To me, it means, each individual building (of structure or unit) go faster, the quantity and quality of everything get bigger and most importantly, the game won't end sooner.
To me you stopped making sense long ago, and I suspect you are into this discussion for the sake of arguing rather than discussing a valid topic. Ignoring this thread from now on.The interesting things in this discussion is, it doesn't rely on who says the truth to win.
1. In real world, supply and demand determine the price (not the actual value), and that is the case only if a government practise "free market economy" generally. In country that practise control-economy, it is another story.
2. In the issue of terrain transforming Vs rigid terrain system, the terrain type is in fact just an attribute one apply to a tile, just like a color you apply on a map. Color or terrain type are abstract attributes, or more precisely they only exist in human logic... so they don't have any economy value. It is the tile and the map, the subjects (that the attributes are being applied) that actually have value.
Lone Wolf is damn good in argueing... he manage to talk me to agree that gold and plastic are the "attributes" as in 2., but in fact they are not, they are the tile and map which I call them subjects. It is the bottle shape that is the attribute.
He nearly beat me on that.
Btw, I am glad to involve in discussion like this... and I am sorry I have to go now. (before it is too late)
I thought I have it clearly listed in my start off post...hclass:
What is it you expect from this thread
I myself have bad grammar in all my posts... can't you find any?when all you do is nitpicking every little bit of people's grammar and logic rather than discussing anything in-depth?
To me it is a matter of a glance in order to understand that simple kind of statement and its intention... you can't simply assume I don't understand because of the format I laid my reply, right?For example, you took the sentence one man's "obvious truth" is another man's "obvious falsehood." and then nitpick the logic behind it as if you do not even try to understand the logic of the statement in the context it was said in.
Why "Why?"?hclass:
...
Why?
I want
1. to be able to start playing with a reveal map, I find that more strategic. I don't mind I am marked cheater in the score page. Just give it an option (no MOD please)
2. to be able to do terrain transforming and do it quite quickly and easily. e.g. I can flatten a hill/mountain in less than 10 turns, dig a lake out on plain in 3 turns etc.
3. grab a joyful reward when I capture an opponent's city. For example, there will be no loss of population, earn one or more opponent's tech, grab some gold etc. i.e. make capturing an opponent city a real pleasure instead of a something sick and stinck that I need to repair/ wait for recovery.
4. to be able to count the number of cities in my empire... this seems minor feature, but I have never seen a counter column in city management view of Civ3 and Civ4... I remember I stop playing CIV4 (the last CIV4 game I play) because I was frustrated by the fact that it is so hard to count the total number of cities I have built + conquered...
Btw, I don't mind AI players are given all the same joys as above.
One last thing, could it be possible that I am also given a BIG RED button name - the GOD button, where when I am really depressed, say when I know I got no hope in winning a conquest victory (even though I am ahead of all the AI opponents), pressing that button will let me win immediately... (again I don't mind I am marked winner of GOD button on the score page)... ah ha ha
...
...
...
I wish CIV5 will achive the ultimate philosophy of computer game (give its player lot of joyful experience), meaning when I am allowed to do something, I can DO it to the maximum extend, at will... which really make me HAPPY!... instead of many of the "you can't do this and you can't do that because those are considered exploits", so many stupid restrictions being used as a measure to claim Civ game is very challenging...
Your ideas would make Civ 5 Worse if they were applied to the standard game.I am expecting to be heard by someone from Firaxis... and hopefully he can accept my requests to make Civ5 better.
Your ideas would make Civ 5 Worse if they were applied to the standard game.
I mean, wrt to those changes on the list.You are implying that those are the only changes between iterations of the game though if you say that saying that those changes were correct means saying that all changes done were correct.
I am sorry I can't see the absolute relation between "eaisness/difficulty in quest" and "its reward"I do not agree that any of these make it less rewarding to play - mostly since having some difficulty at achieving certain aims actually increases the reward of simply achieving that aim.
I actually think that the way Civ4 handles city capture needs fixing, because the cities you capture post-Macemen are swamped in your opponent's culture - a problem which in most cases can be solved only by annihilating your opponent.
It's easily solved by granting independance and creating a vassal state/colony.
Vassal states are badly implemented also. Firaxis placed too much in the "vassal" bag ("proper" vassal, dependent state, puppet government, (liberated?) colony).
I don't know that a multiplicity of categories would really be much of an improvement ...
So it is good to be an option ... and an option is very different from doing it with something like world builder. (both WB and options exist in CIV4, that prove they are for different use)Revealed map: ... Personally I find the starting exploration much more rewarding than knowing everything from the get go and I would have strong objections against a revealed map as the standard.
Simply put, playing a warmonger style does deserve same encouragement as playing in other styles.Rebels: ... It does help keeping warmongers in check a tad though when compared to non-warring players, personally I think there could be other ways of doing this though. What I would not support is having one play style be so vastly more promising than another that its not feasible to do things any other way.
Terraforming: Don't really think it would fit in well with anything but a modern/futuristic era game and quite frankly that era needs work anyways - though I do not think that at that point terraforming has any more or less of an effect than the bonus yields they implemented for certain improvements and/or techs. I don't think I would like a game were terraforming on a large scale would be possible in medieval times. Alpha Centauri really doesn't compare with the time frame depicted in the Civ games here - so while I like it in SMAC I wouldn't in most of the time frame of Civ
I don't want to argue about this. Just felt a great loss of the game, it used to have this great feature in the past.Rail unlimited moves: really mostly breaks the way military and especially defense should work ... I actually am very fond of this limitation (though one can argue about the exact nature of this limit).
I am dying to request for its removal in pre-CIV4 release discussion. I remember that was a real heavy debate until I am banned by moderators and since then left this forum until recently. I now confirm I was right at that time.Tech trading: ...
This is big issue (that can really be discussed in-depth).Wonder Race: not sure what you mean with ease:
The fault is not yours, it is mine.Reward: don't really understand what you mean by this
I don't want to argue about this. Just felt a great loss of the game, it used to have this great feature in the past.
So it is good to be an option ... and an option is very different from doing it with something like world builder. (both WB and options exist in CIV4, that prove they are for different use)
frankly a warmonger style has so much more reward than any other style already that I do not see how it needs to further encouraged. While there is some rubberband in place to prevent very excessive early expansion, warmongering still usually gets superior results than mostly builder type playstyles.Simply put, playing a warmonger style does deserve same encouragement as playing in other styles.
It tasted good in Alpha Centauri. Alpha Centauri is different from CIV only because there are only abstract symbolic icons for eveything (my feel)
And I have my own principle not to involve in any CIV discussion that is either:
1. Civ progress must go in accordant to history (whatever extend)
or
2. Civ elements must be homologous to real world (whatever extend)
related.
So no comment on how terraforming will work in era base.
This is big issue (that can really be discussed in-depth).
Simply put, a wonder race to me is not just to win in several wonders that I like, I mean all wonders (small wonders are exclusive).
I was so excited in playing the race until there come the limitation of you can NOT switch production of wonder... WTH! (I am sorry, I can't help)
Why don't they just forget about the limitation, I really don't mind they mark me as cheater in winning all Wonders...![]()