<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_11_082226</id>
	<title>An Early Look At <em>Civilization V</em></title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268305320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>c0mpliant writes <i>"IGN and Gamespot have each released a preview of the recently announced and eagerly awaited <em>Civilization V</em>. Apart from the obvious <a href="http://ie.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p1.html">new hexagon shape of tiles and improved graphics</a>, the articles go on to <a href="http://gdc.gamespot.com/story/6253246/civilization-v-impressions-first-look">outline some of the major changes in the game</a>, such as updated AI, new 'flavors' to world leaders, and a potentially game-changing, one-unit-per-tile system. No more will the stack of doom come to your city's doorsteps. Some features which will not be returning are religion and espionage. The removal of these two have sparked a frenzy of discussion on fan-related forums."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>c0mpliant writes " IGN and Gamespot have each released a preview of the recently announced and eagerly awaited Civilization V. Apart from the obvious new hexagon shape of tiles and improved graphics , the articles go on to outline some of the major changes in the game , such as updated AI , new 'flavors ' to world leaders , and a potentially game-changing , one-unit-per-tile system .
No more will the stack of doom come to your city 's doorsteps .
Some features which will not be returning are religion and espionage .
The removal of these two have sparked a frenzy of discussion on fan-related forums .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c0mpliant writes "IGN and Gamespot have each released a preview of the recently announced and eagerly awaited Civilization V. Apart from the obvious new hexagon shape of tiles and improved graphics, the articles go on to outline some of the major changes in the game, such as updated AI, new 'flavors' to world leaders, and a potentially game-changing, one-unit-per-tile system.
No more will the stack of doom come to your city's doorsteps.
Some features which will not be returning are religion and espionage.
The removal of these two have sparked a frenzy of discussion on fan-related forums.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31449354</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd really like a variable tech tree, which would make the game a new game each time around. With the static tech tree of Civ4 you could plan out your strategy in advance, and many decisions were made by players before they even saw their starting position. If they could make a game where the required tech points or the tech tree was somehow randomized (with some technologies only becoming available much later, or not at all like you said), it would make this game much more interesting and probably fairer to non-pro players because you have to adapt to a different situation and can't try out a strategy in advance to find the weak spots of balancing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd really like a variable tech tree , which would make the game a new game each time around .
With the static tech tree of Civ4 you could plan out your strategy in advance , and many decisions were made by players before they even saw their starting position .
If they could make a game where the required tech points or the tech tree was somehow randomized ( with some technologies only becoming available much later , or not at all like you said ) , it would make this game much more interesting and probably fairer to non-pro players because you have to adapt to a different situation and ca n't try out a strategy in advance to find the weak spots of balancing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd really like a variable tech tree, which would make the game a new game each time around.
With the static tech tree of Civ4 you could plan out your strategy in advance, and many decisions were made by players before they even saw their starting position.
If they could make a game where the required tech points or the tech tree was somehow randomized (with some technologies only becoming available much later, or not at all like you said), it would make this game much more interesting and probably fairer to non-pro players because you have to adapt to a different situation and can't try out a strategy in advance to find the weak spots of balancing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436430</id>
	<title>Swell...</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1268314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just yesterday my wife said to me, "I can't believe you're still not bored of Civ3 after all these years."  She knew I was at risk of staying up until 2 a.m. again playing it.</p><p>This will not be good for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just yesterday my wife said to me , " I ca n't believe you 're still not bored of Civ3 after all these years .
" She knew I was at risk of staying up until 2 a.m. again playing it.This will not be good for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just yesterday my wife said to me, "I can't believe you're still not bored of Civ3 after all these years.
"  She knew I was at risk of staying up until 2 a.m. again playing it.This will not be good for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441122</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>kjart</author>
	<datestamp>1268335380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views? Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but if you don't find the zooming in Supreme Commander amazing, you're doing it wrong. That was probably the most amazing feature of that game and makes every other RTS out there frustrating to play.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Secondly , Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert .
There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management , where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case , why in hell do I want ( or even need ) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views ?
Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...I 'm sorry , but if you do n't find the zooming in Supreme Commander amazing , you 're doing it wrong .
That was probably the most amazing feature of that game and makes every other RTS out there frustrating to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert.
There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views?
Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...I'm sorry, but if you don't find the zooming in Supreme Commander amazing, you're doing it wrong.
That was probably the most amazing feature of that game and makes every other RTS out there frustrating to play.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436880</id>
	<title>Re:don't it get boring?</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1268319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know your point, but considering there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing Civ <b>III</b>, from almost ten years ago, let alone Civ IV from a mere 5 years ago, chances are there will be people in 10 years still playing Civ V, never mind Civ XII.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know your point , but considering there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing Civ III , from almost ten years ago , let alone Civ IV from a mere 5 years ago , chances are there will be people in 10 years still playing Civ V , never mind Civ XII .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know your point, but considering there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing Civ III, from almost ten years ago, let alone Civ IV from a mere 5 years ago, chances are there will be people in 10 years still playing Civ V, never mind Civ XII.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436858</id>
	<title>Empire</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1268319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would not mind a free version of this classic.  You cannot get much simpler and still be involving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not mind a free version of this classic .
You can not get much simpler and still be involving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not mind a free version of this classic.
