Wow. AI offered gold, tech, or cities for peace as far back as I can remember, but in Civ 4 they also had the option to capitulate (and regularly did).
i did play civ 4. it seemed identical to civ 3 but with slightly better graphics. in fact the only reason i bought it was on the hope that the AI was better. i was disappointed.
You really missed out on Civ 4 then. It wasn't at all "Civ 3 with slightly better graphics." I mean, first off, the graphics were alot more than "slightly" better. Second, it introduced a slew of game mechanics, games inside of the game, customizations. To say that it built upon Civ 3 would be an understatement.
On the other hand, Civ 3 really was Civ 2 with slightly better graphics. The same cannot be said for Civ 4. Not at all. I played both Civ 2 and Civ 3 extensively, and I can't describe how much I had to reprogram my way of thinking about the game to be successful on any of the higher difficulty levels. Diplomacy is crucial as is prior planning. Civ2&3 just meant pumping out the best units you could achieve and sending them into battle. Very linear. If you played that game in Civ4, you didn't play very long.
In fact, I can remember reading that exact sentiment in several strategy guides. "If you play this game like Civ2/Civ3, you will lose."
I'm not sure what you would have wanted from the AI. Yeah, difficulty level often meant a reduction in bonuses for the player while giving other advantages to the AI, but that's pretty similar to just about every game ever. However, I thought the AI was pretty impressive. AI leaders frequently gathered up massive armies and "sprung" attacks on you, and even cooperated with one another. Taking out strategic resources was commonplace, as was using tactics to weaken your stack.
Furthermore, combat wasn't the only place that AI was influencing the game. You'd frequently see other leaders brokering technologies and attempting cultural victory (all based on the leaders personality, of course.)
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that with a comment like that, you really didn't play the game.
Yeah. The game wasn't terribly interesting, but flying through your SC2000 maps provided some endgame SC2000 enjoyment for sure.
I really wish more games would apply this concept. I'd definitely buy an "addon" to civ 4 that provided more tactical control over a battle, for instance. The tried-and-true add-on concepts of "here's a few more units and an enhanced game-mechanic or two" are nice, of course.
However, adding an entirely new gameplay angle is something entirely different and far too seldom pursued, I think.
In British usage, some words of French, Latin, or Greek origin end with a consonant followed by -re, with the -re unstressed and pronounced/r/. Most of these words have the ending -er in the United States. The difference is most common for words ending -bre or -tre: British spellings centre, goitre, kilometre, litre, lustre, mitre, nitre, reconnoitre, saltpetre, spectre, theatre, and titre all have -er in American spelling, as do calibre, fibre, sabre, and sombre.
Hard to know how resources are allocated to a city in the new Civ, but at very least we know that's going to change. Moving resources outside of the city limits may be an issue - but then again, it may not.
My guess is that a city will be able to control tiles up to two tiles away (the hexagon system makes this pretty easy to define) as opposed to the "fat cross" system of before. Based on that image, if you place a city dead center and imagine it's "fat cross" as it would have been in Civ 4, only the four corner tiles are inaccessible. If we assume the above, the user "loses" the two tiles inward of the bottom corners upon conversion. However, assuming this, a city would have a maximum of 18 tiles in it's control (not including the city itself) rather than the 20 of Civ 4 - so it stands to reason that it'd have to lose two from somewhere in the conversion, regardless.
However, like I said, it's been widely publicized that the method by which a city and a civilization gain resources is very different. More active resources cause territory to increase faster in their direction, so the shape of a city's purchase may be different altogether. Personally, I can't wait to find out!
Generally speaking, "trying to act suspicious" or even "trying to not act suspicious" are the fastest ways to get you collared by security personnel. If that was his strategy for testing their defenses, he's doing it wrong.
I don't think there will be much economic impact for those countries. The panels will be made in Asia or Europe (not in Africa). Further, my guess is that the plants will be staffed by Europeans, guarded by Europeans.
There will be some "trickle down" in the goods and services that those Europeans purchase as a result of their employment in such countries. I'd further speculate that there'll be some money flowing to the governments of these countries, but I think we're all pretty well aware of how much of that will get to the people.
Of course, I don't think this is any way a bad thing. The desert isn't an otherwise useful resource, so it isn't like the people of these countries will be deprived of anything as a result. And in no way do I feel that Europe will be "tied" to these countries as a result - the evolutionary progression of the solar cell technology will ensure that.
Seems like a win-win to me, but the size of the "win" on each side may be somewhat overstated.
