Diplomacy in Civ IV is less about trying to make everyone happy and more about choosing who to befriend.

- Along those lines, religion added something interesting to the game in making you weigh the costs and benefits of a religion choice. Most of my cities are Buddhist, but my Aztec neighbor is Hindu. Is it more important to me right now to maximize the happiness/production of my cities by choosing Buddhist, or to make Montezuma happier with me by being Hindu?

- The Apostolic Palace, especially in the votes that result from it, add an extra layer of complexity. Ideally you'd like to be the religion that covers your country the most, build the Palace, spread your religion to other civs, and use it to push them around. But there are opportunity costs in achieving all of that, and there's always the chance that someone else spreads the religion more than you have and uses the Palace to push you around instead. In a lot of ways it's a more complex early-game U.N., which I think would be right up your alley if you like diplomacy.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[Green Monkey]

Religon's biggest long-term effect in the CIV4 was just to give AI Civ's one more thing to get pissed off at you about. There was no winning with it either, as no matter which you picked, you'd tick somebody off.

So it's just like real life, then.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[thesandtiger]

I don't think it was a PC move - it just isn't that compelling a feature in the game and in the view of the designers removed more than it added. If they were remotely worried about being PC they wouldn't have had Stalin - a mass murderer surpassing even Adolph Hitler for body-count - as one of the leaders in the game since the first iteration, and certainly wouldn't have put religion into the game in the first place.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Yeah but these are the people who still completely ignore slavery in their Colonization game, so it's no big surprise.

Re:Both Good and Bad

[RanCossack]

Most of my cities are Buddhist, but my Aztec neighbor is Hindu. Is it more important to me right now to maximize the happiness/production of my cities by choosing Buddhist, or to make Montezuma happier with me by being Hindu?

That depends; would the happiness booth from being Buddhist make up for the war weariness, and would the production boost make up for having to build a military to strong enough to stop Monty? Not that being the same religion will STOP him, per-se, but maybe it'll push the conflict off a bit while he goes after his other neighbors.

Of course, compared to Alexander, Montezuma's a dove.

3D In Strategy Games

[pandrijeczko]

I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.

I was (and still am) a huge fan and player of Heroes Of Might & Magic (I, II, and III), Master Of Orion (2), Total Annihilation and Civilization (I, II, Call To Power and Test Of Time) - likewise I've played and enjoyed PC FPS games from original Doom & Duke Nukem 3D through to STALKER, Half-Life 2 and Fallout 3 today.

Clearly, the FPS genre exists *BECAUSE* of good 3D graphics but who decided that they were needed for strategy games? Fortunately I totally avoided Master Of Orion III but at various points when they were cheap enough to justify rebuying some games I already had, I bought boxed compilations of all the HoMM and Civilization series, the C&C "10 Years" box set (that has everything up to C&C Generals) and Supreme Commander. In each and every case, the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt, to me, like a "dumbing down" of the games...

Firstly, let's look at HoMM and Civilization. These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an "empire" level, as well as defeat enemy armies. They are not solely about combat, they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight, i.e. Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V?

Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views? Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...

These days, as half-Linux half-Windows user, I tend to play Freeciv quite a lot and IMHO it feels more of a logical progression from the original Civ I/II games.

I just wish that if games companies have finished with sprite-based RTS games, then they'd hand out the source code of the games on the Internet to let some good programmers loose on them. The great thing about the pre-3D games is they've low resource requirements and power consumption so great for laptops, netbooks & long flights.

Incidentally, there are a couple of exceptions to the rule - Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II and Sins Of A Solar Empire are fantastic strategy games with built-in 3D but presumably were designed from the ground up with 3D in mind... ...but otherwise 3D graphics have killed any idea of buying any new strategy games.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[awol]

Try the "Total War" series. Turn based game where you can choose to play thebattles in a 3d world. Most excellent fun. It is something that a turn based game can get from a 3d zooming structure.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[snillfisk]

Then you should really take a look at the games being published by Paradox Interactive. Classics such as the Europa Universalis-series and the Hearts of Iron-series are great strategy games. They're also publishing several other games in the same genre and I'd strongly suggest taking a closer look for games that play well and don't need a brand new gaming rig.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[moonbender]

Ridiculous. Sure, Civ4 could work fine with a Civ1 style graphics scheme. Though why stop there, just do it in ASCII, nethack/dwarf fortress style! That said, it would be nice to be able to switch over to a simple graphics mode to run it on a netbook that lacks a decent GPU. Anyway, from a gameplay perspective the game benefits from 3D, if you really want to call it that -- Civ4 is pretty 2D about it's 3D overhead view. Being able to zoom in to an individual unit isn't particularly useful (so why would you do that?!), but smoothly zooming out to see your whole empire is great. It certainly doesn't take anything away from the game, and I don't see why the 3D view would be to blame for any dumbing down, either.

Similar things are true for SupCom, though I haven't played it anywhere near as much as Civ1/2/3/4; SupCom was widely acclaimed particularly because of the way it handles zooming in and out, which incidently is just about all you're going to do in terms of "twiddling" with the camera, it's not like you're going to pose units for pretty screenshots in the middle of a normal battle.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Ailure]

Just wondering, did you at some point try Civ IV?

I play Civ IV and Freeciv and... I actually find both good to their own points. I find Freeciv Stronger than Civ I/II/II balance wise, but Civ IV have way different strategies which makes it interesting, especially with how you specialize cities. After getting used into thinking of terms of "cottage spam" and "specialist-based economy", I can't help but to find Freeciv rather basic. The irony is that while they removed a lot of old annoying micromanagement in Civ IV, they introduced new kinds of it. (I belive FreeCiv removed some micromanagment elements, such as making the game handle production/commerce "overflows" of various kinds).

