Recent content by Cyde Weys

I voted for Civ I because it was revolutionary; the other entrants in the series, despite being very good, are merely evolutionary. Plus, there's a childhood nostalgia factor heavily at play here. When Civ I came out I was only 6, and I couldn't beat it at the higher difficulty levels...

My last game was a Pangaea type map with two "continents" that were connected by a 1-tile land bridge. I quickly expanded and took over the smaller of the two continents, but I never started grabbing the other one until the end of the game. My continent was entirely lacking in iron, aluminum...

Once you get that far down into the unhappiness hole, you generally don't have a choice but to continue with conquest. Either finish everyone off or die.

I was playing Civ V (late) last night. It was turn 470. I had just polished off the Egyptians, finished up my turn, and hit the "Next Turn" button. The game almost immediately crashed to desktop. I didn't feel like dealing with it last night, so I just turned off the PC and went to bed...

Actually, no, arrows are not more aerodynamic. I looked up the ballistics coefficient of bullets versus arrows and there's roughly an order of magnitude difference. Reading the relevant Wikipedia article is instructive. Keep in mind bullets are constructed out of lead, which was chosen...

:( Projectiles lose energy due to air resistance, not gravity. If there were no air resistance, a bullet fired straight up would reach a maximum elevation some miles up, and then upon returning to the Earth, it would be traveling at exactly the same speed as when it was first fired upward...

It's a geometry thing.

City-state benefits only last for a certain number of turns though. And the turns themselves are scaled out in Marathon. Does that make sense? Or are they still not balanced?