Will you buy a new computer for Civ5?

[Jaybe]

Voted "Maybe, it all depends on the system requirements."

But I lied. Two-three weeks ago I cleaned out my computer interior, first with canned air, then with a cloth.

Ended up with fried power supply and mother board, so now I have a new computer.

Could have bit the bullet and used boot camp on my iMac, but its video has only 256M of ram, and I like huge maps. Besides, I'd already bought (but not installed) a 1G vid card.

[Guynemer]

I may wait to see the initial reviews, given all the huge changes. As long as we don't have another Civ3 on our hands, I'll get a new computer, if I need one. Hopefully won't need to, though; I bought a near top-of-the-line one a couple years ago when Fallout 3 first game out, I haven't had to run anything on anything other than the max settings yet.

[wodan11]

Two-three weeks ago I cleaned out my computer interior, first with canned air, then with a cloth.

Ended up with fried power supply and mother board, so now I have a new computer.

That happened to me the past couple of weeks with my Mini Cooper. Took it in for service, they changed oil and transmission, cleaned out all the gunk. Ended up with a fried clutch and a new transmission.

Go figure.

[Felch]

I may wait to see the initial reviews, given all the huge changes. As long as we don't have another Civ3 on our hands, I'll get a new computer, if I need one. Hopefully won't need to, though; I bought a near top-of-the-line one a couple years ago when Fallout 3 first game out, I haven't had to run anything on anything other than the max settings yet.

Initial reviews can't be trusted, unless you're talking about people on these boards. All the commercial reviewers are bought and paid for.

[CanuckSoldier]

Initial reviews can't be trusted, unless you're talking about people on these boards. All the commercial reviewers are bought and paid for.

Well to be honest they are not "reviews" they are previews, so they tell you what Firaxis/2K want to release and that is all.

CS

[Nikolai]

Initial reviews can't be trusted, unless you're talking about people on these boards. All the commercial reviewers are bought and paid for.

Then again, some people on this board thinks that Civ4 was an utter failure. Had I listened to them, I'd have missed countless hours of great fun...

[Felch]

Nik, you should forward a list of those posters to Plomp so he can permaban them. Not liking Civ IV is heresy.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Nik, you should forward a list of those posters to Plomp so he can permaban them. Not liking Civ IV is heresy.

As was liking Civ 3 to many here but I loved it and in many ways it was a better game than civ 4

[Guynemer]

Name one.

[ColdWizard]

It came in a fancy tin

[giblets]

Civ3 required less thinking

And even a total idiot could make scenarios

[Ming]

But it was still a crappy game...

[giblets]

Maybe compared to civ2 or civ4, it's crap, although years ago when I tried it with the second expansion I had hours of fun with it. However when I try to play it now, I can't stand it.

[rah]

Hours of fun yep that was about it for me too.
Unfortunately the standard for CIV games is "YEARS" of fun. II yes, IV yes, III no.

[Quintillus]

Then again, some people on this board thinks that Civ4 was an utter failure. Had I listened to them, I'd have missed countless hours of great fun...

And likewise, if I'd listened to the people who dislike Civ3 here, I'd have missed years of fun. Then again, I didn't have Internet when I got Civ3, so that wasn't a possibility in the first place.

I do find it odd that nearly all the English-speaking Civ3 fans are at CFC, though, and the few that aren't are at StormOverCiv (with a few being at multiple sites). There obviously was a healthy Civ3 community over here at one point, as there are a good number of very useful vintage 2002/2003-ish posts, but nowadays there's hardly anything. Not sure what happened, as it was before I joined any Civ forums. It's a large part of why I'm at CFC most of the time, though. Kind of like the Civ5 discussion at Apolyton, though - there's not as much of it, but I care about a higher percentage of what is over here.

Name one.

The artillery system. In numerous ways. For instance, in Civ3, you bombard the enemy from range, as would be expected from artillery - you put them behind your infantry and fire with protection from your front lines. In Civ4, you send your artillery in first, directly against the enemy, with no protection, fully expecting them to be destroyed. No real commander would send the artillery in with no protection and the expectation that it would be destroyed.

There's also the issue of what can be destroyed. In Civ3, artillery is properly powerful. You can severely weaken units (or destroy them, depending on the type of artillery), or you can weaken defensive structures in cities. These are both possible in Civ4. But you can also destroy terrain improvements, and destroy city improvements or population. That you can't do the latter in Civ4 is entirely unrealistic - if modern warfare has taught us anything, it should include the incredible destruction that artillery and airplanes can do to cities, which Civ4 does not reflect. One can debate whether you should be able to destroy an entire tile's worth of irrigation with artillery, but artillery/planes certainly should be able to damage the countryside (bridges, strategic mines, whatever other useful material there is out there), and Civ4 does not reflect this.

Dale's WWII mod did rectify quite a bit of this, but it shouldn't have required a mod for the final expansion (even one that did come included with the expansion) to do this. It should've been there from the beginning.

Kind of a long single reason, but there's one reason. There's a few others I could go into as well, but that one has always bugged me. I should note that any one of the issues I have with Civ4 probably wouldn't have been enough to make me stick with Civ3, it rather being a cumulative issue.

Jaybe, your power supply wasn't be chance covered by warranty? I have a friend whose power supply (Thermaltake 1200W) fried his motherboard and overheated to the degree it nearly melted a CD in his computer, and he was able to RMA it and get it replaced. Granted, he wasn't cleaning the computer near the time this happened, so that couldn't have been the cause, but it's possible your model was both prone to this regardless and under warranty, in which you might be able to get a replacement. Might be worth looking into even if you would just sell it afterwards.