I just wanted to say that while I'm glad that a patch is finally coming out, I'm going to miss the random computer reboots. They were the only thing keeping me from hopeless addiction. I'd be up late playing, my computer would reboot, and I'd go to bed.
Patch News!
- Thread starter Stuie
- Start date
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
The bow was known just about everywhere outside Australia at this time.gippy said:
Fox_Spy said:
It's funny, I was thinking the same thing. The crash to dektops were the only thing that was strong enough to FORCE me to stop CIVVING for the night.
Like clockwork, I'd get a CTD around midnight or 1:00 AM, after playing a few hours, and then use it as my rationale for stopping
To make horses "invisible" before husbandry is, well, sorta dumb.
BUT, to make you unable to HARVEST them before husbandry is, well, not.
So, the best solution would have been to make them visible, but not harvestable before animal husbandry...
Venger
BUT, to make you unable to HARVEST them before husbandry is, well, not.
So, the best solution would have been to make them visible, but not harvestable before animal husbandry...
Venger
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Venger said:
That's the way it is now and it needs to change to make MP meaningful. In a small 2 player game if I see that I have horses and you don't, I research AH ASAP and attack you with chariots guaranteed. You have a 50-50 chance of being able to put up a fight at all (if you immediately go for bronze working and have some copper close enough to hook up - if not you lose). The key is that half the time you lose out of the chute. I will have the initiative of knowing that I can attack you. I will also likely (read this as guaranteed) build my city right on the horse so that I can start cranking them the second the tech is available.
If it's invisible I don't know that I have horses so I might not choose AH, I might choose Bronze or even play defensive and go arrows (not likely in a MP game). Since neither of us know what the other guy (or ourselves) has immediately, we are on equal footing.
Note, this is somewhat simplified in that it doesn't take early UUs into account.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
What if chariots were unable to enter forests / jungle / hills (without roads)?
EDaddy said:
I know the "quest for realism" is kinda silly, but I think it'd add an interesting realistic twist if (say) cattle, horses, auraks, and zebras started off represented by a generic "4 footed large animal" icon on the map, and that they only differentiated themselves into "horses" (rideable) and "cattle"/"auraks"/"zebras" (unrideable) icons after horseback riding is discovered. After all, it's obvious even to a 4000bc settler that large herd animals are good for eatin' whether you know you can ride them or not!
Intruder13
Pave the way
Umhm. The Maasai tribe hunts Lions with spears. They trail the lion to exhaustion, surround it, and stab it to death with long spears. For a boy to become a man he has to grab the Lion by the tail while the others stab it.The Last Conformist said:
http://www.maasai-infoline.org/lion.html
There are some real old black and white Tarzan films that show them doing it.
jdurg
Warlord
The way I look at it, the resources are ALWAYS there on the map but don't show up until you learn how to use them. Like the oil. The oil is always there, but until you know how to use the oil it doesn't show up visually since your civilization is ignoring it. The same thing is going on with the horses. The horses are there, but the civilization doesn't know what to do with them so they appear 'invisible' to us. Once you research the proper tech, then you finally know what to do with the horses and they visually appear on the map for you.
Hey, as long as the game is fair and the AI doesn't cheat I don't care how they modify the horses. My game has been very playable. I hope now I'll be able to play big worlds and up the graphic settings. How long will Firaxis kick the tires?
EDaddy
Warlord
jdurg said:
Exactly!!! Just like in Civ3!!!
warpstorm said:
I couldn't really care less about 2 player MP. But fine, since you both can't see the horses then you both research AH hoping for horses and one of you is wrong and then dead. If you knew you didn't have horses then you could guess the other guy might and go for bronze working. Seems worse to me.
Hiding the resources does NOT put you in the position of a leader who only knows what the current tech level is. You still know what is coming. If that's what you really want then you should be clamoring for a variable tech tree where sometimes horses or iron or whatever never even show up in the game at all. Then you'd really have to play with what you had at the moment. Hiding the resources just forces you, in SP anyway, to go through the same motions every time, and have some of your early decisions be a dice roll instead of strategy. But if you insist on hiding resources, at least be consistent about it.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Interesting thing is that with horses available with animal husbandry you can't really rush chariots by just researching the wheel.
Actually I do find the military advisor usefull. It is the easiest way to see what I have and what I should build for good balance. It is also helpfull to find out what an opponent has later in the game.fdlu said:Good news.
Hopefully there are also some interface / advisor screens improvements, especillay the military advisor which I currently think is pretty useless.
Otherwise..