Personally I don't find the 3D view a nuisance. I actually find it useful in RTS games, where you can pan the camera around buildings that blocks the camera. Isometric 2D games are annoying when it comes to handling buildings that is in the way. If it's a 2D RTS, I prefer a birds view style ala Dune 2/Tiberian Dawn/Red Alert.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[FlyingBishop]

The interesting thing about dwarf fortress is that despite its primitive appearance, it's actually one of the most advanced games out there.

Aside from the fact that it's an alpha, it partially doesn't have graphics because most hardware can barely handle the game. The only thing that makes graphics feasible is the fact that the game engine is single-threaded.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[zach_the_lizard]

Except the campaign map AI is most retarded in the Total War series. You can be allies for centuries, fighting side by side in war after war, but as soon as you border one another, they will betray you for no reason, even if you are a globe spanning empire and they are but a single province nation that you helped keep alive. They also tend to build rather silly armies that make little sense when put together. The AI is even worse in the latest game, Empire; it's so bad that, until a patch, the AI could not invade over oceans, so you could never lose as Great Britain. Let's not even get to the fact that France is a two province nation that can be taken in just a few turns and totally destroyed, or the battle AI. If you want Total War games, go for Rome or Medieval II (or even before either of the two, if you like older games). Those also have excellent mods (which Empire does not; no one has even figured out how to add a province to the map yet).

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views?

TA and Supreme Commander are not about skirmishing, they are about massive battles on a huge scale. And the awesome zoom function of SC makes those battles manageable. I am unable to go back to any other RTS game (with the exception of the Total War series) - I always try desperately to zoom out further.
To me, the zoom function of TA is the single best feature of game GUI design in the last 15 years.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Anonymous Coward]

You want strategy ?

just get europa universalis III or Hearts of Iron III from Paradox Entertainment they are awesome and the modding community is HUGE with many flavors of the game added every day by the users.

and chek out they forum. ITS ENORMOUS http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/

Personally i just love the mod for Hearts of Iron II mod 34 some people from spain spend an insane amount of time adding events and techs to create a whole new game!

have fun!

- Namreg

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[pandrijeczko]

I do own Civ IV as I bought it in the "Civilization Chronicles" box set, I installed it briefly but, perhaps unfairly, was put off by the 3D graphics before getting into it fully.

I'm not sure if I'm really a total Civ freak anyway because the version I play most is Test Of Time because I really like the Space Race ending... I remember at the time it got quite badly panned by reviewers who seemed to prefer Call To Power.

I will make a point of installing and trying Civ 4 again in the very near future...

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[alen]

welcome to the real world. go read a history book, this is exactly how things happened. Look at Britain and France. Mortal enemies for centuries, but as soon as Prussia/Germany rose to power they are now the best of friends. and Britain had a falling out with Prussia in the mid 1800's after centuries of being allies against France.

Same with Russia. Allies in the wars against Napoleon but come the mid 1800's Britain goes to war against Russia because they expand in the Crimea

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Dun Malg]

I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.

Cheap computer and console gamers happened. The unlimited ammo, keep shooting till the millions of identical enemies are dead, learn to twitch faster than the boss on the screen to win the level, action action ACTION gaming idiot happened. Vast hordes of unsophisticated gamers created a big market that dwarfed the previous smaller market of more cerebral computer dorks. Companies started developing games for them, rather than us. That's why we have slightly updated EA sports games released every year.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[zach_the_lizard]

Unfortunately for your quick dismissal, there were reasons that they made the switch; they wanted to maintain a balance of power, they were threatened with a greater common enemy, etc. In game, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. If the game AI was running the world, there would be almost constant warfare in every last corner of the globe for the great offense of being neighbors. Estonia would be waging an aggressive war of conquest against Russia, and despite having no money, no army, and their last province under siege, they would refuse a white peace with the far more powerful Russians. In fact, the offer of peace would insult them, and they would be more determined to be conquered in a futile war.

That is how it works in the latest incarnation of the TW series. Worse, the factions have little in the way of differences in terms of units (save for the differences between the Western nations and the Marathas and Ottomans), and you only really get infantry that changes your tactics late in the game. The older games have more faction differences such that the battles don't get very old fast, and you mostly want to focus on battles anyways. I mean, you encounter chariots as the Romans for the first time, and you wonder what you have to do to win. You do the same when you fight the Greeks, the Easterners with the heavy cavalry, and so on. You then change factions and have to learn and grow again. In ETW, there's not much of that.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[2obvious4u]

I miss the original Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. That game was awesome and introduced me to the strategy genre. I just wish they(blizzard) would re-release it. Warcraft2 and Warcraft3 are also good, but I still miss the original.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Kuroji]

Surely you are mistaken, there was no Master of Orion 3. Though I hear Sword of the Stars was fairly close.

Just like there was no sequel to The Matrix...

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Ailure]

Just keep in mind that Civ IV is different from earlier Civilization games. Especially when it comes to terraforming, it's way more varied and requires more thinking than "irrigate all grass/plains".

There's some silly but cute effects like the battle animations, but those can be turned off if you prefer seeing the results right away. :)

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? No. It could easily have graphics, because it only stresses the CPU. And it only stresses the CPU because it's single-threaded, despite being pretty damn parallelisable. If Toady could be bothered to multi-thread it, or let someone else do it, performance would be miles better.

