...I don't think people who have very solid computers will be able to enjoy this expansion pack. My pc always starts to run real slow when I hit the rennaissance/industrial age, so a game that starts there is prolly nothing for me.
These are of course assumptions, because I don't know what they mean with aiming at the post gunpowder era.

...I don't think people who have very solid computers will be able to enjoy this expansion pack. My pc always starts to run real slow when I hit the rennaissance/industrial age, so a game that starts there is prolly nothing for me.
These are of course assumptions, because I don't know what they mean with aiming at the post gunpowder era.

How much RAM do you have (as Civ IV is almost entirely reliant on a good chunk of RAM to run smoothly in the later game)? The slowdown is generally due to your PC having to use harddisc space as virtual RAM (much slower than physical RAM)...

A temporary fix, is to completely quit out of the game every couple of hours, then reload. This helps somewhat in speeding the later game.

I have 256Mb of Ram ( I know, yet it works ), but that's not the point.
If others like me with a slow computer have the same problem, and the game starts where the problems begin, than this game will not be worth buying.

I have 256Mb of Ram ( I know, yet it works ), but that's not the point.
If others like me with a slow computer have the same problem, and the game starts where the problems begin, than this game will not be worth buying.

Right, I see. No offence intended, but Im surprised you can get CIv to even run properly at all. The min system requirements (if Firaxis were being honest ) should be 512 MB, and recommended should be 1 gig, (thats both double of what it says on the box)....

To play huge maps, you really need 1.5 gig plus.

...I don't think people who have very solid computers will be able to enjoy this expansion pack. My pc always starts to run real slow when I hit the rennaissance/industrial age, so a game that starts there is prolly nothing for me.
These are of course assumptions, because I don't know what they mean with aiming at the post gunpowder era.

That's called technological progress...what good would a game be if all they did was make it for the lowest tech people who would want to buy it?

They make it as best they can, and then tell people what they need in order to play the game...of course, they generally claim you need less than you truly do, but the point is that if your computer can't handle it...then upgrade something. It isn't the game makers' fault if your computer can't run it and you don't want to upgrade.

You shouldn't be running Windows XP with just 256MB of RAM, much less any games that are more complex than Solitaire!

Gotta agree with the OP - they need to assume some minimum spec level or we would still be playing games designed to run on a 33Mhz processor and 640K of RAM.

Just to check I went to newegg.com - most 256MB memmory modules were around $20. Assuming you have an open slot you could double your memmory (and ability to play this game) for probably less than they are going to charge for the xpac.

Everything else is running fine on my pc (internet, programs,...) , so I would consider myself a real dumbass if I were to upgrade my pc merely for 1 game...

I think the point being: You posted that you won't buy the xpac because it focuses on an era where you computer usually bogs down, late in the game with lots of units/moves requiring the use of virtual memory.

Fair enough, you have that right - but what most people seem to be saying is that IF you want to play it you have to upgrade - and for a modest cost at that - I wouldnt reccommend buying a new $3000 computer to play one game - although some people DO that.

Well while the game seems to be post gunpowder age... it does seem to add alot for pre gunpowder age too. Some of the wonders are earlymid game from the looks, also is expanding spying and dip early on as well.

It seems to be making alot of late game options available sooner for people like us with those slow computers ;)

well i wonder if they will keep this in mind when creating it?

the late game runs slow for me too because I play Civ on a laptop, but I hope to get a new desktop before BTS comes out :D

Since "Beyond the Sword" will be aiming at the post gunpowder-era...

Is that what the title means? Damn, and I thought us peace-players were finally getting some love. :(

Is that what the title means? Damn, and I thought us peace-players were finally getting some love. :(

Firaxis isn't clear on this, post gunpowder can mean a lot, but prolly that there are a few techs or stn that are added after the gunpowder tech (or units after the musketman). If they want to please the "peace-players" as well, the might also add a post-gunpowder building or two, but as I said in one of my first posts, these are all mere assumptions...

Is that what the title means? Damn, and I thought us peace-players were finally getting some love. :(

I do think that "Beyond the Sword" is a reference to peace, not gunpowder. Saying something with "the sword" is sort of like saying something with "the fist", which, of course, requires less technology than a sword. "He rules with an iron fist," simply means that a leader is harsh or cruel, just like if a leader were described as, "His best friend is his sword," then you'll realize that he is warlike, a phrase that could still be used and would still have meaning today (though sword would likely be replaced with gun). Also, when somebody wants to pick a fight, and they try to get another person to join in, the more civilized person will reply, "I'm beyond fighting." This refers to peace, and in the end, I think the title plays on a similar phrase. This maybe isn't the best analogy, but I hope you see my point here.