What kind of improvements are you looking for?
rcoutme
Emperor
This is the BEST suggestion I have ever seen...and I did the Civ IV suggestion compilation for the CFC forum!Dun Malg said:
As another viewpoint in the horses vs. elephants/cows/sheep visibility debate, don't forget that there's little value in killing a horse; their utility comes purely from using them for labor. Cows and sheep you can kill and eat, or use their hide/wool to make clothing; elephants you can eat too or use the ivory for tools, maybe even the hide as well. Not to mention that it's easier to kill them than horses, since these animals all pretty slow (well, maybe not the elephant necessarily, but the payoff is worth it! They must have looked like the mother lode to ancient man).
Now, you can imagine your primative people, lacking much experience or knowledge of the real world and exclusively concentrating on survival; food to eat and tools to use are what they care most about. So then someone has the idea "Well, we use the cow and the sheep for food and clothing, wouldn't it be a good idea to try to get them all together so that we can slaughter them at our leisure, instead of having to roam around hunting them?" And thus, animal husbandry. A similar thing with elephants, though you can use those for labor as well.
Now, once you have the idea to herd your food animals, you might have the idea to try to do this with other animals as well. You see this fast horse creature that has eluded your hunting efforts, or gave little incentive to spend the time hunting them instead of the much easier livestock. Maybe you can use them to get places faster. Why not try to tame them as well? Now that you see a use for those plentiful animals by the river, you can see them on the map. Time to ride them or use them to carry/pull heavy loads.
So that's why you can see cows and sheep and elephants and pigs, etc. to start with; because they're useful even untamed, and horses aren't really. Your ancestors already know what to do with the former; they probably consider the latter to be a pest to chase away (they do eat some plants that humans might want to eat, like oats!). Unless you think the game should show other concentrations of animals that aren't really very useful to ancient man (for some reason, eels come to mind first).
Dun Malg's idea isn't a bad one, but it should be pretty obvious which kind are useful as a food/resource animal, and which kind would have no discernable use. Your ancestors have had thousands of years to figure out what kinds of animals benefited them with their available knowledge and resources.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, what this also leads to is some other possibilities for things that should be hidden. Like furs until you get hunting (fur animals tend not to be so great for eating IIRC), maybe fish until you get fishing and whales until sailing. Dyes also seem like they'd at least require some tech, but perhaps the art of dyeing is older than I think. And it's not like you can use them for ages anyway, until you can build plantations. Gameplay concerns are what dictated the hiding of strategic resources, but who's to say it needs to be that way exclusively?
Now, you can imagine your primative people, lacking much experience or knowledge of the real world and exclusively concentrating on survival; food to eat and tools to use are what they care most about. So then someone has the idea "Well, we use the cow and the sheep for food and clothing, wouldn't it be a good idea to try to get them all together so that we can slaughter them at our leisure, instead of having to roam around hunting them?" And thus, animal husbandry. A similar thing with elephants, though you can use those for labor as well.
Now, once you have the idea to herd your food animals, you might have the idea to try to do this with other animals as well. You see this fast horse creature that has eluded your hunting efforts, or gave little incentive to spend the time hunting them instead of the much easier livestock. Maybe you can use them to get places faster. Why not try to tame them as well? Now that you see a use for those plentiful animals by the river, you can see them on the map. Time to ride them or use them to carry/pull heavy loads.
So that's why you can see cows and sheep and elephants and pigs, etc. to start with; because they're useful even untamed, and horses aren't really. Your ancestors already know what to do with the former; they probably consider the latter to be a pest to chase away (they do eat some plants that humans might want to eat, like oats!). Unless you think the game should show other concentrations of animals that aren't really very useful to ancient man (for some reason, eels come to mind first).
Dun Malg's idea isn't a bad one, but it should be pretty obvious which kind are useful as a food/resource animal, and which kind would have no discernable use. Your ancestors have had thousands of years to figure out what kinds of animals benefited them with their available knowledge and resources.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, what this also leads to is some other possibilities for things that should be hidden. Like furs until you get hunting (fur animals tend not to be so great for eating IIRC), maybe fish until you get fishing and whales until sailing. Dyes also seem like they'd at least require some tech, but perhaps the art of dyeing is older than I think. And it's not like you can use them for ages anyway, until you can build plantations. Gameplay concerns are what dictated the hiding of strategic resources, but who's to say it needs to be that way exclusively?
I've been programming and using programs for 28 years now. It is very posible to grab large chunks of memory when certain actions are taken.Dida said:
I have seen crashes on both mainframe computers and PCs that occured when an action was taken that grabbed a large chunk of memory. Increasing memory before hand or closing something else first was often the fix.
When I started working with more memory intensive programming I found myself needing to estimate potential memory needs and balancing lower memory usage against faster routines. Large structures are slow to navigate unless you use memory to store indexes or pointes to improve speed.
Similar threads