It simulates a lot of stuff but it really isn't that advanced.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Maltheus]

The thing about RTSes is that even though the older games often offer better gameplay, I can never go back to the old control systems. I somehow missed out on the whole starcraft thing and tried to play it a few years after, but couldn't handle it, due to an inability to group more than something like 8 units at a time. Supreme Commander may have gone overboard on the graphics, but I simple won't bother with an RTS anymore that doesn't have strategic zoom and the ability to infinitely queue your actions. Sins did this too, but it actually had a functional AI as well (although not the innovative supreme commander style economy). So while I agree with you about the need to stop focusing so much on the graphics, I don't think that's stopped the genre (RTS anyway) from substantially improving on other fronts.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[thesandtiger]

One problem with this is that while that dynamic makes sense historically, in-game it doesn't always work like that. A civilization that has been my best friend throughout the entire game and the worst-enemy of my own worst-enemy civilization does not, suddenly, because that worst enemy gave them a technology that is functionally obsolete, turn on a dime and attack their long-time friend; the people wouldn't be for it, it wouldn't make any sense at all, and the leader would almost certainly be deposed.

Imagine if the US decided to carpet bomb England because North Korea sold us a few surplus MiGs. It's completely absurd, and any example of it in the real world would be the exception rather than the rule.

Yet, it happens with some frequency in Civ - even Civ IV, which has some of the most sophisticated diplomacy to date. Civilizations that have been buddy-buddy for *thousands* of years suddenly say screw it and start lobbing nukes; empires that have been waging wars of genocide (burning cities, lobbing nukes at each other) can suddenly become *permanent allies* just because another civilization might land on Alpha Centauri. Granted, I understand them teaming together to prevent someone else from winning the game, but to try and pretend that Civ remotely follows real-world historical examples is a bit disingenuous.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[IICV]

Try Total Annihilation, it's the game that came up with most of what we take for granted in terms of RTS controls (and the spiritual ancestor of Supreme Commander). Unfortunately the AI is relatively predictable, but it's still great fun if you play against another person (especially with the 5000 unit cap patch).

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[FlyingBishop]

Yes, I mentioned the lack of multi-threading in my post.

But the point is that even if you made it multi-threaded, and took advantage of the GPU to run some of those threads, there wouldn't be anything left over for graphics. The task it has set about is too great.

And that would be true until you got 5-10 cores.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, let's look at HoMM and Civilization. These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an "empire" level, as well as defeat enemy armies. They are not solely about combat, they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight, i.e. Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V?

In Civ 1 (at least the Amiga version) you could "zoom in" to see an individual city in full detail, or as much of it that the crude 320x200 graphics would allow you to. You gained nothing from a playability perspective, but it was just a nice feature to have. Same thing with zooming to an unit on the newer game.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[samsmithnz]

Except the campaign map AI is most retarded in the Total War series...

...The AI is even worse in the latest game, Empire; it's so bad that, until a patch, the AI could not invade over oceans, so you could never lose as Great Britain.

While it's true the AI in Empire was totally broken, I really think the last patch fixed it. The enemy doesn't declare war on you randomly and now invades properly over oceans.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[kjart]

Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views? Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...

I'm sorry, but if you don't find the zooming in Supreme Commander amazing, you're doing it wrong. That was probably the most amazing feature of that game and makes every other RTS out there frustrating to play.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Blakey Rat]

In each and every case, the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt, to me, like a "dumbing down" of the games...

Whenever anybody says a game is "dumbed down" I basically read that as, "I don't know why I don't like it, but I'm going to pull a reason out of my ass and as an added bonus, it makes me look like an elitist prick."

Just FYI.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[mots]

If you are serious about HoMM 3, I'm sure I won't need to tell you about WoG In case you don't know it, it's an awesome Mod for HoMM that adds tons of new Gameplay features as well as quite a few new buildings, creatures etc. Oh and btw: Check out VCMI as well. It's an (not quite finished) open source rewrite of the HoMM 3 engine which promises things like proper mod support, high resolution support, simultaneous turns for LAN Games and much more

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Delusion_]

This drive to make TBS games as graphics intensive as possible goes hand in hand with reducing map size, amount of cities you can have at once, etc. In short, graphics require compromises which result in exactly the sorts of concessions which are important to multiplayer games (brief game, small maps, small amount of total cities) and which reduce my ability to play truly epic games that take place on vast maps with hundreds of cities.

I think I'd take simpler graphics with the current ruleset on huge maps than better graphics with the current ruleset on "reasonably sized" maps.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[pandrijeczko]

I basically read that as, "I don't know why I don't like it, but I'm going to pull a reason out of my ass and as an added bonus, it makes me look like an elitist prick."

And I read that as you having an inability to present your argument in a rational way without resorting to abuse.

My friend, you need to remember "it takes all types to make a world". Just like I have absolutely no interest in games like Modern Warfare 2 and tried World of Warcraft and didn't think much of it, does not make me right and everyone else wrong.

Deep strategy games will only ever appeal to a minority which is why, I state again, that some games have been dumbed down in their sequels, in order to appeal to more people - it does not mean I expect *ALL* games to be deep strategy, it is just an observation based on over a quarter century of computer gaming experience.

Now please excuse me - I've wasted enough time on your trolling and would prefer to read intelligent responses from people.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[pandrijeczko]

I've not really got into Supreme Commander at all but TA had a unit limit of 500, 100 by default if you didn't tweak the totala.ini file. And probably 1/4 to 1/3 of those "units" were factories, mines, wind generators, etc. So I think it's fair to call TA "skirmishing" on that basis.

A couple of times a month, a few friends of mine play LAN games of Red Alert 2, Starcraft, TA and games of that ilk. One friend of mine in particular has a strategy of sneaking in "behind enemy lines" and attacking the rear, something that actually adds to the fun of playing the game with him and which wouldn't be possible if you could zoom out to see the whole battlefield.

So I would argue that a zoom feature can give "too much information" and detract from the game somewhat...

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[pandrijeczko]

I have come across WoG before but never got around to loading it up, I will do so based on your recommendation.

As for VCMI, that's a new one on me but a quick look at the site has told me it's something I definitely need to keep an eye on - so thanks for the recommendations...

