Recent content by mrspank

That makes perfect sense. However, I think the game should allow you to delete unfinished districts that have no buildings.

I have a library that I started (see screenshot) but didn't spend a single turn of production on (I changed my mind after I selected it). Does that block building other districts or something? I can build other buildings like the altar, garden and saw pit. So why not the fishing quay? UPDATE...

I'm playing as the Aksumite and have researched sailing. My main city directly borders 2 navigable rivers and has a total of 4 within its borders. I'm unable to build a Fishing Quay or a Dhow. This is super frustrating. Here's a screenshot. Does anyone know why I can't build a Fishing Quay?

Playing a Terra map with Dido on King level. It's 1745 and not a single other civ has tried to settle the new large continent. Anyone else had a problem with the AI on Terra?

Definitely get Civ4. It's far superior to Civ3 in all respects. You won't regret it. For starters, the entire trading system has been overhauled and is much better than Civ3.

I'm sorry, but could you name some of the 1,000 other ways? You must have not played a lot of multiplayer Internet gaming before. Because if you had, you would realize that many, many people cannot be trusted in multiplayer games. That's why many games have all sorts of different ways of...

Wrong. Atheism, by its very definition, indicates an absence of belief in deities. Thus, spiritualism wouldn't apply to an atheist either. You may not like the way the word atheist is defined, but that is the definition. Perhaps you were thinking of an agnostic person. Here are the...

Since atheism is actually the disbelief of the existence of a deity or deities, and religion is the practice of worshipping a deity or deities, how can atheism be a religion?! Think about it.

The difference being that you could catch players stealing cash in a board game setting and confront them. You wouldn't have that luxury in Civ4 and you probably wouldn't even know that they cheated. The point is that because that exploit existed, you could never be sure that your opponents...

I believe this bug was fixed in the 1.09 patch.

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't realize that my opponent could attack my bombers if he has open borders with that third party nation. Now that I think about it, that makes perfect sense. Ack is right!

Eliminating a city's defenses via air unit is much quicker than using artillery. You simply build the bombers in your homeland and rebase them into any nation with which you have open borders. So even if you're on opposite continents, you can quickly strike your opponents defenses using air...

Why are you assuming that only the macemen are sneaky? If the machinegunners were sneaky, they'd let the macemen enter the city, then gun them down from fortified positions. In any case, if everything else was equal, a machinegunner unit would never lose to a macemen unit.

In that case I don't really think #1 is an issue. The manual clearly states that those units are for defense only and cannot attack.

What's an MG-unit? I liked the comment about the war elephants. :lol: You're right, there's no way a war elephant should be able to attack helicopters.