Lake Superior, the largest of the lakes by any measure has a surface area almost 2/3 attributed to the United States, 53,700 km^2 of the 82,400 km^2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Superior
I could not find splits for Huron, Ontario, or Erie. However, Ontario and Erie, from a map, appear to be about 50/50, and Huron appears to favor Canada slightly. Regardless, between the United States' posession of Superior and Michigan alone, it contains 111,700 km^2 of the total 208,610km^2 of all the lakes surface area. Therefore, saying that the lakes are "predominately Canadian" is just flat wrong.
The surface area of an ellipsoid (in this case, the moon) expands as it's diameter increases. Therefore, your math is off by more than a little bit.
According to Wikipedia, the moon has a mean radius of 1,737.10km and has a volume of 2.1958E10 km^3.
From your calculations, the great lakes have a volume of 22,560 km^3. Therefore, the volume of the great lakes times the number of books in the library of congress is 6.5424E11 km^3.
If we add this volume to the volume of the moon, the volume of our new moon is 6.76198E11 km^3. Assuming the new moon takes on a spherical shape, we can get the new radius of the moon by using the formula for the volume of a sphere, V=4/3r^3. Therefore, we deduce that the new radius is 7,974.65km.
Further assuming that the moon as it exists now settles in the center of this new waterworld relatively undisturbed, with it's mean radius remaining at 1,737.10km, we can calculate the mean depth of the water on the moon as 6237.55km.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Truly a regrattable decision.
Wow. AI offered gold, tech, or cities for peace as far back as I can remember, but in Civ 4 they also had the option to capitulate (and regularly did).
Seriously?
i did play civ 4. it seemed identical to civ 3 but with slightly better graphics. in fact the only reason i bought it was on the hope that the AI was better. i was disappointed.
You really missed out on Civ 4 then. It wasn't at all "Civ 3 with slightly better graphics." I mean, first off, the graphics were alot more than "slightly" better. Second, it introduced a slew of game mechanics, games inside of the game, customizations. To say that it built upon Civ 3 would be an understatement.
On the other hand, Civ 3 really was Civ 2 with slightly better graphics. The same cannot be said for Civ 4. Not at all. I played both Civ 2 and Civ 3 extensively, and I can't describe how much I had to reprogram my way of thinking about the game to be successful on any of the higher difficulty levels. Diplomacy is crucial as is prior planning. Civ2&3 just meant pumping out the best units you could achieve and sending them into battle. Very linear. If you played that game in Civ4, you didn't play very long.
In fact, I can remember reading that exact sentiment in several strategy guides. "If you play this game like Civ2/Civ3, you will lose."
I'm not sure what you would have wanted from the AI. Yeah, difficulty level often meant a reduction in bonuses for the player while giving other advantages to the AI, but that's pretty similar to just about every game ever. However, I thought the AI was pretty impressive. AI leaders frequently gathered up massive armies and "sprung" attacks on you, and even cooperated with one another. Taking out strategic resources was commonplace, as was using tactics to weaken your stack.
Furthermore, combat wasn't the only place that AI was influencing the game. You'd frequently see other leaders brokering technologies and attempting cultural victory (all based on the leaders personality, of course.)
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that with a comment like that, you really didn't play the game.
Guess you didn't play Civ 4 then. That's too bad.
You're right though... there is no "intimidation" victory mode. Sounds like a hybrid between conquest and diplomacy, which is the way most games go.
Yeah. The game wasn't terribly interesting, but flying through your SC2000 maps provided some endgame SC2000 enjoyment for sure.
I really wish more games would apply this concept. I'd definitely buy an "addon" to civ 4 that provided more tactical control over a battle, for instance. The tried-and-true add-on concepts of "here's a few more units and an enhanced game-mechanic or two" are nice, of course.
However, adding an entirely new gameplay angle is something entirely different and far too seldom pursued, I think.
It said "2 meters".
What is this "meter" you speak of .. I only know of the metre. Unless you were using some new fangled musical notation that I don't know of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
The metre (or meter), symbol m, is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-re.2C_-er
In British usage, some words of French, Latin, or Greek origin end with a consonant followed by -re, with the -re unstressed and pronounced /r/. Most of these words have the ending -er in the United States. The difference is most common for words ending -bre or -tre: British spellings centre, goitre, kilometre, litre, lustre, mitre, nitre, reconnoitre, saltpetre, spectre, theatre, and titre all have -er in American spelling, as do calibre, fibre, sabre, and sombre.
Happy to clear that up for you.
Very informative!