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[ultranova]

If the game AI was running the world, there would be almost constant warfare in every last corner of the globe for the great offense of being neighbors.

I just had an ephiphany about metaphysics.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you in principle, but there are technical advantages to 3D even if you just keep the game at a "2D" like perspective all the time. THe main one is unit animation. You can do SO much more these days with 3D animation of units, people, etc than you can in 2D. In 2D you have to render all the various positions, and that's a huge pain in the ass (for the developers) not to mention a waste of time. (Artist deems it necessary to edit a walk cycle... he edits it, re-exports it to the game... done. With 2D, you'd have to re-render out multiple frames, edit them, etc....)

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[pandrijeczko]

My gaming history goes back some 25 years now, back to the days of the ZX Spectrum & the Commodore Amiga.

In those days, it was possible for a single programmer or tiny software house to create games that were very new & different, I remember strategy games like X-Com/UFO Enemy Unknown, Millennium 2.2 and Deuteros (its sequel), Dungeon Master and Civilization (I) with particular fondness...

But I think it's unfair to pan modern games & modern gamers, just like it's unfair to pan modern music. Ultimately, nobody forces an old duffer like me to buy and play/listen to all the modern stuff, & in both cases there's enough old stuff out there to keep me entertained anyway - plus there's the occasional modern game/music CD that grabs my attention anyway.

Personally, I'd like to see two things happen in the games industry:

1. Games are given a very fixed lifespan of, say, 10 years, after which time games companies are "encouraged" to release the source code to the general programmer population, thus ensuring that old games can be tweaked/recompiled for newer platforms, and,

2. Games companies paying more attention to mod programmers, due to the number of mods that start off as great ideas but never see completion. Ultimately it's about programmers not realising the work involved before they begin it and ultimately not being able to devote the level of free time necessary. If games companies "sponsored" mod programmers by letting them take some money for their work, maybe hosting the mods on their own sites and taking a percentage cut.

Yes, ultimately that's not the way the games industry works, they want formulaic sequels that guarantee massive profits from sales within the first couple of weeks of release; but I'd also argue that there's an untapped market of "old duffers" like me who could potentially be spending a lot more on games but don't do so because there's not much that gets released these days that they fancy playing.

Re:3D In Strategy Games

[ilyag]

I'm almost sure you'll enjoy C-Evo.

Civ4 with mod FFH2 is plenty enough

[AceJohnny]

I've recently discovered the Fall From Heaven 2 mod for Civ4. It's the most sophisticated and complete mod for Civ4 out there. It's a fantasy mod set in a deep and well fleshed out universe
It brings much more new concepts and content than both commercial extensions, Warlords and Beyond the Sword (although it requires these to work).

I expect it to keep me busy enough well past Civ V enters the discount bins. Having the mod ported to Civ V, however, will make me switch in an instant. Hint hint, Firaxis.

Re:Civ4 with mod FFH2 is plenty enough

[ironwill96]

You should play Fall Further, it adds even more unique civs and tweaks to Fall From Heaven 2 (it's a modmod). More Civ-Crack for your enjoyment :-)

Re:Civ4 with mod FFH2 is plenty enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try Rise from Erebus (RifE), it rebalances Fall Further and provides some interehttp://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1579004#sting gameplay options (it's a modmodmod).

Missing civ leaders... where is the great dictator

[Anonymous Coward]

Through out the series they have been missing one great leader, they've had the likes of Stalin, Caesar and Napoleon, but why have the left out the great dictator? Adenoid Hynkel the dictator of Tomania.

More previews

[Eraesr]

They've got a preview up on Eurogamer as well.

Re: the "who do your respect poll"

[zach_the_lizard]

Baby, I'd love to test you for Turing-completeness, if you know what I mean.

they don't need religion in CIV5

[Shivetya]

CIV4 has environmentalism to the level it might as well be religion.

So making 3 gorges dam gives me negative points... guess dams were not on the developer approved list of clean resources.

Re:they don't need religion in CIV5

[andycal]

Right on the mark. They also made tactical nuclear war nearly impossible. (Global warming ) . It's supposed to be a game not a civics lesson.

Re:they don't need religion in CIV5

[bruthasj]

Just mod the game to produce grassland instead of desert for global warming. It's a quick change in the xml config.

Wesnoth clone

[fph il quozientatore]

Hexes, one unit per tile, ranged attacks, tactical combat, no need to garrison a city... Wow, civ5 will be an overpriced giant 3D Battle of Wesnoth clone.

Re:Wesnoth clone

[cheesybagel]

Freeciv has had hexagonal tiles and maps (optional) for yonks as well. Still most people prefer to use overhead isometric.

Re:Wesnoth clone

[Anonymous Coward]

Ranged attacks can only hit adjacent units in Wesnoth. But given that you must have played the game quite a bit to come up with that clever, astute remark, I'm sure you knew that already.

Re:Wesnoth clone

[brkello]

*rolls eyes* Right. It has a few things in common with some other game and that means it ripped off anything and won't offer anything different. What is wrong with you people? Complaining that it shares elements with other games, freaking out that it *dear God* uses 3D!

How old are you anyways? It seems like the average age in games is around 60 and everyone is yelling at the new games to get off their lawn.

Swell...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Just yesterday my wife said to me, "I can't believe you're still not bored of Civ3 after all these years." She knew I was at risk of staying up until 2 a.m. again playing it.

This will not be good for me.

Re:Swell...

[archangel9]

time to patch the household to Spousal Unit 2.1

Re:Swell...

[Anonymous Coward]

When my wife read about Civ IV, she informed me that I would not be buying it.

Re:Swell...

