Enoch

Galleys can cross oceans when the ocean square is within a civ's cultural borders. If you saw a galley in a neutral ocean square, it's a bug that I am unaware of. I've done my share of peeking with the editor, and I've never seen an AI unit on a landmass that should be isolated until Optics. The only units that appear out of nowhere are barbarians, wild animals, and the units that each civ starts the game with. As for unit production rates, their cities work exactly the same as yours do, except that on difficulties above Noble, they get a % reduction on the costs of everything. They also get difficulty-related bonuses on happiness, health, and city & military upkeep.

I don't know that I would call that a 'high' level. It ain't Settler, but it's definitely sub-Noble (Noble being the level where neither the player nor the AI get any advantages). You might find Civ 4 more challenging if you stop tilting the game in your favor with your settings. Raging Barbs hurts the AI more than it does a human player, because the AI doesn't know to post fog-busting warriors to stop the barbs from spawning. The high number of opponents also aids the human player because it opens up opportunities for early rush tactics, which the AI generally doesn't do. Turning off space race, though, is the main reason you're probably finding the game too easy. This dramatically hurts the AI more than it does the human player. It is generally the AI's prefered victory type, and if you turn it off, you're essentially rendering an entire development strategy (get 5-6 cities and crank up the science) ineffective. You're basically taking away the main threat that the AI poses to an aggressive human player late in the game. Knowing that Mansa or Ghandi have launched Apollo certainly makes an attempt at a late-game military win much more interesting & challenging.

I disagree. I find Epic too slow; Standard works fine for me. It took me just over 16 hours of game time to win a Standard SP game (my first Monarch level win :D ) last week-- I don't need it to last any longer than that! As for units going obsolete, I did notice that when I first started with Civ4, but it doesn't bother me anymore. I think that ratcheting up the difficulty level helps slow down the science (AI is more aggressive, and you have increased research costs). Plus, I'm not the type of player who often builds large invasion forces. I'm more of an opportunistic warrior-- grabbing a city or two from a rival when I have a momentary advantage and then suing for peace in exchange for some nice goodies.

IMO, Civ 4 is clearly better than Civ 3. The removal of pollution and corruption alone (replaced by health and city maintenance, respectively) put it over the top. Also, the better tech tree and more varied infrastructure improvements both take what used to be mechanistic decisions and make them interesting. I haven't tried the multiplayer yet (need to hone my skills further first), so I can't talk about that. Overall, I doubt I'll play it as obsessively as I played 1 or 2, but I don't have that kind of free time anymore anyway.

No pic at the moment, but I've got a Selmer Super Action 80, Series II Alto Saxophone, with a Claude Lakey 5*3 mouthpiece. It's tough with saxes-- the best ones ever made (at least for Alto and Tenor) were Selmer's Mark VI model, which ceased production in the mid '70s. They are very difficult to find nowadays. The horns they've come out with since were mostly disappointments, although the newer ones have improved.

Egg salad sandwich, small apple, and a can of cherry coke. I made the egg salad last night; it came out a touch salty for my taste.

Do you mean that the facts of the situation would change based on the player's actions (e.g., one of 4 possible people have been torturing puppies; whodunnit depends on how the player investigates), or do you want there to be multiple possible goals for the player to decide upon in the game, with an antagonist for each goal (puppy torturer = fozzle #1, kitten torturer = fozzle #2, etc.)? The first approach would be easier to pull off in terms of resources, but you would have to be careful to make the difference between the opponents more than illusory. There is also the danger that the game would seem 'rigged.' The latter approach, though, also has drawbacks. It could devolve into 3 or 4 totally separate games. You would need some commonality in storylines, themes, quests, locations, etc. that pop up regardless of the PC's character and choice of enemy. It also seems like it could lead to a less-than-fulfilling ending because the player might feel that h/s couldn't do everything they wanted (what if they like puppies and kittens?). That said, there is some potential here. Personally, I'd find something like this fascinating to play if done well.

