There were ranged attacks in CivIV... I honestly don't know why that's being touted as something "new." Granted most of the ranged attacks in IV sucked...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Civilization V announced
- Thread starter Roderick Usher
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There were ranged attacks in CivIV... I honestly don't know why that's being touted as something "new." Granted most of the ranged attacks in IV sucked...
It doesn't take 10 minutes on my Mac Pro 1,1, only a few seconds. ;-)
But, yes, it sure could be faster and less buggy. It's still by far the best strategy game out there.
I think you mean OS 9 only.
Civ II is the only reason I still have a Windows VM on my Mac.
Er...yeah. Guess I should have said "Classic." It was so much fun having Modern Armor defeated by spearmen :-\
you will need your own copy of Windows. if you don't want to pay retail than subscribe to technet. $349 the first year and $249 after that. you will get every version of every OS before they hit retail and the betas. it used to be easy to buy OEM versions of Windows, but MS has tightened the standards
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_tr...dows+7+ultimate+oem&_sacat=See-All-Categories
i've read complaints of that in some forums and people pointed to Ethiopians with medieval weapons defeating italian tanks in the 1930's
with 4 it was a big RAM hog with the largest map and the most opponents. i had the same thing with 1GB of RAM and only after i got to 2GB did the problem go away
I wouldn't mind paying for Parallels if Windows wasn't so expensive! I have a feeling that 7 would run well on the new, new MBPs. My reading is that it wouldn't be out until Christmas anyway?
It would be nice if there were a bare-bones version of 7 that didn't have any internet connectivity (so no virus protection to worry about) that were more affordable for the Apple community. Microsoft could justify it by saying that it would "lure us back"... or something or other. ::grins::
Anyway, I don't have it with my current setup. While I could run Parallels/7 now, I don't and probably won't upgrade just for this game. By reading this thread and posting here, you can tell that I'm thinking about it.
Thinking about a laptop upgrade anyway. Any advice on the different GPUs in the MBPs and speculation about how they may change in the next line?
M@
It would be nice if there were a bare-bones version of 7 that didn't have any internet connectivity (so no virus protection to worry about) that were more affordable for the Apple community. Microsoft could justify it by saying that it would "lure us back"... or something or other. ::grins::
Anyway, I don't have it with my current setup. While I could run Parallels/7 now, I don't and probably won't upgrade just for this game. By reading this thread and posting here, you can tell that I'm thinking about it.
Thinking about a laptop upgrade anyway. Any advice on the different GPUs in the MBPs and speculation about how they may change in the next line?M@
I wouldn't mind paying for Parallels if Windows wasn't so expensive! I have a feeling that 7 would run well on the new, new MBPs. My reading is that it wouldn't be out until Christmas anyway?
It would be nice if there were a bare-bones version of 7 that didn't have any internet connectivity (so no virus protection to worry about) that were more affordable for the Apple community. Microsoft could justify it by saying that it would "lure us back"... or something or other. ::grins::
Anyway, I don't have it with my current setup. While I could run Parallels/7 now, I don't and probably won't upgrade just for this game. By reading this thread and posting here, you can tell that I'm thinking about it.
M@
I'm going to be in a similar dilemma...I am about to make the switch to Mac when the new pros come out, but I need to play this game. I could probably come up with a hacked version of windows to install, but the point is that one of the reasons I'm buying a Mac is to not deal with the problems of windows. As for the person above who said Civ 3 and 4 are on Mac, I believe they were released for Mac well after their initial PC releases.
Yay, looking forward to Civ V! I enjoyed playing all of the Civilization games, Civ II perhaps the most.
Yeah but the Italian Army in the 1930's-40's was one small step above the French...something akin to girl scouts armed with plastic spoons, though maybe not as brave.
That's why you use cruise missiles or ICBMs. I loved hearing that air raid siren go off right before you nuke a city. It was always fun until the polar ice caps melted. I need to check out CIV 4 and 5 when it comes out. I haven't played the Civ series since 3. I switched to Age of Empires after that.
You can't capture cities with cruise missiles or ICBMs :-( Plus cruise missiles were annoying to transport. The larger point is that it shouldn't happen in the first place
HA! Funny! This comment has made my day!
Same here. The only thing I didn't like about the newer Civ games is that I couldn't go and make my own fully loaded scenario.... as easy as Civ 2 anyway. Other than that I loved both Civ3 and Civ4.
I actually love the additions of terrain improvements in Civ4. Civ3 seemed to just give you roads, railroads, mines and irrigation, Nothing else. Also rather like the addition of the REST of the world wonders, and national wonders as well.
The addition of the REST of the world civilizations is also a plus. I never had too much of a slow down during game play in Civ4 unless I was playing on a huge map with all 18 civs and I launch a nuke.
I will definitely be trying out Civ 5.
You can't capture cities with cruise missiles or ICBMs :-( Plus cruise missiles were annoying to transport. The larger point is that it shouldn't happen in the first place
True, but ICBMs plus paratroopers make a great combo. I guess those paratroopers wear radiation suits or something.
The thing I hated about ICBMs is moving across land and running into a previously hidden unit. You end up wasting an ICBM on a lone tank or something.
BTW, did anyone ever play the WWII scenario built into Civ II? That was tough.
Sorry to revive an old thread, but...
any guesses on system requirements for the new Civ? I know they haven't traditionally been power-hungry (although the AI takes a long time to move).
I'd rather have (a better AI and) no graphics improvements than graphics improvements and further lag.
any guesses on system requirements for the new Civ? I know they haven't traditionally been power-hungry (although the AI takes a long time to move).
I'd rather have (a better AI and) no graphics improvements than graphics improvements and further lag.
I will get Civ V iff it's computer demands are not outrageous (ie. should be less than or equal to 2.6 GHz and 2 GB RAM) AND it should be far less buggy than Civ IV upon release.
It took Civ IV 73 updates before I could play without encountering major graphics and game bugs.
It took Civ IV 73 updates before I could play without encountering major graphics and game bugs.
I am surely not the only one to catch that comment
I got wood for sheep!
Ahem, that's W"h"ood for Lambekins
I'll counter offer with 2 brick-a-brack?
I think you mean "awesome" ? Seriously... I played that scenario for hours. Subsequent iterations of the scenario were decidedly disappointing.
Mmm, some might say the original was the best. They are all good in their own way. I just get annoyed by the fundamental changes in the building benefits between the versions.
A game "feature" for the real dedicated players. Gives you a chance for a 10 minute power nap at 4am while concentrating on strengthening your defences.
Yes, you're right, it crawls in late game, even on an 8-core Mac Pro.