Based On What We Know: Rate Civ 4

[Freddz]

Originally posted by Hamdinger
I clicked on Sir Ralph's link without realizing that it would put him on my ignore list. How do I get him back?

A Freudian click?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Hamdinger
I clicked on Sir Ralph's link without realizing that it would put him on my ignore list. How do I get him back?

That'll teach him to click on every link, especially from me. I guess if I respond to this message, it wouldn't help. Even though I'm sure he's better off having me on ignore, would somebody of you help him please?

[Freddz]

Okay, okay.

control panel -- > edit ignore list

Be sure to think this through now. Sir_Ralph isn't popular after stating dislike of CIV 4.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Freddz
Okay, okay.

control panel -- > edit ignore list

Be sure to think this through now. Sir_Ralph isn't popular after stating dislike of CIV 4.

This is a false assertion. I don't like that tile sharing feature. I still like Civ4.

If I don't like Bush it doesn't mean that I hate America either, even though Fox news tells that.

[Freddz]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


This is a false assertion. I don't like that tile sharing feature. I still like Civ4.

If I don't like Bush it doesn't mean that I hate America either, even though Fox news tells that.

Comon, you hate Civ 4.

(I actually didn't understand why they were so upset at you for expressing your opinion - emotional/rational/sensible or whatever, it's still just an opinion)

But I'm still massing the forumists against you.

[alva]

Originally posted by Hamdinger
I clicked on Sir Ralph's link without realizing that it would put him on my ignore list. How do I get him back?

Aaahh, that's why!!! I was about to make a thread in the community forum thinking something went wrong.

Not nice SR..

[JonahFalcon]

I rate it 0 out of 0.

I don't rate unreleased games.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK,Sir_Ralph, I am really going out on a limb here-but you want to know what I think? I reckon that shared tiles will be GREAT for alliances and defensive pacts-especially in cities. If someone goes 'through' a tile with your unit in it-and its clear that they are trying to lay claim to a resource on the other side of your borders, either (a) close off your border to force them out or (b) wait for them to BUILD the city, then ramp up your culture funding in order to engulf their previous new city-before long it will be yours anyway !
Last of all, though, I am predicting that some units CAN have Zone of Control-but maybe only as a promotion, and maybe only against those you are at war with. I am also predicting that FORTS will actually prevent units from passing through a tile with your unit and, seriously, if this new feature actually makes forts IMPORTANT, then it will be a GOOD THING !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Hamdinger]

Thanks. Sir Ralph is back. And I do usually look at where the link goes first, but I didn't look closely enough this time. I thought it was going to another forum post.

Just to clarify, is the shared tile thing for allies only or do neutral civs count too? Seems like it should be an allies only thing.

I hope there's some kind of sensible ZoC, too.

[Harovan]

According to Solver it depends on being at war or not. Hence, not only among allies.

[Hamdinger]

That seems a shame, though obviously I'll have to play the game to really evaluate it. Out of curiosity, would you be okay with the feature if it only applied to allies?

I wonder what happens when two civs that are neutral both occupy a neutral tile and then declare war.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Hamdinger
That seems a shame, though obviously I'll have to play the game to really evaluate it. Out of curiosity, would you be okay with the feature if it only applied to allies?

That would be my condition for me accepting it. It would be a really bad feature IMO if it applied to civs that simply weren't at war with each other. No more chokepoints, no more blocking forces that might be gathering to attack one of your cities, no more securing territory from a potential enemy.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by alva

Copying, not stealing.

If he does not pay for it up front, it don't matter. The FBI could still throw him into jail.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Since this feature existed with Alpha Centauri in a comparable game, I can very well evaluate it. Besides, it does not take too much imagination to see the consequences.

So, do you think SMAC was "broken?" Since a hefty number of folks here think it is the gold standard of strategy games, I don't see how one could assert this.

What it's done has scrapped one of your favorite strategies.

This is an assertion, and an unproven one at that.

You'll have to explain this to me. Eliminating ZOC and allowing different nations' units to occupy the same tiles indeed eliminates a strategy of placing units in such a way as to make choke points and cut off large areas from rivals. Is that not so?

This is plain and simple an order to shut up. No less and no more. A command not to express my opinion. Hence I don't see how this...

No, it's not. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I didn't see it as a command, but rather, a suggestion to allow yourself not to be negative about the game based on supposition when you haven't played it yet. I can see where you're coming from, but that wasn't my intent.

This is illogical at best. While browsing these boards I see thousands of posts "awesome", "great feature", "wonderful", "very nice" etc. etc. Neither of these people have played the game. How would it be, if I - or somebody else for that matter - would jump at these people in the style you jumped at me, and say:

Come on, there's an obvious difference here. We all are here because of a love for Civ at some level. And you yourself admit you were wholely excited about the game until this revelation. So there's a difference between a positive feeling of excitement and a negative one of pessimism. It's perfectly reasonable to get excited about a yet-to-be-released product based on previews and what not. It's not nearly as reasonable to get pessimistic and negative about it. Why? Well, simply put, pessimism is a bad emotion and it makes you sad. It's good to feel joy when it may not be called for, much worse to feel sad when it isn't necessarily called for.

There is it again, this belittling and paternalism. You know what? I have an excellent link for you, Borka: Click here, and all this opposition against your hallowed opinion is gone. I will do it equivalently.

It's belittling to want you to not be so pessimistic about the game? Hey, I want you to feel better. I don't think that's belittling at all. I'm just trying to point out why you don't have to be so down on something (since you haven't, you know, played it yet). Since you appear to have been excited before and are now despondent, I wanted to try and show you that such despondency isn't called for yet. But now I begin to see you maybe were just looking for a reason to go all melodramatic.

Oh, and since we won't likely talk to each other again, you stated a while ago, that Orffs Carmina Burana would be an assemblage of religious tunes. I didn't complain, since I didn't want to compromise you, but this is false. The Carmina Burana is thoroughly secular.

First, even if this were true, it's pathetic to bring such a thing up in this context and just looks like a petty attack.

Second, this is categorically not true. I ask you to provide a cite and prove this assertion. I've sung in Carmina Burana three times, am well acquainted with the text, and know and have always known that it is not a religious piece. That I would have ever asserted it was anything but secular is laughable, and I will have to demand you prove it. Go on, quote me.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually Boris, if you look at the translation to English, you will see that Carmina Burana is VERY SECULAR. Its all about the importance of Fate, and the pleasures of good food, drink and tavern life-amongst other things. Its true though that it is a pretty pointless thing to bring up at this juncture-and is totally unrelated to the current issue!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.