Here's a few "Huh?" moments that I've had playing games: The XP system in Arcanum. Really everything about character creation in that game was broken, but this was the killer for me. They deliberately design a character system where everything is given equal weight, and lead the player to believe that non-combatant skills and abilities are very important, and then they build an XP system that awards most of the experience in the game based on hits and damage done in combat by the PC character alone (not party members). Idiotic!! The Egyptians in Rome: Total War. Somehow, the designers were under the impression that Egypt was a major military force in the Roman period. They gave them some of the most ridiculously overpowered units in the game. The Hunter-Seeker Algorithm in Alpha Centauri. SMAC was a great game, but this one great project (I don't recall what they called the 'wonders of the world' in that game) was a bad decision. It renders total immunity from mind probes (spies) on the entire faction the builds it. This totally shuts down an interesting aspect of the game. It also renders meaningless one of the main weaknesses of the University faction. Thus, the University became a favorite of many players because they knew they could eliminate one of their main drawbacks with a fairly cheap early-game project. The "Square" in Tetris. What were they thinking?!! Where am I supposed to put this thing??!!!

One thing I'll give it over IWD1 is that the ratio of interestingly-laid-out all-out battles to oh-look-here's-another-pack-of-wights-to-bash was substantially higher. The monotony of boring battles has killed every attempt I've made to replay IWD1 (or finish the expansions).

Charles Mingus: "Goodbye Porkpie Hat" His tribute to the then-recently-departed Lester Young.

Okay. It probably isn't fair of me to list it, because it did attract and hold my interest, which is more than ToEE & M&M9 did. However, because it got me interested, it also generated a lot of frustration and anger at the ridiculousness of the character & experience systems. Thus, it gets punished somewhat for its promise because it stands out in my mind as a huge disappointment. (Wow, admitting ignorance and changing my mind in response to a counter-argument, all in one thread. I'm breaking new internet ground here!)

Of the ones I've played, which eliminates NWN, the Vampire game, PoR2, the Ultimas, DS, DD, the Gothics, the Diablos, and all the consolers but BGDA1, I'd give the prize to Might & Magic 9. Honorable mention to ToEE and Arcanum (interesting world, but the character creation system was soooo baaaad!!). Hey, at least I admit how uninformed my opinion is.

I should add that the game runs about as well (perhaps even a little better-- I get less stuttering during the wonder movies, for one thing) on my laptop, which runs at 1.6 gigs, 512 RAM, and a 64 MB radeon mobility 9000. (All of this, of course, is with the graphical options at or near minimum levels.) Even before the latest patch, I never had a problem with crashes; the game would just slow down to the point of being unplayable (on both machines). Actually all this works out pretty well-- despite CivIV's improvements, the modern ages are still the least fun era to play. When the game slows down, it's usually getting boring anyway. I usually start over rather than play out the finish.

What are your computer's specs? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have a 2 gig intel processor, 512 of RAM, and a 64 MB GeForce 3. It's above the min specs for Civ4, but the gfx card only barely so. I figure I can add two years or so to its useful life (the machine is as originally purchased in 2001) by doubling the RAM and geting a new vid card. I'll do it one of these days, but I'm lazy and not really interested any of the more demanding games currently on the market.

It's been out for over a week now, and it works pretty well for me. I can now play at one map size larger than before without it getting painfully slow in the modern age. (This is with a 64 MB video card.) I really need to upgrade. As for changes, I like that they upped the cost of the Praetorians (from 40 to 45 hammers) and lowered the cost of the Jaguars (from 40 to 35). Prats are still ridiculously overpowered, but this evens it out a little bit.

Gromnir's got the right idea. Throughout the game, there will be options like this: 1) "I'll try to help you." (Neutral Good) 2) "I Promise I'll try to help you." (Lawful Good) 3) "I Promise I'll try to help you. [Lie]" (Chaotic Evil) 4) "Get lost." (Neutral Evil) There are also some quests that give you lawful points, like joining the Godsmen and helping that dude in the buried villiage get his name back.