[MadKeithV]

My girlfriend got me CivIV and later Beyond The Sword as gifts. She's still proud of picking them out, even after I've spent many a night staying up real late playing those games. I'll put Civ 5 on my birthday list for this year :)

Re:Swell...

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend got me CivIV and later Beyond The Sword as gifts. She's still proud of picking them out, even after I've spent many a night staying up real late playing those games.

I'll put Civ 5 on my birthday list for this year :)

Marry that girl, you fool!

Re:Swell...

[Seq]

I was laid off for a bit last year. I'd be downstairs playing when the lights start flickering. I'd yell up "Time for bed?" My wife says "No, I'm going to work"

the only question we should be asking

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

the only question we should be asking is: "where does the line start ???"

seriously, i'll cut my left ball out fi i don't get this game on day ONE!

But is it compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

... with wine?

Re:But is it compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as you don't spill it on the keyboard in between turns, you should be fine.

*shrug*

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. I've been a Civ addict for years and this was the first time I heard about a new Civ game and couldn't give a toss.

I don't have time to master anything beyond Prince level any more, the AI's were always frustrating for various reasons and I do miss my old Civ 2 "sit on a pile of gold, take out the 3 biggest cities of my enemy and then buy up the rest of the empire" tactic using diplomats :) I do wish them well with the game, but I have moved away from PC gaming almost completely in the last 2 years so I won't be buying it. I really like that with a console, even though I don't have good TBS's, I don't have to worry about driver issues, RAM, processor speeds or any of the other 'joys' I spent 15 years having to do to get a game to work on the PC.

Civ, I do wish you well as a franchise, but sadly you are part of my past, a past before a wife that wants to spend time with me, consoles that 'just work' and eyes that could take 6 hours of gaming on a PC after 8 hours of being on a computer for work.

No city defection

[blind biker]

I'm kinda bummed they got rid of city defection, because "my flavor" was that of cultural conquest.

No stack of doom: I am ambivalent on this one. Frankly, I never understood the huge uproar against the stack. If a player has the industrial muscle to build one, what whine is that of yours? Build your own stack of doom to counter it, or shut up and lose.

Hexes: I love that, and was eagerly awaiting for this feature to be implemented.

No religion: it's OK, I was never too fond of the way it was implemented, anyway. I understand why it was implemented the way it was, and why it was dropped - it's the good-ole political correctness at work. But, it's all fine, peace brother...

I just hope there still will be a "peaceful mode"-option to play the game, like there was for Civ IV.

don't it get boring?

[devent]

I mean, in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII? Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum? Were are the new ideas, new concepts. I mean, even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it's a really great game, so where are the new concepts of today?

Re:don't it get boring?

[Rockoon]

CivI wasnt really a new concept. Its a 4X game and wasn't even close to the first.

It was based on the older Empire game, whos history is actually somewhat interesting.

What Sid did was make it graphical, with an epic tech tree that mimics human history.

Re:don't it get boring?

[delinear]

I know your point, but considering there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing Civ III, from almost ten years ago, let alone Civ IV from a mere 5 years ago, chances are there will be people in 10 years still playing Civ V, never mind Civ XII.

Re:don't it get boring?

[tangelogee]

you mean like Oregon Trail 1-5, plus phone/DS/Blender/Refrigerator versions?

Re:don't it get boring?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII? Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum? Were are the new ideas, new concepts. I mean, even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it's a really great game, so where are the new concepts of today?

I dunno, why don't you offer some money for them and see how far you get?

Also, you can only use each idea once. No repeats. No sequels. All completely novel.

Believe it or not though, sometimes refinement is the way to go.

Needs more Hitler

[Parlett316]

Seriously.

Re:Needs more Hitler

[ChefInnocent]

You might want to elaborate. Do you mean periods of hyper-nationalism, expansionism, little men with complexes? Punishment by other countries that discontinue trade, collectively go to war, then dismantle the country to be replaced by an ineffective government, and then continued debate over history & artifacts? Or do you just want a leader like him? The game offers some of these things, and the leader can be created as a mod.

Re:Needs more Hitler

[mjwx]

Do you mean periods of hyper-nationalism, expansionism, little men with complexes?

Napoleon I hear will still be featured.

I was never good at Civ

[Kokuyo]

I always loved the game but I could never fully enjoy it either. I probably just suck at it, but war is no fun if one phalanx obliterates half a dozen tanks. What do I invest in science for when my future technology is trumped by this bronze age unit?

I usually win by being first to colonize another world or by building the UN. But to have a chance at that, I need to set hostilities to a minimum... it's only half as much fun to play a castrated version of the game.

I think next time I'll invest a few hours to read some guides and tactics.

Re:I was never good at Civ

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty much in the same position. I love the Civ games and have done since I first played the original on the Amiga 500 - but I am quite hopeless at it and always have to play it on one of the lowest skill settings.

Once I get beyond about six cities I tend to lose track of what I was doing and I find building armies up waging war a bit boring.

Re:I was never good at Civ

[koreaman]

Try Civ4. Modern units are much less likely to lose to spearmen than in previous games.

Re:I was never good at Civ

[pandrijeczko]

I admire anybody who can play a single game many times over using different strategies - I always end up being "Mr. Highly Advanced" and/or "Mr. Super Nice".

I tend to take the viewpoint that if I've got the most advanced hardware then I need less of it protecting my cities (Civilization) or planets (Master Of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations). Because I pump so much focus on technological advancement, my defences are always very light so I end up having to be super nice to everyone so they don't pick any fights with me during the early parts of the game - at least in GalCiv 2 you can "sell" older technology to other races that not only subsidises the huge tax deficit because almost your entire population are scientists, but also makes them a bit more friendlier to you anyway.

Even in Fallout 3 I've tried being Mr. Evil but that lasted about 4 hours before I got bored with it!