You cannot get much simpler and still be involving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437360</id>
	<title>Re:I was never good at Civ</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1268322840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I admire anybody who can play a single game many times over using different strategies - I always end up being "Mr. Highly Advanced" and/or "Mr. Super Nice".</p><p>I tend to take the viewpoint that if I've got the most advanced hardware then I need less of it protecting my cities (Civilization) or planets (Master Of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations). Because I pump so much focus on technological advancement, my defences are always very light so I end up having to be super nice to everyone so they don't pick any fights with me during the early parts of the game - at least in GalCiv 2 you can "sell" older technology to other races that not only subsidises the huge tax deficit because almost your entire population are scientists, but also makes them a bit more friendlier to you anyway.</p><p>Even in Fallout 3 I've tried being Mr. Evil but that lasted about 4 hours before I got bored with it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I admire anybody who can play a single game many times over using different strategies - I always end up being " Mr. Highly Advanced " and/or " Mr. Super Nice " .I tend to take the viewpoint that if I 've got the most advanced hardware then I need less of it protecting my cities ( Civilization ) or planets ( Master Of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations ) .
Because I pump so much focus on technological advancement , my defences are always very light so I end up having to be super nice to everyone so they do n't pick any fights with me during the early parts of the game - at least in GalCiv 2 you can " sell " older technology to other races that not only subsidises the huge tax deficit because almost your entire population are scientists , but also makes them a bit more friendlier to you anyway.Even in Fallout 3 I 've tried being Mr. Evil but that lasted about 4 hours before I got bored with it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admire anybody who can play a single game many times over using different strategies - I always end up being "Mr. Highly Advanced" and/or "Mr. Super Nice".I tend to take the viewpoint that if I've got the most advanced hardware then I need less of it protecting my cities (Civilization) or planets (Master Of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations).
Because I pump so much focus on technological advancement, my defences are always very light so I end up having to be super nice to everyone so they don't pick any fights with me during the early parts of the game - at least in GalCiv 2 you can "sell" older technology to other races that not only subsidises the huge tax deficit because almost your entire population are scientists, but also makes them a bit more friendlier to you anyway.Even in Fallout 3 I've tried being Mr. Evil but that lasted about 4 hours before I got bored with it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437256</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Kuroji</author>
	<datestamp>1268322240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely you are mistaken, there was no Master of Orion 3. Though I hear Sword of the Stars was fairly close.</p><p>Just like there was no sequel to The Matrix...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you are mistaken , there was no Master of Orion 3 .
Though I hear Sword of the Stars was fairly close.Just like there was no sequel to The Matrix.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you are mistaken, there was no Master of Orion 3.
Though I hear Sword of the Stars was fairly close.Just like there was no sequel to The Matrix...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128</id>
	<title>Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268309940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad they got rid of religion. Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad they got rid of religion .
Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad they got rid of religion.
Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436328</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>snillfisk</author>
	<datestamp>1268313120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you should really take a look at the games being published by <a href="http://www.paradoxplaza.com/" title="paradoxplaza.com">Paradox Interactive</a> [paradoxplaza.com]. Classics such as the Europa Universalis-series and the Hearts of Iron-series are great strategy games. They're also publishing several other games in the same genre and I'd strongly suggest taking a closer look for games that play well and don't need a brand new gaming rig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you should really take a look at the games being published by Paradox Interactive [ paradoxplaza.com ] .
Classics such as the Europa Universalis-series and the Hearts of Iron-series are great strategy games .
They 're also publishing several other games in the same genre and I 'd strongly suggest taking a closer look for games that play well and do n't need a brand new gaming rig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you should really take a look at the games being published by Paradox Interactive [paradoxplaza.com].
Classics such as the Europa Universalis-series and the Hearts of Iron-series are great strategy games.
They're also publishing several other games in the same genre and I'd strongly suggest taking a closer look for games that play well and don't need a brand new gaming rig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436682</id>
	<title>I was never good at Civ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268317620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always loved the game but I could never fully enjoy it either. I probably just suck at it, but war is no fun if one phalanx obliterates half a dozen tanks. What do I invest in science for when my future technology is trumped by this bronze age unit?</p><p>I usually win by being first to colonize another world or by building the UN. But to have a chance at that, I need to set hostilities to a minimum... it's only half as much fun to play a castrated version of the game.</p><p>I think next time I'll invest a few hours to read some guides and tactics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always loved the game but I could never fully enjoy it either .
I probably just suck at it , but war is no fun if one phalanx obliterates half a dozen tanks .
What do I invest in science for when my future technology is trumped by this bronze age unit ? I usually win by being first to colonize another world or by building the UN .
But to have a chance at that , I need to set hostilities to a minimum... it 's only half as much fun to play a castrated version of the game.I think next time I 'll invest a few hours to read some guides and tactics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always loved the game but I could never fully enjoy it either.
I probably just suck at it, but war is no fun if one phalanx obliterates half a dozen tanks.
What do I invest in science for when my future technology is trumped by this bronze age unit?I usually win by being first to colonize another world or by building the UN.
But to have a chance at that, I need to set hostilities to a minimum... it's only half as much fun to play a castrated version of the game.I think next time I'll invest a few hours to read some guides and tactics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436304</id>
	<title>Missing civ leaders... where is the great dictator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268312820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Through out the series they have been missing one great leader, they've had the likes of Stalin, Caesar and Napoleon, but why have the left out the great dictator? Adenoid Hynkel the dictator of Tomania.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Through out the series they have been missing one great leader , they 've had the likes of Stalin , Caesar and Napoleon , but why have the left out the great dictator ?
