And yet another weekly update...

[yin26]

You're right. It could. But it's still a rather obvious extension to say that two self-sufficient cities creating their own culture points, units, etc., will be better than one. I'm not saying this isn't logical, of course, I'm just saying it's been done to death. I suspect we are seeing a nod toward giving players some incentive not to build so many cities, but game mechanics will still take over.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by MarkG


so, since people care about the things they love, if you're going to be negative in a forum for civ lovers, you'd better be negative about something concrete rather than impressions of reviewers playing against soren and sid

sounds like a golden rule for all forums


about the screenies

did anyone else see the uranium?

[Nikolai]

I did.

[Addled Platypus]

the verdict is in (from the new article)

"Fargo just built and built and built and expanded his culture to a point where bordering cities were helpless against his might"

yin26 will not like it


EDIT

dont remeber the world overview video

Cool !

[MarkG]

there's this thing called "learning the new game mechanics and adopting your/developing new strategies" which obviously the writer could not do in a matter of hours(actually he probably had every little civ experience

Fargo and I were doomed from the beginning in a game against the masters themselves when I mistakenly sent out settlers with no escort. While I didn't encounter barbarians, my settlers were sadly eaten by a trio of hungry lions. Send troops with your settlers! They're vulnerable and need protection.

come on people, lets wait for the impressions of someone who played a bit more civ in his life....

[Ninot]

I think there IS an argument to be made that there is an element of ICS, simply because of the writer lagging behind when he lost 1 settler.

Did he lag behind because of the wasted production on the settler?

Or did he lag behind because he didnt have 2 cities, when his oponent did?

I think the writer doesnt answer, but we will

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I also wonder why the pessimists here immediately assume that 'Build'='Build cities'-i.e ICS. I have read that same review a half a dozen times and I see nothing to indicate that ICS won the day. By build, it is just as possible that he was building up within cities-not simply building more of them. As I said in my previous posts, if Fargo had simply built more and more cities (and not built more improvements within each city), then he would have (a) lacked the income necessary to maintain-let alone grow-his culture and (b) would have not been able to adequately specialise his cities in order to get the Great Artists he needed to generate those Great Works they mentioned. As I said, cost alone-not to mention lost opportunities to produce Great People-will themselves make ICS a far less successful tactic. My advice, Yin, is to await more concrete info than simply a claim someone 'built and built' before so conclusively declaring that 'ICS is alive and well' (which you are doing, BTW).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[LordShiva]

Why was there uranium on that map? The particular game didn't appear to have advanced far enough along the tech tree for it.

[LordShiva]

(or was it something like emeralds or jade or whatever?)

[yin26]

The_Aussie_Lurker:

True, I guess I am making the assertion, which I will pull back and wait for the game to be released to be sure. But at the same point, many of the key indicators are there...

[Kataphraktoi]

i still dont see all the fuss. these 2 reviewers specialty is not TBS and iirc their pre-game reports differ greatly from my own experiance in any related games that i read the review then played it,or at least if i play skillfully.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I read the same reviews you did and didn't see any of the indicators which you claimed to have seen-in fact I saw the opposite. When I read 'Build', in the absence of the specific phrase 'build city', I take it to mean 'build up, not out'. i.e. building up the population, specialisation and culture of the cities you already have, rather than building ever outward with more and more cities.
Also, it doesn't take an accounting genius to realise that: with cities automatically costing money, with revenue from tiles no longer guaranteed (i.e, no automatic commerce from roads) and culture/tech levels costing ever more to maintain the more cities you have, that the former strategies of ICS are going to be totally ineffective, unless the reviewer explicitly says otherwise.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Wise Ass]

Originally posted by MarkG
there's this thing called "learning the new game mechanics and adopting your/developing new strategies" which obviously the writer could not do in a matter of hours(actually he probably had every little civ experience

Fargo and I were doomed from the beginning in a game against the masters themselves when I mistakenly sent out settlers with no escort. While I didn't encounter barbarians, my settlers were sadly eaten by a trio of hungry lions. Send troops with your settlers! They're vulnerable and need protection.

come on people, lets wait for the impressions of someone who played a bit more civ in his life....

I think that is a great point, I mean, you only need to have played civ one or two times to realize that you always need to gaurd your settlers! It doesn't even have to have been civ4 this is true in 1, 2, 3 and both ctp games.

[GAZ082]

Originally posted by yin26
Thanks for the counter-points, guys. I'm not crying "The Sky is Falling," but those bits of information from a gameplay standpoint did give me some real meat to chew on.

One day you will choke, and nobody is gonna help you.

[Kataphraktoi]

One day you will choke, and nobody is gonna help you.

Thanks for the counter-points, guys. I'm not crying "The Sky is Falling," but those bits of information from a gameplay standpoint did give me some real meat to chew on.

so if thats your 'real meat' what happans when you get the game? get a blender?