Tridus

[quote who="SwerydAss" reply="19" id="2654419"] You will have to be online with your xbox and ps3 at all times now. Don't forget to pay you xbox live fee or you won't be able to play your steam games. Not to mention the horrible face of PSN Plus. Now you have to pay a monthly fee on PSN to get DLC, exclusive ingame items etc....[/quote] You only need to pay for Xbox Live if you want to play multiplayer, and I don't see that changing. You don't have to pay for PS

[quote who="Peace Phoenix" reply="17" id="2654361"] Sadly no absolute combat rating, that doesn't take into account the opponent, will do the trick for estimating accuratly the odds of a battle outcome. What you need is how many turns needs my army in average to kill the other army vs how many turns need them to kill me to estimate if you would can win the fight with eventually a bit of luck. Your attack against ennemy defense gives an average damage per swing. <br /

From the IGN interview: [quote]Resources are now quantified, so a single source of oil is no longer able to fuel an entire fleet.[/quote] Interesting...

[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="52" id="2654404"] I'd use a bell curve, plotting game 'difficulty' vs. number of players of games of that 'difficulty', and put the casual players in the lower one-quarter or so. *waits for the response "how do you define difficulty...*[/quote] See, the problem with this definition is that you're equating 'casual' with 'bad'. The lower quarter of difficulty isn't a measure of anything except how good people are at the game. These days

[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="29" id="2653970"] But that same article has another potential red flag a couple of paragraphs later: "Something else we've added to try and appeal to more casual players is the new advisor system." 'Casual players'. Hmmmm.... I never considered Civ as a game for 'casual players'. If they can accomplish this by UI and other tweaks that's great. If they also drop some (but not 'a lot of' features -- whate

[quote who="SwerydAss" reply="7" id="2653625"]Funny I just saw that portal 2 will be using steam on the consoles too. Welcome the drm machine to the console. The monopoly is almost complete.[/quote] Which is different from the locked in propriertary DRM on Xbox Live/PSN how exactly?

There's been numerous threads about not having a lot of big cities. Boogie's governors idea was based around the same thing. You might have lots of outposts and villages, but true huge cities are not the norm.

Many months ago in a thread I can't find, there was a discussion on how this worked at the time. Short version: it works like it does in Galciv 2 . (Or it did back then, it's entirely possible it's been totally changed.) Longer version: Defense is not dodge, it's mitigation. Attacker does a roll between 0 and their attack stat. Defender rolls between 0 and their defense stat. Damage done is Attack Roll - Defense Roll, or 0, wh

[quote who="Xtropy" reply="147" id="2653782"] Perhaps, but I'm not convinced having access to some food is more punishment than having access to no food, as it pertains to your example anyway. In the case of your hypothetical, you would still be afforded more tiles total by the city leveling up and growing from the gardens, even discounting tiles you "waste" on gardens, than you would if your hypothetical city was forced to languish as a level 1 or 2. I think what you're

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="159" id="2653890"] You don't really address the core problem here. That is how crippling it would be for civilizations without food resources. Yes, food is important. Why make food even more rare? Yes it's a magical cataclysm... but you aren't just planting on a random tile of wasteland. Gardens can only be built on land magically infused with life. This isn't the road-warrior post apocalyptic wasteland everyone is acting like it is.[/quote] Becuas

In some previous Stardock games, you were allowed to do a second installation on a home PC to play LAN games. If they allow that again, at least you don't need to buy it twice. :)

They actually prefer a post for specific ideas, as it's easier to organize. Course, if someone else is already talking about an idea, they'd also rather you add to that rather then start a new one for the same reason. :) [quote quoting="post"] --I don't like how the sovereign can die and then go right back out and attack a mob the next turn. I used this to cheese some units near my city just charging them over and over again as they were not healing in between turns. I'd like to

We're still missing 3/5 of the tech tree and related key systems. They can't really start enabling diplomacy halfway through the modding beta (beta 4), so I'd expect everything else to be turned on by then. So yes, there will either be some more beta 2s, or several beta 3s.

