Giant. Death. Robot.

[Robert]

I would make the same response if someone told me that my wife had turned into a Giant. Death. Robot.

[Al B. Sure!]

IIRC, there was a civ3 scenario with GDR and other futuristic variants that I played once "just to see". It was a waste of time IMO.

As for walkers themselves, they are "practical" in very tough terrain where tracked and wheeled vehicles cannot go (personally I think mules or donkeys are a better choice). Last time I paid attention though there was a substantial amount of development of walking vehicles funded by DARPA.

Were those walkers four or two legged? Two legged walkers are not good for tough terrain, such as uphill or downhill terrain, because they're liable to tip over. They also can't handle muddy or sandy conditions because the weight is distributed in two small areas (the feat) rather than across tracks like a tank.

4-legged walkers are a bit better hence why this thing exists:

[MikeH]

I am a 2 legged walker and I do very well in rough terrain!

[Al B. Sure!]

I am a 2 legged walker and I do very well in rough terrain!

Are you encapsulated in thick battle armor, with gatling gun machine guns for arms, computers to control things, a hydraulic system, and a giant engine to move your multiple ton frame?

[MikeH]

Yes.

[MikeH]

Just because the technology isn't good enough NOW doesn't mean it won't be in the near future.

Scout Walkers. - FACT!

[self biased]

Why do so many Civ players have so little sense of humour?

own goal. because they post here.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's coming for us!



It is in Wasilla, Alaska... yes, that Wasilla where Sarah Palin is from. It was invented by probably the only Black guy in all of Alaska, some former Air Force guy

[Dinner]

They had mech robots in CTP2 as part of the future techs if I remember correctly.

[SpencerH]

Were those walkers four or two legged? Two legged walkers are not good for tough terrain, such as uphill or downhill terrain, because they're liable to tip over. They also can't handle muddy or sandy conditions because the weight is distributed in two small areas (the feat) rather than across tracks like a tank.

Six legs!

A very quick google search pulled up this logging machine.

[Al B. Sure!]

four or six legged mechs are more feasible than two legged. The bipedal ones are a joke.

[Provost Harrison]

I agree. Once you have the right technologies you should be able to build arachnotrons and spider masterminds

[dregor]

There is so much anger and bitterness on these forums. Are you sure you guys are fans of the Civ franchise, or are you just fans of nostalgia and everything being better in the past?

[Al B. Sure!]

Better in the past

[Elok]

There is so much anger and bitterness on these forums. Are you sure you guys are fans of the Civ franchise, or are you just fans of nostalgia and everything being better in the past?

I'm looking forward to Civ4 (I never got around to getting a decent computer; I'm still running a dinosaur that was weak by the standards of 2005, when I got it). I'll always have a certain nostalgic fondness for 2, I'm sure, but 4 is by all accounts an awesome game.

This thing, however, appears to be well on its way to taking the "crappiest in the series" title from 3. 3 was full of generally good ideas, like strategic resources and civilization traits, implemented in a piss-poor manner. But here, almost every change they've announced has been either an inane gimmick or some random, gratuitous novelty.

And they've admitted they went for a more conventional war-game approach (see the ExtremeTech thread), which makes suspicion of V to be, if anything, more supportive of the Civ franchise, or at least of what makes it uniquely good. You want a "streamlined approach," go play CivRev with AAHZ. Civ is for big boys who want to build empires.