Adenoid Hynkel the dictator of Tomania .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Through out the series they have been missing one great leader, they've had the likes of Stalin, Caesar and Napoleon, but why have the left out the great dictator?
Adenoid Hynkel the dictator of Tomania.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436462</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>pagaboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268315400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you believe it enough, I'm sure it'll happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe it enough , I 'm sure it 'll happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe it enough, I'm sure it'll happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436754</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>FatLittleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268318340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've often wondered if Civ would work if the subsequent branches of each option on the tech tree were semi-random. A different "universe" created for each game; you wouldn't know what lay ahead.</p><p>For example, is a universe technological or magical, with corresponding unit types. Do psychic powers exist in a particular universe, and how early are they discoverable. Genetic engineering, discovered early enough, affecting unit types. etc.</p><p>Every new game would be a "new game".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often wondered if Civ would work if the subsequent branches of each option on the tech tree were semi-random .
A different " universe " created for each game ; you would n't know what lay ahead.For example , is a universe technological or magical , with corresponding unit types .
Do psychic powers exist in a particular universe , and how early are they discoverable .
Genetic engineering , discovered early enough , affecting unit types .
etc.Every new game would be a " new game " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often wondered if Civ would work if the subsequent branches of each option on the tech tree were semi-random.
A different "universe" created for each game; you wouldn't know what lay ahead.For example, is a universe technological or magical, with corresponding unit types.
Do psychic powers exist in a particular universe, and how early are they discoverable.
Genetic engineering, discovered early enough, affecting unit types.
etc.Every new game would be a "new game".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436672</id>
	<title>Needs more Hitler</title>
	<author>Parlett316</author>
	<datestamp>1268317500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439528</id>
	<title>Re:Wesnoth clone</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1268329260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*rolls eyes* Right.  It has a few things in common with some other game and that means it ripped off anything and won't offer anything different.  What is wrong with you people?  Complaining that it shares elements with other games, freaking out that it *dear God* uses 3D!<br> <br>How old are you anyways?  It seems like the average age in games is around 60 and everyone is yelling at the new games to get off their lawn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* rolls eyes * Right .
It has a few things in common with some other game and that means it ripped off anything and wo n't offer anything different .
What is wrong with you people ?
Complaining that it shares elements with other games , freaking out that it * dear God * uses 3D !
How old are you anyways ?
It seems like the average age in games is around 60 and everyone is yelling at the new games to get off their lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*rolls eyes* Right.
It has a few things in common with some other game and that means it ripped off anything and won't offer anything different.
What is wrong with you people?
Complaining that it shares elements with other games, freaking out that it *dear God* uses 3D!
How old are you anyways?
It seems like the average age in games is around 60 and everyone is yelling at the new games to get off their lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31446682</id>
	<title>George Washington</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268311980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently George Washington will speak "perfect English"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... shouldn't he speak American instead?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently George Washington will speak " perfect English " ... should n't he speak American instead ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently George Washington will speak "perfect English" ... shouldn't he speak American instead?
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437362</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268322840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed..</p><p>It's kind of funny how Atheism today has become like a religion itself, with the more extreme members of the group doing exactly the things that they despise religious extremists for doing (belittling others faiths, actively and aggressively recruiting, suggesting that their views are the only ones worth having etc)</p><p>Maybe I should start an extremist non-religious anti-atheism group...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed..It 's kind of funny how Atheism today has become like a religion itself , with the more extreme members of the group doing exactly the things that they despise religious extremists for doing ( belittling others faiths , actively and aggressively recruiting , suggesting that their views are the only ones worth having etc ) Maybe I should start an extremist non-religious anti-atheism group.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed..It's kind of funny how Atheism today has become like a religion itself, with the more extreme members of the group doing exactly the things that they despise religious extremists for doing (belittling others faiths, actively and aggressively recruiting, suggesting that their views are the only ones worth having etc)Maybe I should start an extremist non-religious anti-atheism group...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436084</id>
	<title>Frosty the poophole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268309100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frosty the poophole was a real asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frosty the poophole was a real asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frosty the poophole was a real asshole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436592</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1268316900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, according to <a href="http://reasonablyaaron.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">your blog</a> [blogspot.com], you belong to a convention-attending "society of atheists" which actively and proudly recruits people.  Here's a tip: This is scarier than most religions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , according to your blog [ blogspot.com ] , you belong to a convention-attending " society of atheists " which actively and proudly recruits people .
Here 's a tip : This is scarier than most religions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, according to your blog [blogspot.com], you belong to a convention-attending "society of atheists" which actively and proudly recruits people.
Here's a tip: This is scarier than most religions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440734</id>
	<title>Re:Workers?</title>
	<author>calibre-not-output</author>
	<datestamp>1268333760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd imagine workers probably don't fill up the tile, i.e. there can only be one <i>military</i> unit in the tile. That's a nice way to solve this issue (though I'd also rather be rid of the workers) though I wonder if they'd consider the settlers and non-General Great Persons as a military unit or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd imagine workers probably do n't fill up the tile , i.e .
there can only be one military unit in the tile .
That 's a nice way to solve this issue ( though I 'd also rather be rid of the workers ) though I wonder if they 'd consider the settlers and non-General Great Persons as a military unit or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd imagine workers probably don't fill up the tile, i.e.
there can only be one military unit in the tile.
