Recent content by funat

if it can - it's totaly real. remember USS Cole (a warship) or Iranian speedboats loaded with explosives. barbarians in modern era are equivalent to guerillas or terrorist orgs - not some poor mthfcks with bows and arrows.

But America is not annexing no one. Take Libya or Iraq (or Japan or Central America puppet states) - it's all classic resource wars with puppet governments. They certainly did (will not in the case of Libya) not ANNEX them. During the making of USA - they razed native settlements. So CIV5 is...

well - WW2 was a war of civilizations. it was not some local skirmish. it WAS fought on the whole globe with CIVILIZATIONS as key players. so PG style is absulutely OK. I personally like PG, and if CiV implements this combat model with all the needed compromises - it will be great.

look into PG for an answer. it's all there - main roads and 1UPT.

i think there is a much broader issue with all the roads in previous civs. it's war tactics for example. in warfare you almost always have a push through main roads, and if you want to make a flanking, it is going to cost you. when you have roads that connect cities - you will have to block...

SMAC concepts of upgrading to a newer unit with each new tech would be great. For example you have a jet plane Mig21 - you discover radars, you upgrade it to Mig21B and add some points to areas relative to its new upgrade (visibility or initiative). So combining core units with tech upgrades...

OMG, not again :(

stacking, minimaps and tactical maps are a step back. i really get sad when people cannot see the reality of a CIV to come is actually very high. To prepare an attack on another civ, it DOES take years to group and prepare an army. To move your units as a replacement of a tired/decimated unit -...

1. I agree. Finally. Some bonuses OK, but trading?? It NEVER happened (for some realist fans) 2. Great 3. Well - we'll see about that yet. Religions are ok. 4. This is OK - but let us see it in practice. To few cities on the map may be bad consequence. 5. I couldn't care less. 6. Great. A...

Exactly. It's just-in-time downsizing of a strategic map - which now holds tactical information about a RELATIVE position between enemy units - not distance - but relation (in-front-of, behind, from-side). So hard to understand for "realism" fans.

This is getting sooooooooooooooooo annoying. Why can't you people understand that Civilization iz creating a battlefield tactical map from a strategic map by virtually downsizing tiles to logical field units? It's so simple and great as a solution! It's way better then strategic/tactital...

Thanx. I'll try to find, altough I did wonder a bit... I am interested where exactly is that(destroying of cities) defined so I could change it.

Somehow, the idea of vanishing the entire empire just by killing a king or a queen is not one of my favorites. I thought it would be something like when I kill a king, his empire will fall into barbarian hands(the rest of his cities), or split on two parts. First loyal to the goverment in...