Patch version 1.09 is out, but not posted on the website yet. You have to update in-game. EDIT: Mirrors are now up. See the civfanatics forum thread. Changes: - increased cost of Apollo Program... - increased SS parts cost... - Animal Husbandry reveals Horses - tweaked Rifling, Chemistry, Steel, and Railroad tech costs... - increased late-game tech costs... - can now add two specialists in size 1 city with Mercantilism... - final score is now modified by difficulty level... - Speed up load times - Global performance enhancements Added: - Include WB map size in the description field - Save login name - Added password encryption - Added regenerate Map Button to World builder Map Mode... - checkbox for using low resolution textures - more logging for init failure - minspec / video memory checking - Added ability to change to and from fullscreen while in-game - holding during startup will clean out the cache - improved bink playback, added ini options Fixes: - ATI issue Failed to Init Renderer Fixed - Multiplayer Lobby list jump problem and lobby crash fixed - fixed war weariness calculation bug... - units maintain their name when upgraded - fixed Gold-for-Gold diplo exploit... - fixed no research choice overflow exploit... - Fix for voice initialization crash - Fix addressing takeover AI and retirement OOS. - Fixed issue with diplomacy text being always used in its first form in the translator. - Popups, screens, and diplomacy properly cleared when exiting from main menu. - Games protected by admin passwords (only) cannot be loaded if the version is different from the one that created the save - Fixed bug where player could not offer any deal to other human in PBEM/Hotseat - Sorting by date on domestic advisor now works. - fixed bug where settlers could not move if the strategy layer was selected - fixed Ironworks... - fixed AI units not obeying open borders rules on declaration of war... - fixed bug that prevent placing of units in world-builder - fixed bug that prevented gifting of units to a human player - stack attack infinite loop fixed - Civic screen update fix (wasn

Demo now available here.

I find that they're worth it early only if you're financial and have a lot of floodplain or grassland w/ river. On those sqares, you get 3 commerce/turn (river + cottage + fin bonus) even before it grows, with decent food to boot. Otherwise, I'll only plant ancient cottages in sqares that irrigation can't yet reach. The other early tactic that seems popular over on the civfanatics forum is building a worker first, researching bronze working, and using the worker to chop a forest square to speed the production of your first settler.

On the leader triats: Financial is a bit overpowered. Financial + cottage spam = tech lead. Organized is very weak. Civic upkeep just doesn't cost enough that its worth taking a trait that halves it. Cheap courthouses are nice though. Expansive's usefulness is directly dependant on the difficulty level you're playing on. Below Monarch, it's marginal. Above that, though, the lower threshold for health problems makes it very handy. Industrious and Philosophical are both quite nice for generating more great people, wonders, and culture. Both solid choices for a peaceful game. Aggressive is the warmonger's choice. Haven't play around with it much myself. Creative is useful in the land grab, and good for conquerors who want to get cultural production up without rushing a theatre in captured cities. Kublai (Agg/Cre) looks like a great choice for warmongers. For more peaceful types, it's basically a crutch for the early game. Spiritual is OK. The one turn anarchies never hurt that much, but cheap temples are great. Also, changing civics on a whim every 5 turns or so can really help ("hmm... half of my cities are building units to modernize their defenses-- might be good to go to theocracy for a few turns..."). Personally, I'm a little bit too hooked on the advantages of financial. So Elizabeth (fin/phi), Qin Shi Huang (fin/ind), and Mansa Musa (fin/spi) are my favorites.

Coltrane, "India" From Live at the Village Vanguard, 1961. With McCoy Tyner (p), Eric Dolphy (bass clarinet, see avatar), Elvin Jones (d), 2 bassists whose names escape me.