Re:I was never good at Civ

[Prien715]

I always start with your strategy when I first play a game.

For Civ, try starting with only 2 civilizations on a very small and see how many turns it takes to beat them (be the romans and fast tech to iron if you have to!). I found that early game wars for territory often are helpful. Also, specializing helps. If one city builds all your military stuff (has very high production, low commerce, and a barracks), you're not tempted to build a university there. The other problem with Civ is that people will declare war on you just because your military is weak...so you need to build an army just for diplomacy.

MOO2 it's even easier. The best Civilization I made were a bunch of feudal telepaths who relied on spying to get all their tech (I can't research...but I can take yours...and boy are my ships cheap!) It's very interesting since you make the definitive stand early on to be "average" technologically, but make "0" investments in research.

All in all, having the best tech is great, but an army of spearmen will beat a few pikemen.

Workers?

[wjousts]

How will the one unit per hex effect worker units? I could imagine it getting very frustrating when you can't move your armies out of your cities because of the gaggle of worker units building stuff around it. Personally, I'd like to see them do away with workers altogether. I've been playing CtP 2 recently (thanks GOG.com) and I'm really liking the lack of busy work moving workers around. I also like the fact that I can create trade routes without having to painstakingly move caravan units around.

Re:Workers?

[calibre-not-output]

I'd imagine workers probably don't fill up the tile, i.e. there can only be one military unit in the tile. That's a nice way to solve this issue (though I'd also rather be rid of the workers) though I wonder if they'd consider the settlers and non-General Great Persons as a military unit or not.

Re:Workers?

[Prien715]

I'd agree. In the reverse direction, I really like unlike the Total War series, I don't have to move diplomats around to create treaties.

Empire

[Shivetya]

I would not mind a free version of this classic. You cannot get much simpler and still be involving.

You should be able to mod that in if you want

[Joe The Dragon]

You should be able to mod that in if you want

They should add combat engineers / combat works as

[Joe The Dragon]

They should add combat engineers / combat works as well.

Damn you, Slashdot

[deniable]

I just put in the Civ4 disk and lost three hours.

Re:Wesnoth -- Ranged attacks?

[phiwum]

Wesnoth does not have ranged attacks in any reasonable sense of the term. Units must be adjacent to attack. Civ V adds the capability of ranged attacks between unengaged units.

That's not to say they do it well. Since when do archers fire over ponds and farmers' fields in order to hit city units? How far can these archers shoot? Somehow, that image bothers me.

In any case, I'm certainly not intending to disparage Wesnoth with my comments. Wesnoth is, as far as I've seen, the hands-down best totally original open-source strategy game out there. I'm also not trying to compliment Civ V, since I haven't played the commercial version of Civilization since Civ II.

regarding religion

[pnuema]

They didn't drop religion due to political correctness. They dropped it because it added nothing constructive to the gameplay - ironic, isn't it?

Re:regarding religion

[Lunzo]

Adding happiness, culture, a category of civics and victory conditions wasn't constructive?

Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Conchobair]

Atheists/theists get mad when you present ideas other than what they believe and think. They will often attack anything that does not fall into thier own system of beliefs. I honestly don't see any difference between fundamentalis atheists and fundamentalist theists. Just stop attacking people both of you groups and learn to let people have this own thoughts without pressing them towards you own.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[lymond01]

Just stop attacking people both of you groups and learn to let people have this own thoughts without pressing them towards you own.

Not that I don't agree with this in principle, it would be nice if everyone just had their walled gardens and only had to talk through the fence. But a belief system is just that: you believe it. And when that belief is relevant or challenged, you feel the need to express or defend it, because to you it's a truth. And if you don't express or challenge, than it's probably not really a belief for you, merely a pastime.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Conchobair]

"If [the people of the world discover a way to live together in peace], man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation."

I agree with most of what you are saying. Maybe I am just dreaming but I believe that some day theists and atheists will be able to sit down and discuss such topics by presenting thier own ideas to stand on its own merit without having to attack each other's.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Anonymous Coward]

So many modding this offtopic. The kettle doesn't like being called black too, now does it?

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Omestes]

I agree, there is some rabid, extremist atheists. Though their theist counterparts FAR out number them, and have far more influence on the world. I find the religious fundamentalists a far larger threat than any degree of atheist.

I'm a pretty firm atheist, and I generally have no problem with religion, or any other ideology. Until they start trying to control people's lives, or start harming people. At that point the ideology in question should be destroyed. Just because your a Christian (or Muslim, or whatnot) doesn't mean EVERYONE should have to follow your silly arbitrary rules.

Atheists, for the most part, are immune to this tyrannical craziness. What are they going to do, stand on street corners screaming "THINK FOR YOURSELF!", or trying to force all children to learn science. The horror.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Golddess]

If by fundamentalist you mean extremist, then you are absolutely correct. Extremists in both camps suck ass. I cannot speak for others, but I generally only "attack" the beliefs of those who won't leave me the fuck alone about my "incorrect" beliefs. I like to think most people are like that, that regardless of what their beliefs are, they won't attack unless provoked.

Unfortunately, some people think that the simple act of believing something else is provocation enough. So far I've only met theists like that, but I won't rule out the possibility that atheists like that exist.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[ultranova]

I honestly don't see any difference between fundamentalis atheists and fundamentalist theists.

That's because there isn't any difference. Fundamentalist ahteists/theists/communists/capitalists/whatever are all absolutely convinced that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is either evil or stupid or both. This kind of hubris is not limited to any religion or ideology or lack of them.

Just stop attacking people both of you groups and learn to let people have this own thoughts without pressing them towards you own.

And not let them know how great and wise I am? Not likely!