Now, there will, of course, be several things added to the late game. This is evident in the concept art, in which we see a sort of glass dome surrounding a city, with turrets around the glass dome. Obviously, this is future-tech, and in the same picture we see several modern-tech buildings. However, when we take a look at the features, everything other than the extended space race victory applies to the early game just as much as it applies to the late game, if not more. Most of the civilizations that people think are going to be added are civilizations that were most powerful before or during the Egyptian times, and these civilizations obviously won't have unique buildings or units that are meant for the late game. Furthermore, that futuristic dome that is in the concept art, and the extended space race victory... what are those? Peaceful. The dome is meant for protection, and the extended space race is a means to achieve victory without warfare. This, again, brings me back to the point that the title refers to peace, and not modern-tech or higher, given the large amount of features that will be present in the game earlier on.

All in all, even without getting past the Industrial Era, I feel that this expansion will add quite a bit of depth to the game. You will see spys, the early UN building, better AI, civilian requests/random events, and, of course, new civilizations. So regardless of whether you can't run the game into the late era, I feel that you'll easily be able to reap the benefits of this expansion pack.

Everything else is running fine on my pc (internet, programs,...) , so I would consider myself a real dumbass if I were to upgrade my pc merely for 1 game...

maybe so, but the point is that game companies can't cater to the desire of people with old computers to leave them alone and not upgrade.

If you think about it this way...the expansion pack will likely be $30. Doubling your RAM would cost you maybe $20-30 bucks. Doing so would greatly reduce the amount of time it takes for all your other programs and your web browser to load, and allow you to have more active at a time...while making it so that you can play later in the current versions of Civ and in BtS.

I would personally find that to be a no-brainer...but then again, since I build my own PCs I never would have started out with 256MB in the first place...if I were to build one now, I'd start with 2GB to ensure I'd have plenty for the next 3-5 years.

I would personally find that to be a no-brainer...but then again, since I build my own PCs I never would have started out with 256MB in the first place...if I were to build one now, I'd start with 2GB to ensure I'd have plenty for the next 3-5 years.

Five yrs ago these were my thoughts exactly, when 256Mb was more than enough

Five yrs ago these were my thoughts exactly, when 256Mb was more than enough

Well fuzzz you are right. They commited a grave injustice by lying on the box . But remember most of those involved in the scam have been punished. You must forgive and forget and by a 512 stick . THis way you will be somewhat ready for other games you might enjoy in the future.

ALso you can enjoy Civ4 more by playing Epic movie themes from 300 to Braveheart or Last of the Mochicans all by playing Winamp thats possible now with your cheap upgrade. Ditching the sleepy Civ4 soundtrack or mybe readin a website while you wait for your turn are other benifits to you uprgrade.

If I were you Id be hoping they find ways to minimize the graphics horrible effects on gameplay. THe "Conquests" X pak did exactly this for CIv3's boring waits between turns. Mybe some sloppy programming can be corrected this time aswell

btw hows your video card? Mybe that would be upgraded cheaper. I can bet its not onboard or else you would have a black screen,just an idea sometimea goo video card can make this difference with this game

why is the idea of upgrading your computer to play a game the height of craziness for some people?

btw hows your video card? Mybe that would be upgraded cheaper. I can bet its not onboard or else you would have a black screen,just an idea sometimea goo video card can make this difference with this game

2 yrs ago I upgraded my 10 yrs old videocard to a more recent one. This one does the job very good, thank you:)

@mrt144 ^ This is not the height of craziness to me, but to me it would just be a waste of money if you were to spend a whole lot of money on pc-parts, just for one single game (knowing that your pc is running every other program, application... fine).

Everything else is running fine on my pc (internet, programs,...) , so I would consider myself a real dumbass if I were to upgrade my pc merely for 1 game...What if you really liked that game? I consider myself a bit lazy for not upgrading to improve the performance of the game I play hours each week.

Five yrs ago these were my thoughts exactly, when 256Mb was more than enough

well, five years from now I won't be upset I need to upgrade my 5 year old RAM to play a game...I'd be more upset if games hadn't improved to the point that I needed to.