That's a nice way to solve this issue (though I'd also rather be rid of the workers) though I wonder if they'd consider the settlers and non-General Great Persons as a military unit or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436336</id>
	<title>More previews</title>
	<author>Eraesr</author>
	<datestamp>1268313240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've got a preview up on <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sid-meiers-civilization-v-preview" title="eurogamer.net" rel="nofollow">Eurogamer</a> [eurogamer.net] as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've got a preview up on Eurogamer [ eurogamer.net ] as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've got a preview up on Eurogamer [eurogamer.net] as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440136</id>
	<title>regarding SoD</title>
	<author>gibson\_81</author>
	<datestamp>1268331420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a player has the industrial muscle to build one, what whine is that of yours? Build your own stack of doom to counter it, or shut up and lose.</p></div><p>Disclaimer; it's been a while since I hung out on the fan forums, but here's my impression of why SoDs are unpopular: it's the AI handicap.</p><p>Sure, on lower levels (noble, prince, monarch) it's not a big issue, cause the AI only gets a small bonus. But when you get up to emperor or immortal, it's very hard to keep up. Not only are the AI armies cheaper to build, they are cheaper to maintain as well. Trying to keep up with Monty or Shaka past the medieval age is a good way to see your economy grind to a halt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a player has the industrial muscle to build one , what whine is that of yours ?
Build your own stack of doom to counter it , or shut up and lose.Disclaimer ; it 's been a while since I hung out on the fan forums , but here 's my impression of why SoDs are unpopular : it 's the AI handicap.Sure , on lower levels ( noble , prince , monarch ) it 's not a big issue , cause the AI only gets a small bonus .
But when you get up to emperor or immortal , it 's very hard to keep up .
Not only are the AI armies cheaper to build , they are cheaper to maintain as well .
Trying to keep up with Monty or Shaka past the medieval age is a good way to see your economy grind to a halt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a player has the industrial muscle to build one, what whine is that of yours?
Build your own stack of doom to counter it, or shut up and lose.Disclaimer; it's been a while since I hung out on the fan forums, but here's my impression of why SoDs are unpopular: it's the AI handicap.Sure, on lower levels (noble, prince, monarch) it's not a big issue, cause the AI only gets a small bonus.
But when you get up to emperor or immortal, it's very hard to keep up.
Not only are the AI armies cheaper to build, they are cheaper to maintain as well.
Trying to keep up with Monty or Shaka past the medieval age is a good way to see your economy grind to a halt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441066</id>
	<title>Re:Workers?</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1268335080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd agree.  In the reverse direction, I really like unlike the Total War series, I don't have to move diplomats around to create treaties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree .
In the reverse direction , I really like unlike the Total War series , I do n't have to move diplomats around to create treaties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree.
In the reverse direction, I really like unlike the Total War series, I don't have to move diplomats around to create treaties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436102</id>
	<title>RE: the "who do your respect poll"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268309400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that so many of you faggots voted for gayman Turing just shows how fucking homosexual Slashdot is.</p><p>The wicked shall burn in the flames of Hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that so many of you faggots voted for gayman Turing just shows how fucking homosexual Slashdot is.The wicked shall burn in the flames of Hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that so many of you faggots voted for gayman Turing just shows how fucking homosexual Slashdot is.The wicked shall burn in the flames of Hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436460</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>Ailure</author>
	<datestamp>1268315400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally find the best Civilization to be Civ IV. In hindsight, Civ III is probably the most "disapointing" version, but I still think it's better than the previous one. Nowadays if I feel like doing old-school civilization I just play FreeCiv with it's default ruleset. Similar enough to Civ 2, but way more balanced (especially for multiplayer),</p><p>I love Alpha Centauri too, but it suffers from a few gameplay problems. Such as that the game is usually decided relativly early on in the tech tree (compared to other Civ games), yet there is a long road to the end... which is annoying. Plus I got a strong feeling it was suffering from feature overload, which explains some of the balance problems.</p><p>The social engineering system was slightly more interesting than the Civics one in some aspects, but on the other hand the Civics system made more sense as a replacement for the old "goverment" system of Civ I-III. I found out that as I got better, the civics was more balanced than I first thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally find the best Civilization to be Civ IV .
In hindsight , Civ III is probably the most " disapointing " version , but I still think it 's better than the previous one .
Nowadays if I feel like doing old-school civilization I just play FreeCiv with it 's default ruleset .
Similar enough to Civ 2 , but way more balanced ( especially for multiplayer ) ,I love Alpha Centauri too , but it suffers from a few gameplay problems .
Such as that the game is usually decided relativly early on in the tech tree ( compared to other Civ games ) , yet there is a long road to the end... which is annoying .
Plus I got a strong feeling it was suffering from feature overload , which explains some of the balance problems.The social engineering system was slightly more interesting than the Civics one in some aspects , but on the other hand the Civics system made more sense as a replacement for the old " goverment " system of Civ I-III .
I found out that as I got better , the civics was more balanced than I first thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally find the best Civilization to be Civ IV.
In hindsight, Civ III is probably the most "disapointing" version, but I still think it's better than the previous one.
Nowadays if I feel like doing old-school civilization I just play FreeCiv with it's default ruleset.
Similar enough to Civ 2, but way more balanced (especially for multiplayer),I love Alpha Centauri too, but it suffers from a few gameplay problems.
Such as that the game is usually decided relativly early on in the tech tree (compared to other Civ games), yet there is a long road to the end... which is annoying.
Plus I got a strong feeling it was suffering from feature overload, which explains some of the balance problems.The social engineering system was slightly more interesting than the Civics one in some aspects, but on the other hand the Civics system made more sense as a replacement for the old "goverment" system of Civ I-III.