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[ultranova]

I agree, there is some rabid, extremist atheists. Though their theist counterparts FAR out number them, and have far more influence on the world. I find the religious fundamentalists a far larger threat than any degree of atheist.

I challenge your notion that "rabid atheists" are not religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is a state of being absolutely convinced that you're right, and everyone who doesn't agree is either evil or stupid. It doesn't have anything to do with what you're absolutely convinced about, just that you are. And the notion that "there is no god" is, of course, a notion about a religious matter.

Atheists, for the most part, are immune to this tyrannical craziness. What are they going to do, stand on street corners screaming "THINK FOR YOURSELF!", or trying to force all children to learn science. The horror.

No, they're going to demand that a religion/ideology "be destroyed". That, of course, demands torturing the adherents until they deconvert and killing those who refuse. Unless, of course, a reliable brainwashing technique to bring their beliefs closer to what you'll accept can be created.

The correct way to treat such people is to give them freedom and demand they give it to you too. This (Finland, and presumably United States as well) is a free country, where everyone is free to worship whatever deity he wishes, or none at all. I'll defend to death your right to choose freely. I'll also defend my right to not choose whatever you want. I'll also defend the rights of people I despise, because to not do so would be to do unto others what I wouldn't want to be done to myself

.

For the record, I'm a christian.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't see any difference between fundamentalis atheists and fundamentalist theists.

Are you trolling or are you a complete moron?

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[NoOneInParticular]

I think "rabid atheists" can by definition never be religious fundamentalists. They can be pricks, obstinate assholes, completely devoid of any form of understanding, they can even be considered 'fundamentalists' in some way, but surely, they cannot be considered religious. If you think they can, I've got a pink invisible unicorn for sale.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[orkysoft]

Richard Dawkins isn't absolutely convinced that there is no god. He does consider it unlikely in the extreme. Of course an omnipotent being could make the universe look like the omnipotent being did not exist, except for hints such as meatballs in our spaghetti dishes.

No, they're going to demand that a religion/ideology "be destroyed". That, of course, demands torturing the adherents until they deconvert and killing those who refuse.

No, that's just your Christian persecution fetish speaking. Atheists don't want to kill all believers. They want the right not to have religion shoved down their throats, or having to pay more taxes than religious people/organizations, or having the state promote a religion.

Sure, some atheists say stupid stuff indicating that they'd like believers to be killed. But nobody listens to those retards. I do know of some religious people who say that all non-believers should be killed, and other believers paying quite a lot of attention to their words.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Omestes]

No, they're going to demand that a religion/ideology "be destroyed". That, of course, demands torturing the adherents until they deconvert and killing those who refuse. Unless, of course, a reliable brainwashing technique to bring their beliefs closer to what you'll accept can be created.

I personally don't know any atheists who adhere to such extremist beliefs, and have only read of a handful who would advocate such things. Given any ideology, you can find a wacko who wants to torture and kill those who don't agree. Religious people, though, seem to be much more plagued by this type. Personally I think religion is like sex, as long as its consensual, and in your bedroom, no one should care what you do/believe. I'm not excusing the few atheists who verge on tyrannical extremism, I'm just offsetting them with the larger group of the faithful who have the same views. There are whole churches based on destroying us, while we only have a handful of people who would wish the same for them.

This handful are still insane, but as a whole the group is much less insane.

The correct way to treat such people is to give them freedom and demand they give it to you too. This (Finland, and presumably United States as well) is a free country, where everyone is free to worship whatever deity he wishes, or none at all. I'll defend to death your right to choose freely. I'll also defend my right to not choose whatever you want. I'll also defend the rights of people I despise, because to not do so would be to do unto others what I wouldn't want to be done to myself

This is a very sane and ideal way of handling thing. Sadly it doesn't work when people decide to interfere with schools and science, and global politics.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[CyberSaint]

Oh, the atheist extremists are out there, and they are just as obnoxious as the religious extremists. They tend to lack the organization of the religious extremists, but if they ever remedy that they very well may end up as dangerous as the religious nutjobs.

I've never really considered myself an atheist. I'm old enough to remember a time when there was a time when we had more than just f(p) xor f(!p), my personal stance has always been !(f(p) or f(!p)) (where f(x) is belief in x and p is any religion). We used to call ourselves agnostic, but I've been informed we are now referred to as 'soft atheists'. I guess anything more than a binary opposition was just too complicated for some people.

I am intrigued however about the inclusion of texture as an adjective for ones beliefs (or lack thereof). Does this mean I can refer to people as squishy Buddhists or fizzy Christians (crispy Wiccans just seems kind of poor taste)?

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[c6gunner]

I agree with most of what you are saying. Maybe I am just dreaming but I believe that some day theists and atheists will be able to sit down and discuss such topics by presenting thier own ideas to stand on its own merit without having to attack each other's.

Yep, you're dreaming. That's like saying "one day people who believe in fairies and people who don't believe in fairies will be able to present their own ideas instead of attacking each others".

By definition, Atheism is the rejection of theism. Theists make a claim, atheists say "you're full of shit". That's it. Without theism, atheism wouldn't even be a concept, so how in the world can you present an "atheist idea" which is independent of theistic claims?

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[c6gunner]

You're weak, not soft.

I'd love to hear your definition of "atheists extremists", as well as how exactly they could ever be "as dangerous as the religious nutjobs". Should be fun watching you grab at threads.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[ultranova]

I personally don't know any atheists who adhere to such extremist beliefs, and have only read of a handful who would advocate such things.

You called for the "destruction" of ideology with fanatical supporters. How, exactly speaking, do you think that's going to be done - you outlaw it and everyone meakly obeys?

This is a very sane and ideal way of handling thing. Sadly it doesn't work when people decide to interfere with schools and science, and global politics.