Well fuzzz you are right. They commited a grave injustice by lying on the box . But remember most of those involved in the scam have been punished. You must forgive and forget and by a 512 stick . THis way you will be somewhat ready for other games you might enjoy in the future.

ALso you can enjoy Civ4 more by playing Epic movie themes from 300 to Braveheart or Last of the Mochicans all by playing Winamp thats possible now with your cheap upgrade. Ditching the sleepy Civ4 soundtrack or mybe readin a website while you wait for your turn are other benifits to you uprgrade.

If I were you Id be hoping they find ways to minimize the graphics horrible effects on gameplay. THe "Conquests" X pak did exactly this for CIv3's boring waits between turns. Mybe some sloppy programming can be corrected this time aswell

he's not talking about lying about the minimum specs(he's running it on lower than minimum XP specs!!)...and its not a scam, nor was anyone punished...its standard practice to say what you need to play the game...its also standard practice to pretend that nothing else will ever be using up the RAM or cpu or anything when they quote those specs.

Also, using winamp takes more memory than using the in-game custom music folder...if you don't like the soundtrack, use the in-game custom music folder options.

Finally, the graphics aren't having any bad impacts on pameplay, all stability issues for most computers that meet the requirements to play the game pretty much were wiped out by the patches.

@mrt144 ^ This is not the height of craziness to me, but to me it would just be a waste of money if you were to spend a whole lot of money on pc-parts, just for one single game (knowing that your pc is running every other program, application... fine).

if $20-30 bucks to double the amount of your RAM and improve every aspect of your computer experience is a whole lot of money, why are you spending $50 bucks on a computer game in the first place?

What if you really liked that game? I consider myself a bit lazy for not upgrading to improve the performance of the game I play hours each week.

I never said I wasn't lazy

he's not talking about lying about the minimum specs(he's running it on lower than minimum XP specs!!)...and its not a scam, nor was anyone punished...
No one was punished? OK I can't prove they were beacause most news was unrelated stock scamming but the boardroom was still emptied, the lead desingner did unexpectedly quit and Civ4 sufferd unprecedent tech troubles and dismal Warlord sales before that. It may be coincidence your right(not sarcastic) THe misleading specs wasn't based on what the OP said except to say," hey! the box lied man! Players with better systems then yours have had to go higher a long time ago because of it and now They are ready for the new Xpak and can only hope it dosn't set them back again with more slowdowns "( I think it won't, if it does its a death nail for a lot of players).

Also, using winamp takes more memory than using the in-game custom music folder...if you don't like the soundtrack, use the in-game custom music folder options.
The in-game folder is way harder to straighten playlists out on and it does add slowdowns to computers like the OPS(check CIv4's amount on the process function before and after you rig up 30 songs to the main file) .

Theres nothing wrong with using winamp early on. Its let you skip songs repeat, rewind have multi playlists to choice from. Its far better.
Late game is slow no mater what you use so mind aswell get used to and have solid tunes ready on a whim to cope with. If you knew how much memory Civ4 keeps stacking up after a while, youd know winamp is a insignificant to worsning gameplay at the point

Finally, the graphics aren't having any bad impacts on pameplay, all stability issues for most computers that meet the requirements to play the game pretty much were wiped out by the patches.
Oh, Ok so large maps or using many civs or playing average #Civs into the late age have no negative impact aslong as your pacthed up? WOuld you like a few thousands links that dispute this?. not one of them has the guy stating he has 256mb thats for sure. Most are wondering why there 1000mb and on up with latest g card is dragging on. Ya its the graphics all right you might try believeing it by playing one of the other Civ games one day. :)

Upgrading your RAM is one of the cheapest things that can be done to improve performance... It's worth it just to get your computer running better all around.

A gig of RAM costs, what, eighty dollars Canadian?

if $20-30 bucks to double the amount of your RAM and improve every aspect of your computer experience is a whole lot of money, why are you spending $50 bucks on a computer game in the first place?

That's still $20-30 more, just for one lousy game, isn't it?

It remains to be seen if the game is lousy. I think that is the deciding factor.