I found out that as I got better, the civics was more balanced than I first thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436438</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Ailure</author>
	<datestamp>1268314980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wondering, did you at some point try Civ IV?</p><p>I play Civ IV and Freeciv and... I actually find both good to their own points. I find Freeciv Stronger than Civ I/II/II balance wise, but Civ IV have way different strategies which makes it interesting, especially with how you specialize cities. After getting used into thinking of terms of "cottage spam" and "specialist-based economy", I can't help but to find Freeciv rather basic. The irony is that while they removed a lot of old annoying micromanagement in Civ IV, they introduced new kinds of it. (I belive FreeCiv removed some micromanagment elements, such as making the game handle production/commerce "overflows" of various kinds).</p><p>Personally I don't find the 3D view a nuisance. I actually find it useful in RTS games, where you can pan the camera around buildings that blocks the camera. Isometric 2D games are annoying when it comes to handling buildings that is in the way. If it's a 2D RTS, I prefer a birds view style ala Dune 2/Tiberian Dawn/Red Alert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondering , did you at some point try Civ IV ? I play Civ IV and Freeciv and... I actually find both good to their own points .
I find Freeciv Stronger than Civ I/II/II balance wise , but Civ IV have way different strategies which makes it interesting , especially with how you specialize cities .
After getting used into thinking of terms of " cottage spam " and " specialist-based economy " , I ca n't help but to find Freeciv rather basic .
The irony is that while they removed a lot of old annoying micromanagement in Civ IV , they introduced new kinds of it .
( I belive FreeCiv removed some micromanagment elements , such as making the game handle production/commerce " overflows " of various kinds ) .Personally I do n't find the 3D view a nuisance .
I actually find it useful in RTS games , where you can pan the camera around buildings that blocks the camera .
Isometric 2D games are annoying when it comes to handling buildings that is in the way .
If it 's a 2D RTS , I prefer a birds view style ala Dune 2/Tiberian Dawn/Red Alert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondering, did you at some point try Civ IV?I play Civ IV and Freeciv and... I actually find both good to their own points.
I find Freeciv Stronger than Civ I/II/II balance wise, but Civ IV have way different strategies which makes it interesting, especially with how you specialize cities.
After getting used into thinking of terms of "cottage spam" and "specialist-based economy", I can't help but to find Freeciv rather basic.
The irony is that while they removed a lot of old annoying micromanagement in Civ IV, they introduced new kinds of it.
(I belive FreeCiv removed some micromanagment elements, such as making the game handle production/commerce "overflows" of various kinds).Personally I don't find the 3D view a nuisance.
I actually find it useful in RTS games, where you can pan the camera around buildings that blocks the camera.
Isometric 2D games are annoying when it comes to handling buildings that is in the way.
If it's a 2D RTS, I prefer a birds view style ala Dune 2/Tiberian Dawn/Red Alert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</id>
	<title>3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1268311800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.</p><p>I was (and still am) a huge fan and player of Heroes Of Might &amp; Magic (I, II, and III), Master Of Orion (2), Total Annihilation and Civilization (I, II, Call To Power and Test Of Time) - likewise I've played and enjoyed PC FPS games from original Doom &amp; Duke Nukem 3D through to STALKER, Half-Life 2 and Fallout 3 today.</p><p>Clearly, the FPS genre exists *BECAUSE* of good 3D graphics but who decided that they were needed for strategy games? Fortunately I totally avoided Master Of Orion III but at various points when they were cheap enough to justify rebuying some games I already had, I bought boxed compilations of all the HoMM and Civilization series, the C&amp;C "10 Years" box set (that has everything up to C&amp;C Generals) and Supreme Commander. In each and every case, the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt, to me, like a "dumbing down" of the games...</p><p>Firstly, let's look at HoMM and Civilization. These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an "empire" level, as well as defeat enemy armies. They are not solely about combat, they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight, i.e. Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V?</p><p>Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views? Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...</p><p>These days, as half-Linux half-Windows user, I tend to play <a href="http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Main\_Page" title="wikia.com">Freeciv</a> [wikia.com] quite a lot and IMHO it feels more of a logical progression from the original Civ I/II games.</p><p>I just wish that if games companies have finished with sprite-based RTS games, then they'd hand out the source code of the games on the Internet to let some good programmers loose on them. The great thing about the pre-3D games is they've low resource requirements and power consumption so great for laptops, netbooks &amp; long flights.</p><p>Incidentally, there are a couple of exceptions to the rule - Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II and Sins Of A Solar Empire are fantastic strategy games with built-in 3D but presumably were designed from the ground up with 3D in mind...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but otherwise 3D graphics have killed any idea of buying any new strategy games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I 've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.I was ( and still am ) a huge fan and player of Heroes Of Might &amp; Magic ( I , II , and III ) , Master Of Orion ( 2 ) , Total Annihilation and Civilization ( I , II , Call To Power and Test Of Time ) - likewise I 've played and enjoyed PC FPS games from original Doom &amp; Duke Nukem 3D through to STALKER , Half-Life 2 and Fallout 3 today.Clearly , the FPS genre exists * BECAUSE * of good 3D graphics but who decided that they were needed for strategy games ?
Fortunately I totally avoided Master Of Orion III but at various points when they were cheap enough to justify rebuying some games I already had , I bought boxed compilations of all the HoMM and Civilization series , the C&amp;C " 10 Years " box set ( that has everything up to C&amp;C Generals ) and Supreme Commander .