Hard to know how resources are allocated to a city in the new Civ, but at very least we know that's going to change. Moving resources outside of the city limits may be an issue - but then again, it may not.
My guess is that a city will be able to control tiles up to two tiles away (the hexagon system makes this pretty easy to define) as opposed to the "fat cross" system of before. Based on that image, if you place a city dead center and imagine it's "fat cross" as it would have been in Civ 4, only the four corner tiles are inaccessible. If we assume the above, the user "loses" the two tiles inward of the bottom corners upon conversion. However, assuming this, a city would have a maximum of 18 tiles in it's control (not including the city itself) rather than the 20 of Civ 4 - so it stands to reason that it'd have to lose two from somewhere in the conversion, regardless.
However, like I said, it's been widely publicized that the method by which a city and a civilization gain resources is very different. More active resources cause territory to increase faster in their direction, so the shape of a city's purchase may be different altogether. Personally, I can't wait to find out!
Generally speaking, "trying to act suspicious" or even "trying to not act suspicious" are the fastest ways to get you collared by security personnel. If that was his strategy for testing their defenses, he's doing it wrong.
It probably doesn't count because it's smaller.
Should say
if((Prototype.Browser.IE && (/MSIE 6\./.test(navigator.userAgent))))
window.location = 'http://www.google.com/chrome'
});
FTFY
Did you not notice the little "-" beside European Union on all those lists, and the little "1" next to the United States on all those lists?
This indicates that the inclusion of the EU on those lists is, at very least, somewhat subjective.
It's not. It just plays one on TV.
In all seriousness, yes, the US does have the largest GDP of any country by far.
I don't think there will be much economic impact for those countries. The panels will be made in Asia or Europe (not in Africa). Further, my guess is that the plants will be staffed by Europeans, guarded by Europeans.
There will be some "trickle down" in the goods and services that those Europeans purchase as a result of their employment in such countries. I'd further speculate that there'll be some money flowing to the governments of these countries, but I think we're all pretty well aware of how much of that will get to the people.
Of course, I don't think this is any way a bad thing. The desert isn't an otherwise useful resource, so it isn't like the people of these countries will be deprived of anything as a result. And in no way do I feel that Europe will be "tied" to these countries as a result - the evolutionary progression of the solar cell technology will ensure that.
Seems like a win-win to me, but the size of the "win" on each side may be somewhat overstated.
That's not really a very accurate analogy.
It'd be more accurate to ask, "Would you buy a car on that basis that the warranty stands only as long as you don't reprogram the ECU?"
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
It is earth's most active greenhouse gas, after all! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor
What do you mean you people?
Pretty sure LIFE it was created by Milton Bradley. Mine doesn't spawn any self replicating creatures though :(.
I mean, if we're going to attack the P2P sites of yesteryear, let's go after Morpheus, Kazaa, and Napster while we're at it.
Ctrl+F
G
r
e
a
t
SPACE
l
a
k
e
s
ENTER
Perhaps you should look at a map sometime.
Lake Michigan, the second largest of the lakes by volume (and third by surface area) belongs entirely to the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_lakes#Bathymetry
Lake Superior, the largest of the lakes by any measure has a surface area almost 2/3 attributed to the United States, 53,700 km^2 of the 82,400 km^2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Superior
I could not find splits for Huron, Ontario, or Erie. However, Ontario and Erie, from a map, appear to be about 50/50, and Huron appears to favor Canada slightly. Regardless, between the United States' posession of Superior and Michigan alone, it contains 111,700 km^2 of the total 208,610km^2 of all the lakes surface area. Therefore, saying that the lakes are "predominately Canadian" is just flat wrong.
Cheers.
The surface area of an ellipsoid (in this case, the moon) expands as it's diameter increases. Therefore, your math is off by more than a little bit.
According to Wikipedia, the moon has a mean radius of 1,737.10km and has a volume of 2.1958E10 km^3.
From your calculations, the great lakes have a volume of 22,560 km^3. Therefore, the volume of the great lakes times the number of books in the library of congress is 6.5424E11 km^3.
If we add this volume to the volume of the moon, the volume of our new moon is 6.76198E11 km^3. Assuming the new moon takes on a spherical shape, we can get the new radius of the moon by using the formula for the volume of a sphere, V=4/3r^3. Therefore, we deduce that the new radius is 7,974.65km.
Further assuming that the moon as it exists now settles in the center of this new waterworld relatively undisturbed, with it's mean radius remaining at 1,737.10km, we can calculate the mean depth of the water on the moon as 6237.55km.