No one was punished? OK I can't prove they were beacause most news was unrelated stock scamming but the boardroom was still emptied, the lead desingner did unexpectedly quit and Civ4 sufferd unprecedent tech troubles and dismal Warlord sales before that. It may be coincidence your right(not sarcastic) THe misleading specs wasn't based on what the OP said except to say," hey! the box lied man! Players with better systems then yours have had to go higher a long time ago because of it and now They are ready for the new Xpak and can only hope it dosn't set them back again with more slowdowns "( I think it won't, if it does its a death nail for a lot of players).

ok...you're talking about Take2, not about Firaxis and the Civilization team...Take2's issues have nothing to do with their games, they have to do with being idiots that tried to do lots of illegal stuff with stocks, finances, and other things. The specs posted on the game box are accurate...if you don't have anything else running(including an OS), that's how they are misleading...and everyone does it, its SOP.


The in-game folder is way harder to straighten playlists out on and it does add slowdowns to computers like the OPS(check CIv4's amount on the process function before and after you rig up 30 songs to the main file) .

Theres nothing wrong with using winamp early on. Its let you skip songs repeat, rewind have multi playlists to choice from. Its far better.
Late game is slow no mater what you use so mind aswell get used to and have solid tunes ready on a whim to cope with. If you knew how much memory Civ4 keeps stacking up after a while, youd know winamp is a insignificant to worsning gameplay at the point

The in-game folder doesn't really have a playlist...it just takes up less memory than using Civ AND winamp. You act as if I'm clueless about what I'm saying...I know exactly how much memory Civ uses...and I know that using winamp in addition to Civ uses more memory than just using Civ(obviously...) I also like winamp, I just don't use it when playing a game that has customizable music because then it uses more of my memory.

Oh, Ok so large maps or using many civs or playing average #Civs into the late age have no negative impact aslong as your pacthed up? WOuld you like a few thousands links that dispute this?. not one of them has the guy stating he has 256mb thats for sure. Most are wondering why there 1000mb and on up with latest g card is dragging on. Ya its the graphics all right you might try believeing it by playing one of the other Civ games one day. :)

Slowdown on later maps is common and will never get better...I said STABILITY issues are gone for the most part, on the machines that meet the requirements.

I've played every civ game, every one of them lagged in the later games when playing with bigger maps(except Civ2 and Civ1). Its not the graphics causing it, the graphics use up memory, but a big part of it slowing down in the late game is the sheer amount of information the game is trying to keep track of. Sure, lowering the graphics helps, but you'll still have lag with graphics set as low as possible...its the size of the game that makes it so that it will likely never go away.

I aso like winamp, but since I know my pc wouldn't be able to handle both winamp and cIV, I turn on the radio in my room.

...Its not the graphics causing it, the graphics use up memory, but a big part of it slowing down in the late game is the sheer amount of information the game is trying to keep track of. Sure, lowering the graphics helps, but you'll still have lag with graphics set as low as possible...its the size of the game that makes it so that it will likely never go away.

I concur completely. Graphics card (unlike most pc games) is utterly unimportant (as long as its compatable) to gameplay speed in CIV IV. I have a completely basic graphics card, but recently upgraded from 1GB to 2GB RAM.

The game used to lag terribly on huge maps post Astronomy, now it doesn't at all (with the exception TA Jones noted, that there is still a pretty horrific memory leak if you play the game for hours on end, this can be shown to be true by just saving, completely quitting out of the game, and reloading. It disappears immediately.....didn't I say that in post #2 of this thread ;) )

I find the game to be very stable now, with just one "memory allocation bug" which occasionally occurs when the game incorrectly allocates memory to an autosave file, and crashes the game. Reloading a previously autosave has always worked in this case, with no reoccurance of the bug.

I'll state again, the Civ IV is possibly the most RAM hungry pc game yet made, to play smoothly you need a decent sized chunk.

Ive got no real quims with what you just said. First, Im guessin You havn't played Civ3 with that same computer you use to floss Civ4. THings change those annoyin waits are down to about 30 seconds tops for maps ranging mega "huge" with 400-500 cities to mybe a minute if lots of citys are taken over in one turn by chance. (Im talkin with a 3.2 processor. IN CIv3 memory past 512mb dosn't make much differnce for those turn times if you got a seprate videocard and a 3.0 proc.
Nowadays the game looks like this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=218602). Its faster but uses better graphics with more units,techs yada yada . Hows that work? you know? Im hoping Civ4 can pull of the same with its new Xpak. Its possible if the graphics can be programmed to demand less

its the size of the game that makes it so that it will likely never go away.
To me logic says the larger map has more graphics more trees swayin in breeze more fish jumpin in the seas, more fruit fallin from the trees. More 3d tiles zoomin in an out, more clouds floatin about. More animations more static graphics more more more 3D.