In each and every case , the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt , to me , like a " dumbing down " of the games...Firstly , let 's look at HoMM and Civilization .
These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an " empire " level , as well as defeat enemy armies .
They are not solely about combat , they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight , i.e .
Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V ? Secondly , Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert .
There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management , where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case , why in hell do I want ( or even need ) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views ?
Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...These days , as half-Linux half-Windows user , I tend to play Freeciv [ wikia.com ] quite a lot and IMHO it feels more of a logical progression from the original Civ I/II games.I just wish that if games companies have finished with sprite-based RTS games , then they 'd hand out the source code of the games on the Internet to let some good programmers loose on them .
The great thing about the pre-3D games is they 've low resource requirements and power consumption so great for laptops , netbooks &amp; long flights.Incidentally , there are a couple of exceptions to the rule - Stardock 's Galactic Civilizations II and Sins Of A Solar Empire are fantastic strategy games with built-in 3D but presumably were designed from the ground up with 3D in mind... ...but otherwise 3D graphics have killed any idea of buying any new strategy games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.I was (and still am) a huge fan and player of Heroes Of Might &amp; Magic (I, II, and III), Master Of Orion (2), Total Annihilation and Civilization (I, II, Call To Power and Test Of Time) - likewise I've played and enjoyed PC FPS games from original Doom &amp; Duke Nukem 3D through to STALKER, Half-Life 2 and Fallout 3 today.Clearly, the FPS genre exists *BECAUSE* of good 3D graphics but who decided that they were needed for strategy games?
Fortunately I totally avoided Master Of Orion III but at various points when they were cheap enough to justify rebuying some games I already had, I bought boxed compilations of all the HoMM and Civilization series, the C&amp;C "10 Years" box set (that has everything up to C&amp;C Generals) and Supreme Commander.
In each and every case, the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt, to me, like a "dumbing down" of the games...Firstly, let's look at HoMM and Civilization.
These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an "empire" level, as well as defeat enemy armies.
They are not solely about combat, they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight, i.e.
Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V?Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert.
There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views?
Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...These days, as half-Linux half-Windows user, I tend to play Freeciv [wikia.com] quite a lot and IMHO it feels more of a logical progression from the original Civ I/II games.I just wish that if games companies have finished with sprite-based RTS games, then they'd hand out the source code of the games on the Internet to let some good programmers loose on them.
The great thing about the pre-3D games is they've low resource requirements and power consumption so great for laptops, netbooks &amp; long flights.Incidentally, there are a couple of exceptions to the rule - Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II and Sins Of A Solar Empire are fantastic strategy games with built-in 3D but presumably were designed from the ground up with 3D in mind... ...but otherwise 3D graphics have killed any idea of buying any new strategy games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441242</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1268335740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In each and every case, the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt, to me, like a "dumbing down" of the games...</i></p><p>Whenever anybody says a game is "dumbed down" I basically read that as, "I don't know why I don't like it, but I'm going to pull a reason out of my ass and as an added bonus, it makes me look like an elitist prick."</p><p>Just FYI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In each and every case , the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt , to me , like a " dumbing down " of the games...Whenever anybody says a game is " dumbed down " I basically read that as , " I do n't know why I do n't like it , but I 'm going to pull a reason out of my ass and as an added bonus , it makes me look like an elitist prick .
" Just FYI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In each and every case, the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt, to me, like a "dumbing down" of the games...Whenever anybody says a game is "dumbed down" I basically read that as, "I don't know why I don't like it, but I'm going to pull a reason out of my ass and as an added bonus, it makes me look like an elitist prick.
"Just FYI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436910</id>
	<title>Re:New AI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268319540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay my morning isnt complete without a dumbshit sopssa comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay my morning isnt complete without a dumbshit sopssa comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay my morning isnt complete without a dumbshit sopssa comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436378</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268313900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ridiculous. Sure, Civ4 could work fine with a Civ1 style graphics scheme. Though why stop there, just do it in ASCII, nethack/dwarf fortress style! That said, it would be nice to be able to switch over to a simple graphics mode to run it on a netbook that lacks a decent GPU. Anyway, from a gameplay perspective the game benefits from 3D, if you really want to call it that -- Civ4 is pretty 2D about it's 3D overhead view. Being able to zoom in to an individual unit isn't particularly useful (so why would you do that?!), but smoothly zooming out to see your whole empire is great. It certainly doesn't take anything away from the game, and I don't see why the 3D view would be to blame for any dumbing down, either.</p><p>Similar things are true for SupCom, though I haven't played it anywhere near as much as Civ1/2/3/4; SupCom was widely acclaimed particularly because of the way it handles zooming in and out, which incidently is just about all you're going to do in terms of "twiddling" with the camera, it's not like you're going to pose units for pretty screenshots in the middle of a normal battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ridiculous .
Sure , Civ4 could work fine with a Civ1 style graphics scheme .
Though why stop there , just do it in ASCII , nethack/dwarf fortress style !
That said , it would be nice to be able to switch over to a simple graphics mode to run it on a netbook that lacks a decent GPU .
Anyway , from a gameplay perspective the game benefits from 3D , if you really want to call it that -- Civ4 is pretty 2D about it 's 3D overhead view .
Being able to zoom in to an individual unit is n't particularly useful ( so why would you do that ? !
) , but smoothly zooming out to see your whole empire is great .
