Tridus

Is it a good symptom of the problem that a thread about Elemental's limited amount of buzz has turned into a thread about Civ 5's system requirements? I think part of the problem is the lack of details. Civ 5 comes out a month after Elemental, but in a lot of ways we know more about the final product. We know more about what the final UI looks like (we don't for Elemental). We know a fair bit about how combat works (we haven't seen abilities in tactical combat yet in El

Yeah, it does seem pretty non-existent in Canada. Walmart will probably get it if Walmart in the US has it, but that seems to be it. Even Future Shop doesn't know about it.

[quote who="Nesrie" reply="135" id="2709135"] I get the impression that Civ V is less interested in expansions this time around, and that we're probably going to see a bunch of microtransactions instead, aka overpriced DLC.[/quote] Which they'll probably bundle into an expansion at some point. They can't really add game systems as DLC, which is what the expansions typically do. Scenarios, Civs, and art? Sure. But they always add game systems later and that's just not well s

That was an interesting interview. I'm looking forward to this game. :)

[quote who="Aractain" reply="126" id="2707844"] You really think the 'quad core' is significant? I think its just an easy way to show a more powreful CPU. I mean a 3GHz Core 2 Duo will run anything from today right?[/quote] Not if the "anything" is made to run on 4 cores it won't. If the recommended spec is quad but the minimum is dual, the game must be heavily multithreaded. So in that case you will see a real difference as you add more cores.

[quote who="Aractain" reply="122" id="2707673"]Those are NOT high, they are 2007 specs.[/quote] Really? Vista/Win7, 4GB of RAM, Quad Core, and a video card that wasn't released until 2008 are "2007 specs"? [e digicons]

We have a big thread on the game. :)

The recommended specs surprised me, those ARE pretty high with how PC games have been the last couple years. The minimums are more reasonable, dual core has been pretty standard for years and those aren't high end video cards at all. Question will be how well does it run at minimum?

Looks like the new one is locked down right now. I tried to join to add some content, and it won't let me do anything except submit an app (which I did).

[quote who="RagingSquirrel" reply="13" id="2706915"]Yeah, I guess I'm running about a 22 year old processor. Heh. Memory is DDR2. I tried so hard to future-proof this system when I built it 4.5 years ago. And now I can't max graphics on a turn based strategy game?!? Argh!!!!!!!! Thanks for the feedback.[/quote] 4.5 years is a pretty long time, and in terms of video cards it's an eternity. You could probably drop a card in there

[quote who="Grove12345" reply="6" id="2707127"] On a side note i think PC gamers need to stop being closed minded or get off their high horse, and acknowledge consoles have some really good exclusives. Demons Souls, Uncharted 2, and even a simple 3rd person shooter like Gears of War or Halo 3 seems to play better than just about any PC games i ever played.[/quote] I tried Halo 3 once. The controls are so inaccurate and annoying that it drove me nuts. A gamepad

[quote who="Raven X" reply="26" id="2706639"] As long as we can buy wenches with livestock it's all good. Hmm, so your Dad owns you and your sister? Does he need any sheep or cattle? I can make him a good offer. In fact, you two might as well start packing now.. lol you know it's funny, because I constantly tell my wife she's my property and that she's bought and paid for. I bought the engagement ring and at our wedding her father walked her down the isle and then "gave her a

[quote who="Raven X" reply="102" id="2706819"] I wonder if Vanguard has any free servers? Vanguard as a game by its-self was awesome. I loved it for the short while I played it. As far as game-play and options and what you could do in the world it-self went it was the closest thing I've found to old school UO. I was really hoping it would have done well. It's way better than WoW if you ask me.[/quote] Don't know. Sony bought it and it's still up and running. It mostly bombed due

[quote who="Nesrie" reply="92" id="2706437"] Heh, not like weird things ever happen like that right? Not as if Sigil employees got their pink slips in the parking lot or anything (pretty sure it was Sigil).[/quote] Yeah, that was Sigil. But Vanguard bombed so badly that I'm not sure it was a surprise to anybody there.

I kind of wonder... if the game is intelligent about positioning units on its own, in what situation would you use a deployment feature if you can't see the enemy deployment?

There will be a demo version out after release. If you're concerned about it running on your system, best to wait and try that. That demo will be based on release code (rather then slower beta code) so it'll be a good representation. :)

That's mean. :P

[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="8" id="2706632"]+1 on the militia being an upgrade. But even without the upgrade there should be some defense from the city. For instance with no tech involved, each time a city is attacked the gam ewould spawn some peasants and one or two sergeant. A simple formulae like every 50 pop would get you a chance to have a militia and every 200 pop would get you a chance to get a sergeant. A tech would replace militia by hardened battle

[quote who="_Scooter_" reply="10" id="2706651"]The problem is more pronounced than just needing population to fight as very weak militia. [Though, that's a good idea. See Empire:Total War for a nice example of implementing this.] It needs to be harder to attack a city than it is to fight the enemy in the field, so that a weaker army can retreat to the safety of a city, while the stronger army pillages the countryside.[/quote] Walls in tactical combat go a long w

[quote who="Stmorpheus" reply="4" id="2706427"]i think this would be neat especially if the militia were a certain percentage of your total population. then assuming they won, after the battle you lost a certain amount of population based on the loses incurred in the battle. say you have a pop of 1000(not sure what city level this is) then you might have 10 percent of your pop in a militia. this would be 100. i say make 5 20 unit stacks for combat. loose a s

[quote who="VR_IronMana" reply="24" id="2706415"] Why wouldn't that make sense. If I have a certain strength, I can move so fast under so much load. If I'm carrying a 40 lb war hammer or a 5 lb sword - I'm probably going to be able to move more freely with the lighter weapon, especially if my strength is borderline for being able to pick up the weapon to begin with, but enough for the sword. To me, combat speed is trying to simulate something of a weight system wher

[quote who="Stmorpheus" reply="26" id="2706420"]thats what i have been thinking, is that we are not playing the final game. i don't understand people... it has been said many many times that the beta's are not the final game. [/quote] But they're what people have. Tyrion posted feedback about beta 4, after being gone for a while. That's the only build he has. It's not like he can give feedback on last night's internal build. :)

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="18" id="2706374"] I didn't miss the point. We like our lore. We don't want elves and orcs and unicorns. The game isn't for everyone.[/quote] Yes, you did. He's talking about things not having much differentiation. That's not just about unicorns, it's also about weapons and spells and resources. The point is very much that it doesn't matter if I take fireball vs , or a sword vs <some other

[quote who="_Scooter_" reply="1" id="2706335"]Strongly agree that there needs to be something to make it harder to blitz cities in the early game. Think of how the Warrior and Archer unit make city conquest hard in the early game in Civ without a very large numerical advantage, and how there are city defender promotions that make it easier to defend a city than to fight in the field. We are missing any similar mechanic.[/quote] Well, the example OP gave was a city wit

[quote who="_Scooter_" reply="7" id="2705340"] But someone thinking that the final game will suddenly completely change the game is in for a disapointment. It is difficult to simultaneously parse the two messages from the developers that the game will not completely change, and yet we are unreasonable for judging the quality or fun of the current build because, you know, its just a beta. [Not in this thread, but other responses have clearly demonstrated the frustration of