About Winny, I didn't mean to belittle you sorry . Winamp is a reward for upgrading thats what I said to the OP . IM not sure why you deny this and suggest adding the files to the Civ4 folder instead in a ideal solution. THe wide erray of listening options and newbie friendly playlist freedoms plus easy access in game options makes it the only choice when you got update to the rolls royce(which is needed anyway to play CIv4 flawlessly).

Like you say, you know how much the Winamp takes in the process screen compared to Civ4 in midgame after say, 30 turns of mem pileup. Its nothin right?. Its better if you close a half dozen other useless processes using this guide of Whats whatthen it is to sacrifice good tunes on demand that amek the wait bearable.
Civ4's 'programming' ... and graphics ;) have you waiting anyway. You mine aswell use a smidgen of space for better times while you wait . I Mean after you work out the difference those same songs would holdup running from your Civ4 in-game folder, its huge benift for the small cost of mem to use what Winamp brings to the table while your forced to wait on CIv4's space wasting problems

Ohya Sorry for going on so
T.A

Ive got no real quims with what you just said. First, Im guessin You havn't played Civ3 with that same computer you use to floss Civ4. THings change those annoyin waits are down to about 30 seconds tops for maps ranging mega "huge" with 400-500 cities to mybe a minute if lots of citys are taken over in one turn by chance. (Im talkin with a 3.2 processor. IN CIv3 memory past 512mb dosn't make much differnce for those turn times if you got a seprate videocard and a 3.0 proc.
Nowadays the game looks like this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=218602). Its faster but uses better graphics with more units,techs yada yada . Hows that work? you know? Im hoping Civ4 can pull of the same with its new Xpak. Its possible if the graphics can be programmed to demand less

Actually, I played Civ3 on a better computer(shortly after getting Civ4, my video card died and I've been using a lower spec laptop ever since). The reason it is faster than Civ4 now(although last I played Civ3, about a year ago) it took longer between turns than Civ4 does for me right now. It works because they used established, old technology. It isn't that it demands less, it is that technology has advanced to make the same demands seem proportionally less.

To me logic says the larger map has more graphics more trees swayin in breeze more fish jumpin in the seas, more fruit fallin from the trees. More 3d tiles zoomin in an out, more clouds floatin about. More animations more static graphics more more more 3D.

Not quite, it is that the larger the map, the more memory is required to remember everything. No matter how big the world is, the screen shows the same amount of graphics...the slowdown is due to memory allocation for the stuff off-screen and that the AIs and civs are doing. When you zoom way out, yeah you'll have more slowdown due to graphics, but you can't play zoomed out to that point. At any point you can play, the memory requirements are the slowdown.

About Winny, I didn't mean to belittle you sorry . Winamp is a reward for upgrading thats what I said to the OP . IM not sure why you deny this and suggest adding the files to the Civ4 folder instead in a ideal solution. THe wide erray of listening options and newbie friendly playlist freedoms plus easy access in game options makes it the only choice when you got update to the rolls royce(which is needed anyway to play CIv4 flawlessly).

Like you say, you know how much the Winamp takes in the process screen compared to Civ4 in midgame after say, 30 turns of mem pileup. Its nothin right?. Its better if you close a half dozen other useless processes using this guide of Whats whatthen it is to sacrifice good tunes on demand that amek the wait bearable.
Civ4's 'programming' ... and graphics ;) have you waiting anyway. You mine aswell use a smidgen of space for better times while you wait . I Mean after you work out the difference those same songs would holdup running from your Civ4 in-game folder, its huge benift for the small cost of mem to use what Winamp brings to the table while your forced to wait on CIv4's space wasting problems

Ohya Sorry for going on so
T.A

Agreed regarding the music advantages of Winamp, but I'm not talking about the relative amount either, I'm talking about the total memory taken ;) If civ takes up 200MB of RAM and I use the in-game music...I'm using up 200MB of RAM, but if I am also using Winamp, I'm now using about 210MB...maybe not a big deal, but it can hamper the later game. I just use playlists that I don't care what song comes up next(movie soundtracks/Final Fantasy music...its all good) and my music actually doesn't hang while waiting for the turn to finish.