[quote who="Nemesis7884" reply="5" id="2654211"] hmm altough somehow logical this would lead to the creation of high attack 0 defense/low hp mass-one-hit units and huge hp/defense 0 attack single city-defense units...?[/quote] Probably not. A high attack/0 defense unit would get destroyed by a peasant horde, which could simply swarm it into the ground. While a 0 attack/high defense unit would make an alright defender, anything that *can* pierce its defenses would kill it

[quote who="edpfister" reply="16" id="2653744"] Advisors existed in the previous Civ games and were removed, so bringing those back can't really be an attempt to dumb it down for consoles either. Is this slated to come out on consoles? That's the first I've heard of that. Usually that is bad news but occasionally it works out. We'll see.[/quote] It's not. I was replying to some earlier posts about it being dumbed down and simplified to be multi-platform.</p

Well, some of that is fixing UI problems in Civ 4. Notifications are way better then a barrage of modal dialog boxes every turn, but are also "simpler". Advisors existed in the previous Civ games and were removed, so bringing those back can't really be an attempt to dumb it down for consoles either.

I don't think Civ will ever have that kind of system, but since ranged units can shoot multiple hexes and artillery can bombard units before they reach the infantry wall, the overland combat is a lot more interesting then the old stack of death style. :)

PLEASE : No Steamworks discussion here. There's already a thread for that . Let's try to keep this thread to gameplay. :) Gamespot has some E3 coverage on Civ V . Some of it is still pretty thin, but I like what I'm seeing so far. Particularly now that there's a more visual look at how the one

Well, when we get strong enough armor it matters, and when you're not fighting a sovereign it matters. The reason why is how the combat system works: In order to deal damage, the attack roll has to beat the defense roll. A unit with enough defense can actually be flat out immune to attacks from weaker units. Right now we aren't really scaling up enough to get to that point, and the units we have do minimal damage to the really strong stuff on the map. But as we get more tech and more

[quote who="SavageBananaMan34" reply="2" id="2653181"]how exactly would a battle with hundreds of thousands of units work in a turn-based game? [/quote] This. While you can have lots of soldiers, and you might even see lots of soldiers (IIRC my companies were showing all four people, not just one guy with a number count), in reality it'll be uncontrollable unless they're in groups of X, like the companies we have now only scaled up (Regiments or Brigades). The idea for a

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="16" id="2653096"] Quoting Tridus, reply 12... I still don't think this problem requires a morality system per-se, just some intelligence in how other NPCs react to your murderous ways. You say "potato" and I say "potato" and we can't tell the difference because I'm typing, not speaking. Like I tried to say earlier, I'm not hung up on what the Consequences Mechanics are called, I just want them in place and I want them to have at least two su

Seems to be that attack, defense, combat speed, and HP are put into some formula. You can't put much stock in the rating right now. Even a higher rated force can get destroyed if they're all low attack power units trying to attack a single high defense monster (as they don't do enough damage to get past the defenses).

[quote who="bdarcher" reply="96" id="2653244"] Roads. They help me feel like my kingdom is “connected”. Doesn't have to be a huge strategic implementation but could certainly speak to the movement issue and maybe some sort of trade bump. [/quote] IIRC, building a Caravan and sending it to another town creates a trade route. As the caravan goes back and forth, a road will be created along that trade route. So it's kind of like the "organic roads" ide

[quote who="weez2mo" reply="84" id="2653136"] Quoting Nemesis7884, reply 81cant wait for the beta update..does this week mean today by any chance? i believe thursdays are "the" day; someone correct me if im mistaken.[/quote] Thursdays are the day for new beta versions and such, but it's pretty easy to push updates to Impulse. They might stick with the thursday thing for that, but there's no technical reason why an update couldn't be pushed out today.

[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="61" id="2652658"]First, if both are 'illogical' go with the 'no hard cap' one. Second, remove the other hard caps.[/quote] Does it make sense to have a city consisting of nothing but schools? Some of the caps make a lot more sense then the alternative. [quote] In my current game (mentioned in this thread, first page IIRC) I got my 2 cities to lvl 5 with no gardens and still have 38 surplus food. Checking my 'food' city, it has 12