I'm having a blast with this game so far. The AI is impressing me in that they will attack if they detect weakness. In my current (Prince level) game as Elizabeth, I had a decent points lead in the late medieval, but I had sorely neglected my military. All of a sudden, Alexander, who had always been quite friendly to me, delcares war on me, and razes some fishing nets with a caravel. A turn later I spot a huge stack of war elephants, horse archers, and catapults moving my way through Malinese territory. If I didn't have a line of sight on all of Mali's cities through their conversion to Judaism, I never would've had time to prepare my defenses, and I might have lost London! As it was, I had to jack up my tax rate to promote old units, and switch production to pikemen and elephants in all of my major cities just to get by. The AI also used its catapults effectively to thin out a 4-unit stack I formed. The only thing they could've done better would have been to include some infantry in the attack force. If there were some macemen or longbowmen protecting the mounted units, my pikemen would've had some serious trouble.

Well, tone down the "hotness" of the wife and make the wacky kids a bit older, and you've got "All in the Family." Or take the kids out, and you've got "The Honeymooners." Or make the husband thinner and move the kids to the background and, viola, "The D. Van Dyke Show." Not to undermine your point in any way, though. Anyone can see that Family Guy owes much (I'd say most) of what it is to the Simpsons. I was just pointing out that family-based sitcom structures haven't changed a whole lot. Anyhow, I'm a Simpsons fan (and yes, seasons 3-7 or so were the best) who never really appreciated Family Guy. Every time I see it, there's a decent gag or two, but the character-based humor just falls flat to me. (I pretty much feel the same way about South Park, with the added caveat that it gets way too caught up in ridiculously heavy-handed social commentary. When you lose subtlety, you lose humor.) Edit: Filter did not like Mr. Van Dyke's first name. (And I'm not talking about Jerry.)

"and while we has already conceded that politics is a part of the selection process, we still find it unfortunate as it has lead ever increasingly to Justices with impenetrable philosophies being chosen for the Court. the more spectacular a candidate's past is, the less likeley he/she is to be ultimately selected regardless of insight or intellect. brennan would never have made it onto the Court if eisenhower knew what he were really 'bout... and the senate would never have approved of scalia if they thought he were more than simply a particularly bright transactions guy." Oh, I agree that it is regrettable that the current system basically operates to bar anyone with a long record of writings and achievements. Everyone involved would be better off if nominees were selected based only on intelligence, competence, and how good they look in a robe. But as long as Presidents are selecting nominees for ideological reasons (and if you think Reagan picked Bork solely because he's a smart guy, I've got a bridge you may be interesting in buying), the Senate should also apply an ideological check. Otherwise the executive becomes way to influential over the judiciary. Really, the true villians here are the interest groups who have targeted the Court as a way to enact their policy agenda. Through the magic of public choice theory, a relative minority can weild enough power so that each party is prisoner to a few intensely interested groups.

To be fair, Gromnir, you have to admit that "She isn't a judge" isn't the only basis critics have for calling Meiers unqualified. The comparisons to Warren and Marshall aren't entirely fair, in that they had displayed their general legal competence to the public at large (Warren as a Governor, and Marshall as a litigator of major cases before the SCOTUS). Meiers' top line on her resume is as Texas Lottery Commissioner and devout bar weenie. Not quite in the same ballpark. Also, your analogy between criminal trial courts and federal appellate courts is weak. Being fair and objective only gets one so far; at some point on the SCOTUS, justices are going to be presented with cases where each side's argument is equally fair and objective, and the only difference is a matter of policy (e.g., statutory interpretation issues). On the subject of whether politics should matter in the confirmation process, I'd argue that it has to. First off, as a practical matter, you cannot police a President's decision for the influence of ideology. Presidents have always picked candidates who they believed would support their policies, right back the John Marshall and Adams' other "midnight judges." Now, for cabinet officials who have to work with the Prez all the time, the Senate's "advising" and "consenting" rightly takes a more hands-off attitude as far as ideology. But the ideology of a member of SCOTUS is just as much a concern of the Senate as it is of the Prez. It's unfair for the president to be the only party with influence on the policy stances of the Court. Justice Scalia himself has argued (as part of his general stance against substantive due process and the court "acting as a super-legislature") that the Court has become so powerful that the majoritarian check of the Senate on the Prez's discretion should be even more rigorous.