Why is Civ4's programming more time-consuming? Simple...because they wrote the entire game in C++ and Python....including the graphics engine. Why? To make it easier to mod. It makes it run slower than using a licenced graphics engine or using a different language than C++ and Python.

If anything, it is the fault of the modders for wanting a more accessible framework ;)

I have a piece of crap vidcard in my laptop (who doesnt? :P ), and the game was slow. I bought a meg of ram for around 50 dollars. It was a GREAT investment.

1. The game worked fine up to standard size endwar, then lagged a little.

2. Everything my computer did, and I mean everything from booting to surfing the web, got MUCH faster.

3. Everything was much more better.

If I wasn't so lazy, or concerned about the additional heat generated, I'd upgrade the cards again.



Sorry, peaceniks, but it does not seem that the expansion focuses on peace.
(Source: http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/beyondthesword/)
"The expansion will focus on the late-game time periods after the invention of gunpowder and will deliver 12 challenging and decidedly different scenarios created by the development team at Firaxis Games, as well as some esteemed members of the Civilization Fan Community. Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword will also include 10 new civilizations, 16 new leaders, 5 new wonders, and a variety of new units that will offer even more fun and exciting ways for players to expand their civilization's power as they strive for world domination."
(Source: http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/beyondthesword/)


Don't go crying in your granola just yet, I've read about earlier espionage and other peace (so-called) stuff.


Damn those modders.

It´s better to be 3-4 years behind the technological progress. Then you will get everything cheap. I usually buy games from 2002-2004 at the moment. They work on my computer and are cheap.

2007 games I will be able to play around 2010-2011. Looking forward to it! :D

Fuzz, I would suggest buying a 512MB stick of RAM if youare short on cash. Buying another 256 isn't going to last you long until you have to go buy more. It may look cheaper now but it isn't. If you are going to commit money towards RAM, you should really buy either a 512, or better a Gig stick. As each step up is actually more useful and requires you to buy RAM again soon the less you spend.

I run on 760MB of RAM and I can play Huge maps to the end. But my video card is PCI-E 256MB. So it is really carrying me through it, not my ram. I still get slowdown in the late game of course but we are talking about 60-120 secs for it to come back to being my turn.

The thing is, running at 256 - you won't be upgrading for just 1 game. If you go shopping for games you will quickly find you don't meet the specs to ANY new games coming out. You won't be able to run alot of games that have been out for over a couple years.
Alot of games now require an AGP because we have entered the world of 3-D graphics. Any game that requires 256 RAM also requires no video card for the most part. Now with PCI-E coming out AGP will slowly be outdated in the next few years. All new machines that come out now always have at least 512MB of RAM. Most places that allow you to build your own PC only allow you to go as low as 1 512MB stick on ram. I know because I usually skimp on RAM when I buy PCs because they overcharge for it most places when it comes pre-built. Usually when buying a pre-built I just pay attention to the mobo and processor. Sometimes HD because partitioning is a pain in the ass.

It´s better to be 3-4 years behind the technological progress. Then you will get everything cheap. I usually buy games from 2002-2004 at the moment. They work on my computer and are cheap.

2007 games I will be able to play around 2010-2011. Looking forward to it! :D
Heh, this is usually my strategy as well. If you buy games after their sequels come out, they are usually 50-75% off.
Some games are worth getting asap, though.

To play huge maps, you really need 1.5 gig plus.

Not true, I have only 1 gig of RAM and huge maps run just about as well as large maps. (of course I have a video card with 512 megs of video memory, that might have something to do with it) :)

Not true, I have only 1 gig of RAM and huge maps run just about as well as large maps. (of course I have a video card with 512 megs of video memory, that might have something to do with it) :)

BTW I don't think BTS you will start out the same as the late games in CIv 4, I mean all the units, trade routes, and diplomacy checks, that's what takes a while in the game. I don't think you'll start with as many of this threads open in BTS

OOPS Double post

I really don't think that system requirements are going to hurt sales of the xpack significantly. Compared to many current games the requirements are pretty tame. The OP has stated that he doesn't want to upgrade his computer for one game but if you want play any game that is currently being released you will need a more powerful system. Many people aren't interested in using their computer to play games and for internet and word processing 256mb will probably get you by (although I would guess that overall performance will improve if you upgrade the memory).

