What are you not looking forward to in the expansion?

Well, integers do use less memory than floats, so there's that.

(Waiting for someone that actually knows programming to slap me around...)
 
hey!, I could swear that was similar to what I said!... right??

right???... J?
 
Well, integers do use less memory than floats, so there's that.

(Waiting for someone that actually knows programming to slap me around...)

*slap* nope, integers are more exact and will need less processing power (but that's rather negligible).

nope nope.

Integers and floats use the same amount of memory (a word). - unless using 'special' data types (read: created for a specific reason, not standard) that use multiple words and have their own algorithms to deal with them (at which point the compiler then the CPU micro-code ignore what you wrote and decide upon something better).

they take 'effectively' the same processing power, except in extreme sub-cases, but we aren't seeing those here.

Plus, most (likely all, but hey who knows what crazy things are out there) CPUs have special floating point code already, so even in rare cases, it's negligible (especially in multi-threaded or multi-core systems that don't even bother 'focusing' on one task at a time, or can spread it out).
 
i just suspect that the expansion will require many additional patches and changes until it works. just based on experience i guess.... But to be honest, isnt it kinda stupid to start a thread like this about something we dont know anything about? Doesnt whining usually comes AFTER something has been released? You are breaking Whiners Code here:)
 
Cynicism is just a realistic stance regarding videogames today. I wish it wasn't like this, but it is in many levels. It may be because we are not kids anymore. Back when I was wee, man did companies released a bunch of crap that just went under the radar.

So yeah... fool me twice, shame on me.
 
No substantial improvements to multiplayer. It would be a dream if they copied everything about CIV4s multiplayer options and format, and just ran with that. Especially the lobby, and none of this regional garbage.
 
The way I always saw it was that damage would be in the same proportion, just with more diversity in how combat can go.

Off the top of my head, two units with equal strength attacking each other did 4-6 damage. In this new system, I assume it'd be more like 40-60 damage.

The best thing about it is that with the 10 HP version, there's only 3 different values that come out of combat. In the 100 HP version, there's 20 different values or so. Much more variation, and that'll mean that each point of strength will help, however subtly.

Yes exactly, the damage would have to be scaled to match the units strength. More variety of damage. They should put a rout and retreat rule in place as well. Or have units surrender in some cases. Rarely do units fight to the last man.
 
Which changes you expect not to like?

For me it's espionage, it's always felt arbitrary and boring to me.

Same, espionage, but moreso because I've never felt it's been implimented well and doesn't really fit the scope of the game. It really doesn't add much except hassle.

I hope they make it optional right off the bat so I can disable it immediately.
 
Same, espionage, but moreso because I've never felt it's been implimented well and doesn't really fit the scope of the game. It really doesn't add much except hassle.

I hope they make it optional right off the bat so I can disable it immediately.

That would be nice. I will try it ofcourse but being able to turn it off incase I don't like it (or just want to play some games without it) would be great.
 
Which changes you expect not to like?

For me it's espionage, it's always felt arbitrary and boring to me.

I like the menu driven mechanism, it feels more managerial. The screens and description I've seen of it Reminds me a bit of Floor 13, a menu driven spy game from Virgin. You had so many agents, you send them on surveillance, tailing, assasination asignments and you get reports back.

No moving units on a map, very top level stuff.

What I never liked with Civ2/Civ4's espionage system is the units. But I guess some people like that kind of stuff.

Same, espionage, but moreso because I've never felt it's been implimented well and doesn't really fit the scope of the game. It really doesn't add much except hassle.

I hope they make it optional right off the bat so I can disable it immediately.



If espionage is integral to city state influence, I suppose you can turn off CS and just not use it. I still think having it used for city states is a genius move if they can get it to work properly.
 
I like the menu driven mechanism, it feels more managerial.
If espionage is integral to city state influence, I suppose you can turn off CS and just not use it. I still think having it used for city states is a genius move if they can get it to work properly.

Although I don't think it should influence city-states too much, I do agree with you about a menu-based system of managing spies by assigning them to cities, promoting them, and finally using them to cause chaos in a rival empire.
 
The only thing I'm worried about is Espionage, and specifically stealing tech. Seems like out of everything that has the most potential for abuse. I hope its very difficult or only able to be pulled off at a decent rate by someone specializing in espionage -- I wonder if there will be an espionage policy tree?
 
I gotta go with the others in that I'm not looking forward to tech stealing from espionage. I like the addition of espionage but I don't want another feature that gives free techs.
 
I dreaded espionage when I first saw it would be added back in, but after reading the little info they gave as well as their assurance that it wouldn't be implemented the way it was in the past, I'm willing to give it a try.

What I'm not looking forward to is the extreme likelihood that it'll come with bummer civs. Civs that, sure they may have something going for them, but most people wouldn't want them in the game over Rome, Persia, Britain, Egypt, etc. I like my opponents chosen at random so I'm surprised; that's more fun for me. It's also better for the roleplay factor-- the world didn't begin with Spain knowing there was some crazy guy named Montezuma out there for them to find. In civ IV I could edit the xml so the computer wouldn't pick all the bummer civs at the exclusion of Persia et. al., but I can't do that in V if I want anything I do to count toward achievements. So I'm not looking forward to having several =/ civs bumping the cool ones out of a slot.
 
Top Bottom