It has worked just fine in pretty much eveery nation that has tried it, resulting in peaceful and prosperous socities whose inhabitant's can freely engage in this kind of conversations without fear of being stoned or sent to Siberia. On the other hand, the societies who's inhabitants dismiss such silly idealism tend to be hellholes which produce nothing but endless mountains of corpses.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[Omestes]

You called for the "destruction" of ideology with fanatical supporters. How, exactly speaking, do you think that's going to be done - you outlaw it and everyone meakly obeys

I overstated, and I apologize. I belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Hyperbole, so what do you expect? Instead of "destruction" I should have said, their beliefs have to be moderated before they get to the level where they are allowed to do harm. The US Constitution had an avenue for this, but the religious right, and other politically savvy religious groups have undermined this to the point of absurdity.

I suppose "destroy" could also mean having higher education standards, and a greater availability of higher education, which seems to neuter the religious extremists of society rather effectively. But then again I think education is the solution to every problem that afflicts modern society.

Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists

[CyberSaint]

You're telling me you have seriously never met one of the 'lunatic atheists' who legitimately believe that anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy of any kind should be summarily executed for the good of mankind?

I never said anything about there being a lot of them. I also specifically said they were certainly not well organized. Most atheists are atheist due to rational analysis of the question and drawing a logical conclusion based on the non-disprovability of the existence of G-d. Some small few however are atheist because it's a socially acceptable way to hate someone else. I think it would be foolish to assume that they could not start forming groups and trying to get publicity for their mission to 'cleanse the opiate of the masses from the world'. Every ideology has it's lunatic fringe. Every ideology, no exceptions.

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to forget how those who believe in gods have treated those who believe in other gods. Or no gods at all.

Your conclusions are specious.

Re:Bullshit.

[Conchobair]

"Victory attained by violence (or agression) is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." If the oppressed would become the oppressor then the circle would only continue and the second party no better than the first. Only by setting aside past bigotry and agressions will all groups be able to sit down in peace and liberty of thought.

It is more ideal or a dream than specious. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one.

new blaster

[junkgoof]

With a design that produces a beam slightly wider than a light saber.

Dwarves dig deep

[HeckRuler]

"Advanced" is a rather subjective term for games. Dwarf fortress (DO IT!) is a revolutionary game due to it's depth. It is a civ-like game that drills down to the individual left-pinky finger that holds the gem-encrusted ring (that menaces with spikes of iron) which makes the noble dwarf more confident in his finances so he drives a harder bargain bartering for the weapons traded to the Elves which ultimately causes their raid on the orc stronghold to fail and changes the political currents of the region.
DEPTH.

CPU crushing depth. Even if it dealt with mutli-cores better, it still wouldn't skip right along.

Re:Dwarves dig deep

[turtledawn]

This sounds fascinating. Thanks!

Re:Dwarves dig deep

[moonbender]

I installed it a couple of times, but I never managed to get into it. Learning curve like a steep cliff. I know there are YouTube tutorial videos. That makes it worse. Never got into nethack, either.

Re:Dwarves dig deep

[HeckRuler]

All games have a learning curve. Some start out with a nice slopping area like a bunny hill with tutorials and introductions. Some games have a higher plateau then others.

Dwarf Fortress throws you against a gargantuan sheer cliff face made of sharp jagged glass covered with thistles all the while a melancholy tune plays to your doom and the ghosts of your 7 dwarves haunt your memories eternally.

But yeah, it's kind of like nethack. I highly suggest it.

Re:Dwarves dig deep

[moonbender]

Yesterday, after posting, I spent about an hour, maybe more, reading various stuff about DF. I think I enjoy reading about it more than playing it. I tried that tonight, and with the help of a guide I got as far as selecting a starting point and equipping/training 2 out of 7 starter dwarves before it just seemed too much like work.

regarding SoD

[gibson_81]

If a player has the industrial muscle to build one, what whine is that of yours? Build your own stack of doom to counter it, or shut up and lose.

Disclaimer; it's been a while since I hung out on the fan forums, but here's my impression of why SoDs are unpopular: it's the AI handicap.

Sure, on lower levels (noble, prince, monarch) it's not a big issue, cause the AI only gets a small bonus. But when you get up to emperor or immortal, it's very hard to keep up. Not only are the AI armies cheaper to build, they are cheaper to maintain as well. Trying to keep up with Monty or Shaka past the medieval age is a good way to see your economy grind to a halt.

Not sure if serious...

[Blakey Rat]

I have no clue if you're serious or not. There are about a billion games that meet your requirements, so I suppose by your logic they're all Wesnoth clones. Of course, since Wesnoth itself is a clone of the Warlords series of games, maybe you should just shut your trap, eh?

And if I got trolled-- sorry all.

Re:They should add combat engineers / combat works

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I loved how the worker units in Alpha Centauri could be outfitted with defensive tech. They couldn't attack, but could kill units that attacked them (rather handily too, with the right techs and wonders). It was awesome to see an enemy faction throw away half a dozen soldiers just to kill one stray worker.

Re:Wesnoth -- Ranged attacks?

[moonbender]

City units? There are no more city units. The closest thing would (apparently) be units garrisoned in a fort near a city tile.

Re:Wesnoth -- Ranged attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Westnoth is a great game, but it is not truly original, it is strongly based off of Master of Monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Monsters). Heck, even the Westnoth people themselves admit it! (http://wiki.wesnoth.org/WesnothPhilosophy)

George Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently George Washington will speak "perfect English" ... shouldn't he speak American instead? :-)

limit units in a hex instead?

[arcade video gamer]

stacks are nice, but why not limit the stacks to something reasonable, like only so many infantry or whatever in a hex. Give each unit a mass and dont let the hex have too much mass in it, either that or just set the limit to like 10 units max in a hex