It is simply unreasonable to expect that current releases will run nicely (or at all) with 256mb RAM. Firaxis doesn't want to get panned in the reviews for having terrible graphics that are generations too old. Vista requires at least 512mb and most reviews seem to indicate that you really should have 2gb for it.

My point = don't blame software manufactures for not catering to out of date computers when you are in the minority. Either suck it up and upgrade or don't buy the game just realize you aren't going to get a lot of sympathy.

Compared to many current games the requirements are pretty tame.
This is not true. Civ 4 is at the top of the list as far as reqs go. Unless you go off of the ones on the box but they are a lie. The RAM requirements on the box should be doubled in truth and the video card requirement should also be raised.


The OP has stated that he doesn't want to upgrade his computer for one game but if you want play any game that is currently being released you will need a more powerful system. Many people aren't interested in using their computer to play games and for internet and word processing 256mb will probably get you by (although I would guess that overall performance will improve if you upgrade the memory).
I agree with all this though. A friend of mine has an ancient computer that all he uses it for is word processing, basic spreadsheets, basic internet (java and minor flash programs), and MS poker. He is convinced he needs duo core processing whenever we get on the topic of computers. I can't seem to convince him he is fine.

It is simply unreasonable to expect that current releases will run nicely (or at all) with 256mb RAM. Firaxis doesn't want to get panned in the reviews for having terrible graphics that are generations too old. Vista requires at least 512mb and most reviews seem to indicate that you really should have 2gb for it.
Well, as true as this statement is it did make me laugh. The graphics in Civ 4 really are pretty bad. Alot of the modders on these forums actually do better on graphic design than Firaxis did with this graphics engine. However, the point is a better graphics engine always requires more reqs as you say.

Heh, that's strange. I have 248 MB of RAM but it works pretty smoothly till the save game size reaches 150 KB. That means duel maps are a dream for me.
But still, I want to be able to play large and huge!!! Alas, a 12 year old can hardly influence his parents to buy 256 more MB of RAM.

Also, someone earlier said you need at least 512 to play any new game, that is especially true for Sims 2 and AOE 3!

This is not true. Civ 4 is at the top of the list as far as reqs go. Unless you go off of the ones on the box but they are a lie. The RAM requirements on the box should be doubled in truth and the video card requirement should also be raised.



I guess it depends what you compare it to. Compared to game like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. the requirements:

AMD Athlon 64x2 4800+ or Intel Core 2 Duo, 1Gb RAM, 3D Hardware Accelerator Card Required - 100% DirectXR 9.0c compatible 256MB

is what their web site recommends. So compared to something like that I consider the civ IV requirements tame. My laptop can easily run civ IV but I wouldn't even think of trying something like stalker on it.

Hi guys, this was the last post on the forum so I'd thought I'd keep the thread alive...but anyway, most of the stuff in BtS doesn't focus on post gunpowder, etc. so you're good...

You need integrated circuits now, vacuum tubes just don't cut it anymore with the new games coming out.

I played Civ4 with 1G of RAM and it ran fine for the most part. My new comp right now has 4G but I'm not really interested in playing Civ4 until the xpac comes out.

I have 256Mb of Ram ( I know, yet it works ), but that's not the point.
If others like me with a slow computer have the same problem, and the game starts where the problems begin, than this game will not be worth buying.

Jeez, 256MB RAM in 2007, that's cruel. Buy a new PC, or at least +1GB RAM. 256 is hardly enough for windows and office programs, but not for games!!

Kael's Speed Mod has given me a MASSIVE boost in game speed running the game at 512 RAM and a 3GHz processor. I imagine he'll come up with another mod for BTS, because it's pretty damn good.

I can't be the only one who basically depends on new releases of Civ to upgrade is computer.

Civ I - my computer was good enough already
Civ II - installed Windows 95 for the first time
Civ III - bought new hardware
(my wife bought a new computer when we got married) added
Civ IV - added RAM and bought a compatible graphics card (from a friend)

Yes, everything else runs fine, but Civ is THE game I play on my computer, so if that requires inexpensive and reasonable upgrades.... I do it.

yeah, it sucks in later turns.

It should be optimised somewhat.
When it gets close to the 20th century the game really starts to bog down, need to wait 20 to 30 seconds sometimes between turns (on huge).
And now there are even more turns in the game.

I thought it was cpu-limited, but it's more of a RAM-case? (cpu = Core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86ghz)

But upgrading RAM helps? (Even though I (only) have 2Gb now).