Search results

Well, he said "series of fairly simplistic scripts", that doesn't sound like very flexible scripts. And when you start making the scripts flexible, they soon stop being scripts at all, but rather rules, which is what ciV has today. I think we can all agree that the ciV AI rules could and...

Hi, I just started playing CiV for a bit again, and immediately started thinking of the one mod I would really like to have: A mod where the difficulty changes during the time of one game. I'm more of a builder than a warmonger, and really enjoy the early phases of CIV when I discover the...

True. One could just as well ask why one tile can only have farms or mines, but not both. Given how huge one tile is, if one try to fit them in the real world, it gets completely unrealistic that you cannot have all kind of terrain improvements on the same tile :crazyeye: So while it in one...

Now that is a complaint I can understand. What I don't understand (and this is not directed at you) is why people then complain about that single combat result, when the lack of realism is in seeing 2000-year old spearmen vs tanks in the first place.

I fully agree. People make a big issue about how unrealistic it is that a spearman can theoretically beat a tank, but fails to see the completely unrealistic setup of two of the world's main powers fighting tank vs 2000-year old spearmen. And in a game where there are 8 or so civs, even the...

Personally, having experience with tactical board war games when positioning, terrain and flanks matter, I think it will be a great improvement to get this into CIV, instead of just adding enough units of each necessary type to the SSOD. That's a good point. I remember back to the CIV3 random...

You mean like the horrible simplification of not having train or transport plane units, and having units able to transform into trains or transport planes? Yes, those features of CIV I-IV was truly simplistic and broken ;) Since it is a step closer to the land and air aspects, there is good...

I fail to see how this would improve anything, and not only make lot of things confusing/difficult. If you really think it would be an improvement, then I think you need to explain how you think it's supposed to work.

Don't you understand that voting for him is the only way of saying "we don't care", or that the "why is not Korea..." thread was enough. Maybe you should take a hint ;)

You haven't worked much at mastering the tech trading game, have you? In my opinion, turning off tech trading in Civ4 makes the game much harder. Generally, when playing on harder difficulty levels, the player gets behind in tech, but after having met all the other civs and got Alphabet, it is a...

Here's who I think should be the Spanish leaders, special units, and special buildings: .... That's right. As Spain is not in, I think it would be stupid to add any Spanish leaders, special units or buildings :lol: ...so please come back when Spain gets included in an expansion. :)

This seems like just another thread where many members gang up against one. To most viewers, the reason is of course quite obvious, but I'd like to add a few comments to davane: If you feel that the disadvantages of not being able to have straight NS and EW directions in hexes are bigger than...

And yet you conveniently ignore my proof of the opposite, even though I explicitely ask you to explain it. So I'll ask again. If they are the same, how come a horse unit can move 4 squares directly north in 2 turns by moving 2 NE then 2 NW, but the same unit cannot move 4 squares directly NE by...

Cerrtainly not. But if you shout even higher, it may help ;) No, they're not. If you move diagonally back and forth, you will discover more land in the same time, and if you attack diagonally, you will need to cross less squares of enemy land to reach the enemy city. Both because you move faster...

Because hexes gets rid of the unrealistic corner movement of squares. False. The main issue with squares is that the 8 directions aren't of the same type. 4 lets you cross a side to another square while 4 lets you cross a corner. The corners then let you move faster (by almost 50%), makes...

This sounds like a fine concept for a (one-) city simulation game, but while I like certain micromanagement with my CIV game, this looks like way too much mm, considering the tens of cities you have.

But as mitsho writes, what's the point? The only "advantage" you gain by multiple queues is that some of the builds are finished later than if you build one at the time. Here's an example: A city is making 20 hammers a turn. You want to build a wonder costing 300 hammers and one unit costing...

I don't see why you feel you have to repeat it. I think most of us understand what you want. It is just that many of us think your ideas would make the game worse. ...to which I vigorously disagree. Partly for game play reasons similar to those Psyringe writes - and partly due to realism...

hoopsnerd obviously misunderstood your post. I fully agree that you gave good examples of streakiness, but as I wrote in the post just above, such streakiness is expected of a good RNG. The question is whether it happens more than expected in CIV4, which I have no reason to believe. I...

True - and this testing can easily be done by anyone by using the World Builder. Also, If I'm not completely mistaken, the actual code is exposed, so anyone with a certain programming experience can check that there is no "isHuman()" code in the battle computation. I know that extensive...