*sigh*

Guess I'll not be playing this

Gay! Guess I could upgrade my PC... Probably could pull together something half decent for about $200 to play this but doesn't seem worth it. I do want a new computer though. Argh!

I am a newegg dyi computer builder but I haven't bought any major hardware in like 4 years. Can a guy still get a MB+Processor, Vid card and memory for under $300 and have a respectable rig that still blows the pre-fabbed HP/Dell crap out of the water?

This build comes out to $368. You could swap a Radeon HD 5750 in and save yourself $50 if you keep an eye for sales. Finding a similar mobo for $60-75 shouldn't be too difficult either. Also the old HD 4850's are going on sale now for as low as $75 because the 5XXX series is in. HD 4850 is identical in performance to the 5750 but lacks DirectX11 support.

There are pre-fabbed Dells?

Where you buy a computer that is already put together, with special 'Dell' components that are just modified stock components so you have to send your PC in for repairs if anything goes wrong and eat a bunch of costs. Where there is a sticker on the case where when broken it voids a bull**** warranty... that's what I meant by pre-fabbed.

Thanks man

I built my current computer like 2-3 years ago and it looks like it should run this swimmingly (quad-core core 2 duo, GeForce 8800 GTX, 4GB RAM)

Civ Revolution is free today for iphone/ipod. http://toucharcade.com/2010/08/06/ci...ree-for-a-day/

ty

http://www.civilization5.com/#/commu...r_improvements

Sounds great, especially adding gold per turn for every road.

Looks like the cost money/turn, not add it. :/

Well, yeah, thats what I meant to say anyway. In Civ IV you could just happily build roads all over the place which looked awful but it helped moving units. Now you actually have to think about building another road/railroad because upkeep is getting bigger and bigger. Adds a little more strategic thinking.

just gets better and better.

Cant wait for V to come out...

Played some games of IV recently, and while its great and the gameplay is amazing its aged a bit..

For some reason playing through Starcraft 2 really has me wanting Civ5.

Must be SC and Civ 4 were awesome, and since SC2 is awesome, therefore Civ 5 is awesome.

http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civ...2858590&sr=8-2

This game comes out the day after I start fall quarter FML

sooon...

omgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomg

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/review...lization-v.ars

imo

Am I the only one that thinks that this fluff piece is ******ed?

Example: "Combat between units, like the interface, has been streamlined a bit. Instead of showing you a percentage chance of your unit's victory over an enemy as in Civ 4, the game will tell you, in plain English, how it expects your attack to go—safely, major victory, major loss, and so forth. This may annoy numbers-junkies, but does a 5 percent change in either directly really impact whether or not you'll attack? The new system gives you a much clearer idea of how things are likely to go. "

On what planet is it "clearer" to say "major victory" than having the game tell you the exact percentage chance of victory?

I'm going to be using Civ V as a quit smoking aid. Buy and download from Steam, throw away tobacco, barricade myself in the house playing Civ 16 hours a day until the nicotine withdrawal goes away. Hopefully I'll be so engrossed in the game the thought of smoking again will not occur.

Trading one addition for another.

I'm inclined to agree because I think categories like "major victory" or "decisive victory" etc are arbitrary. The exact numbers are never arbitrary.

I think that this design idea is to add a little bit of immersion (you lose immersion when you're looking at raw numbers instead of the units in play), but it doesn't change the fact that your attack decisions will be based on what the game tells you is a good idea or not.

I don't think it's that annoying though because like the article says, I don't base my choices in war on whether I have 95% chance vs 89% chance or something that doesn't change my decisions much.

It's better than adding them together, I suppose.

This change was made because in play testing people got really upset when they lost a 60/40 or 70/30, even though obviously that should happen quite often. Obfuscating the percentage with these names reduced the frustration of unlucky players, since seeing something like 70% chance of winning roughly translates to "over double his army so I should always win" in the mind of the casual player.

In short: the average person is terrible with probabilities. See: poker