Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth Supports AMD Mantle

[tehehe]

Wow! AAA game with day one linux support. Nice.

 

[_larry]

Is it just me or does that screenshot look a lot like Starcraft 2?

 

[dwade]

Watch this game require tons of hardware power while plays the same if they had simply used 2d with pre-rendered 3d graphics. It would make zero sense if an iPad can't run this, considering the game design is so simple and shit.

 

[Divide Overflow]

Firaxis have already made a Civ in space once: Alpha Centauri. This is the sequel but they don't own the IP so they are using the Civilization name instead.

I remember Alpha Centauri well. Looking forward to seeing how well the remake will turn out.

 

[Steevo]

The CIV series would be a lot more fun if you could actually fight the battles yourself like the Total War series.

Like get out of my chair and away from my coffee? No thanks, I am a better general.

Watch this game require tons of hardware power while plays the same if they had simply used 2d with pre-rendered 3d graphics. It would make zero sense if an iPad can't run this, considering the game design is so simple and shit.

You lack of intelligence in this post is astounding. Go mouth breathe elsewhere.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Like get out of my chair and away from my coffee? No thanks, I am a better general.

That is why I don't like the CIV series. A random dice roll could mean a bunch of dudes with axes beats a bunch of tanks. It literally makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

 

[Steevo]

That is why I don't like the CIV series. A random dice roll could mean a bunch of dudes with axes beats a bunch of tanks. It literally makes no sense.

No the battles and forces are weighted against each other, but the do allow for some random wins based on the experience of the forces.

 

[Easy Rhino]

but the do allow for some random wins based on the experience of the forces.

exactly. i cannot enjoy a game where a bunch of "experienced" dudes with axes can ever beat a bunch of tanks. it is plain childish. really, it is a childrens game.

 

[WaroDaBeast]

exactly. i cannot enjoy a game where a bunch of "experienced" dudes with axes can ever beat a bunch of tanks. it is plain childish. really, it is a childrens game.

I fail to see how that would happen. In my very own experience, the strongest axe-wielding unit is the berserker (combat strength = 21). The weakest tank's combat strength is 70. Upgrading the berserker's combat strength to its maximum (65%) would give us about 35. That's still half of the tank's combat strength.

Now, I've never actually attacked tanks with berserkers, but I've already attacked longswordsmen (combat strength = 21) with fighters (combat strength = 45). The fighters would lose 0 HP when attacking the longswordsmen. Of course, that could be due to them being air units.

All in all, the battles can get weird at times (modern armor against lancers, for instance), but when such battles occur, they're completely one-sided in favor of the more modern unit. Again, I fail to see how axe warriors can beat tanks.


[EDIT] : Failed to mention this is about vanilla Civ V.

 

[xenocide]

I fail to see how that would happen. In my very own experience, the strongest axe-wielding unit is the berserker (combat strength = 21). The weakest tank's combat strength is 70. Upgrading the berserker's combat strength to its maximum (65%) would give us about 35. That's still half of the tank's combat strength.

Now, I've never actually attacked tanks with berserkers, but I've already attacked longswordsmen (combat strength = 21) with fighters (combat strength = 45). The fighters would lose 0 HP when attacking the longswordsmen. Of course, that could be due to them being air units.

All in all, the battles can get weird at times (modern armor against lancers, for instance), but when such battles occur, they're completely one-sided in favor of the more modern unit. Again, I fail to see how axe warriors can beat tanks.

They changed it in Civ IV. I remember a number of ocassions in Civ III where I would lose Riflemen to Barbarian Warriors because of the goofy way terrain bonuses and the dice roll mechanic. In the more modern Civ games it is impossible for units even 1 era back to pull out a victory short of a situation where the modern unit were going against a terrain advantage with 1/10 against a full elite legacy unit in a city, and even then it would probably be a one in a hundred chance.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

Like get out of my chair and away from my coffee? No thanks, I am a better general.


View attachment 56081

You lack of intelligence in this post is astounding. Go mouth breathe elsewhere.

No, he's probably a Civ4 fan who feels betrayed by Firaxis making 5 simpler.

 

[WaroDaBeast]

They changed it in Civ IV. I remember a number of ocassions in Civ III where I would lose Riflemen to Barbarian Warriors because of the goofy way terrain bonuses and the dice roll mechanic. In the more modern Civ games it is impossible for units even 1 era back to pull out a victory short of a situation where the modern unit were going against a terrain advantage with 1/10 against a full elite legacy unit in a city, and even then it would probably be a one in a hundred chance.

Well... Sounds like a certain someone hasn't been playing Civilization for a long time.

 

[Aquinus]

That is why I don't like the CIV series. A random dice roll could mean a bunch of dudes with axes beats a bunch of tanks. It literally makes no sense.

[/QUOTE]

Clearly the last time you played CIV was either Civ 1 or Call to Arms. Civ has changed a lot since then. If your chances of winning against a particular unit is over a certain amount, it's a practically a given victory. I'm sure you also remember Civ 1 having no unit health and battles were strictly win/lose scenarios. That isn't the case anymore. You can battle and still not have a victor.