It certainly does n't take anything away from the game , and I do n't see why the 3D view would be to blame for any dumbing down , either.Similar things are true for SupCom , though I have n't played it anywhere near as much as Civ1/2/3/4 ; SupCom was widely acclaimed particularly because of the way it handles zooming in and out , which incidently is just about all you 're going to do in terms of " twiddling " with the camera , it 's not like you 're going to pose units for pretty screenshots in the middle of a normal battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ridiculous.
Sure, Civ4 could work fine with a Civ1 style graphics scheme.
Though why stop there, just do it in ASCII, nethack/dwarf fortress style!
That said, it would be nice to be able to switch over to a simple graphics mode to run it on a netbook that lacks a decent GPU.
Anyway, from a gameplay perspective the game benefits from 3D, if you really want to call it that -- Civ4 is pretty 2D about it's 3D overhead view.
Being able to zoom in to an individual unit isn't particularly useful (so why would you do that?!
), but smoothly zooming out to see your whole empire is great.
It certainly doesn't take anything away from the game, and I don't see why the 3D view would be to blame for any dumbing down, either.Similar things are true for SupCom, though I haven't played it anywhere near as much as Civ1/2/3/4; SupCom was widely acclaimed particularly because of the way it handles zooming in and out, which incidently is just about all you're going to do in terms of "twiddling" with the camera, it's not like you're going to pose units for pretty screenshots in the middle of a normal battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31444554</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268302920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you in principle, but there are technical advantages to 3D even if you just keep the game at a "2D" like perspective all the time. THe main one is unit animation. You can do SO much more these days with 3D animation of units, people, etc than you can in 2D. In 2D you have to render all the various positions, and that's a huge pain in the ass (for the developers) not to mention a waste of time. (Artist deems it necessary to edit a walk cycle... he edits it, re-exports it to the game... done. With 2D, you'd have to re-render out multiple frames, edit them, etc....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you in principle , but there are technical advantages to 3D even if you just keep the game at a " 2D " like perspective all the time .
THe main one is unit animation .
You can do SO much more these days with 3D animation of units , people , etc than you can in 2D .
In 2D you have to render all the various positions , and that 's a huge pain in the ass ( for the developers ) not to mention a waste of time .
( Artist deems it necessary to edit a walk cycle... he edits it , re-exports it to the game... done. With 2D , you 'd have to re-render out multiple frames , edit them , etc.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you in principle, but there are technical advantages to 3D even if you just keep the game at a "2D" like perspective all the time.
THe main one is unit animation.
You can do SO much more these days with 3D animation of units, people, etc than you can in 2D.
In 2D you have to render all the various positions, and that's a huge pain in the ass (for the developers) not to mention a waste of time.
(Artist deems it necessary to edit a walk cycle... he edits it, re-exports it to the game... done. With 2D, you'd have to re-render out multiple frames, edit them, etc....)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437000</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268320320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?</i></p><p>ME!</p><p>I've always wanted to play some hybrid of Nectaris and Civ.</p><p>Being able to play more of a tactical game means everything doesn't devolve into a resource war, treaties carry weight, and multi-player is just that much more involved.</p><p>If they include surround bonus and zone of control... SQUEEE!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat ? ME ! I 've always wanted to play some hybrid of Nectaris and Civ.Being able to play more of a tactical game means everything does n't devolve into a resource war , treaties carry weight , and multi-player is just that much more involved.If they include surround bonus and zone of control.. .
SQUEEE ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?ME!I've always wanted to play some hybrid of Nectaris and Civ.Being able to play more of a tactical game means everything doesn't devolve into a resource war, treaties carry weight, and multi-player is just that much more involved.If they include surround bonus and zone of control...
SQUEEE!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436788</id>
	<title>Workers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268318580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will the one unit per hex effect worker units? I could imagine it getting very frustrating when you can't move your armies out of your cities because of the gaggle of worker units building stuff around it. Personally, I'd like to see them do away with workers altogether. I've been playing CtP 2 recently (thanks GOG.com) and I'm really liking the lack of busy work moving workers around. I also like the fact that I can create trade routes without having to painstakingly move caravan units around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will the one unit per hex effect worker units ?
I could imagine it getting very frustrating when you ca n't move your armies out of your cities because of the gaggle of worker units building stuff around it .
Personally , I 'd like to see them do away with workers altogether .
I 've been playing CtP 2 recently ( thanks GOG.com ) and I 'm really liking the lack of busy work moving workers around .
I also like the fact that I can create trade routes without having to painstakingly move caravan units around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will the one unit per hex effect worker units?
I could imagine it getting very frustrating when you can't move your armies out of your cities because of the gaggle of worker units building stuff around it.
Personally, I'd like to see them do away with workers altogether.
I've been playing CtP 2 recently (thanks GOG.com) and I'm really liking the lack of busy work moving workers around.
I also like the fact that I can create trade routes without having to painstakingly move caravan units around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31442166</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Delusion\_</author>
	<datestamp>1268339280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This drive to make TBS games as graphics intensive as possible goes hand in hand with reducing map size, amount of cities you can have at once, etc.  In short, graphics require compromises which result in exactly the sorts of concessions which are important to multiplayer games (brief game, small maps, small amount of total cities) and which reduce my ability to play truly epic games that take place on vast maps with hundreds of cities.</p><p>I think I'd take simpler graphics with the current ruleset on huge maps than better graphics with the current ruleset on "reasonably sized" maps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This drive to make TBS games as graphics intensive as possible goes hand in hand with reducing map size , amount of cities you can have at once , etc .
In short , graphics require compromises which result in exactly the sorts of concessions which are important to multiplayer games ( brief game , small maps , small amount of total cities ) and which reduce my ability to play truly epic games that take place on vast maps with hundreds of cities.I think I 'd take simpler graphics with the current ruleset on huge maps than better graphics with the current ruleset on " reasonably sized " maps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This drive to make TBS games as graphics intensive as possible goes hand in hand with reducing map size, amount of cities you can have at once, etc.
In short, graphics require compromises which result in exactly the sorts of concessions which are important to multiplayer games (brief game, small maps, small amount of total cities) and which reduce my ability to play truly epic games that take place on vast maps with hundreds of cities.I think I'd take simpler graphics with the current ruleset on huge maps than better graphics with the current ruleset on "reasonably sized" maps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31462906</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1268480220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas</p></div><p>Now that's funny.  What do you do for an encore?  Claim that recent research shows that even homosexuals harbor strong heterosexual attractions?</p><p>I mean, it's nice to see you've been reading things <i>other</i> than the Quaran, but just because someone claims they're doing "research" doesn't mean it's accurate or reliable.  You have to learn to think for yourself!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>since recent research ( google is your friend ) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideasNow that 's funny .
What do you do for an encore ?
Claim that recent research shows that even homosexuals harbor strong heterosexual attractions ? I mean , it 's nice to see you 've been reading things other than the Quaran , but just because someone claims they 're doing " research " does n't mean it 's accurate or reliable .
You have to learn to think for yourself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideasNow that's funny.
What do you do for an encore?
Claim that recent research shows that even homosexuals harbor strong heterosexual attractions?I mean, it's nice to see you've been reading things other than the Quaran, but just because someone claims they're doing "research" doesn't mean it's accurate or reliable.
You have to learn to think for yourself!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437128</id>
	<title>Re:Frosty the poophole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268321280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...with a corn fed stool and an anus for a nose and 2 douche bags made of coal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...with a corn fed stool and an anus for a nose and 2 douche bags made of coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with a corn fed stool and an anus for a nose and 2 douche bags made of coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436568</id>
	<title>*shrug*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268316600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh. I've been a Civ addict for years and this was the first time I heard about a new Civ game and couldn't give a toss.</p><p>I don't have time to master anything beyond Prince level any more, the AI's were always frustrating for various reasons and I do miss my old Civ 2 "sit on a pile of gold, take out the 3 biggest cities of my enemy and then buy up the rest of the empire" tactic using diplomats<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) I do wish them well with the game, but I have moved away from PC gaming almost completely in the last 2 years so I won't be buying it. I really like that with a console, even though I don't have good TBS's, I don't have to worry about driver issues, RAM, processor speeds or any of the other 'joys' I spent 15 years having to do to get a game to work on the PC.</p><p>Civ, I do wish you well as a franchise, but sadly you are part of my past, a past before a wife that wants to spend time with me, consoles that 'just work' and eyes that could take 6 hours of gaming on a PC after 8 hours of being on a computer for work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
I 've been a Civ addict for years and this was the first time I heard about a new Civ game and could n't give a toss.I do n't have time to master anything beyond Prince level any more , the AI 's were always frustrating for various reasons and I do miss my old Civ 2 " sit on a pile of gold , take out the 3 biggest cities of my enemy and then buy up the rest of the empire " tactic using diplomats : ) I do wish them well with the game , but I have moved away from PC gaming almost completely in the last 2 years so I wo n't be buying it .
I really like that with a console , even though I do n't have good TBS 's , I do n't have to worry about driver issues , RAM , processor speeds or any of the other 'joys ' I spent 15 years having to do to get a game to work on the PC.Civ , I do wish you well as a franchise , but sadly you are part of my past , a past before a wife that wants to spend time with me , consoles that 'just work ' and eyes that could take 6 hours of gaming on a PC after 8 hours of being on a computer for work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
I've been a Civ addict for years and this was the first time I heard about a new Civ game and couldn't give a toss.I don't have time to master anything beyond Prince level any more, the AI's were always frustrating for various reasons and I do miss my old Civ 2 "sit on a pile of gold, take out the 3 biggest cities of my enemy and then buy up the rest of the empire" tactic using diplomats :) I do wish them well with the game, but I have moved away from PC gaming almost completely in the last 2 years so I won't be buying it.
I really like that with a console, even though I don't have good TBS's, I don't have to worry about driver issues, RAM, processor speeds or any of the other 'joys' I spent 15 years having to do to get a game to work on the PC.Civ, I do wish you well as a franchise, but sadly you are part of my past, a past before a wife that wants to spend time with me, consoles that 'just work' and eyes that could take 6 hours of gaming on a PC after 8 hours of being on a computer for work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436530</id>
	<title>the only question we should be asking</title>
	<author>C0vardeAn0nim0</author>
	<datestamp>1268316240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the only question we should be asking is: "where does the line start ???"</p><p>seriously, i'll cut my left ball out fi i don't get this game on day ONE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the only question we should be asking is : " where does the line start ? ? ?
" seriously , i 'll cut my left ball out fi i do n't get this game on day ONE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only question we should be asking is: "where does the line start ???
"seriously, i'll cut my left ball out fi i don't get this game on day ONE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437558</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Maltheus</author>
	<datestamp>1268323680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing about RTSes is that even though the older games often offer better gameplay, I can never go back to the old control systems. I somehow missed out on the whole starcraft thing and tried to play it a few years after, but couldn't handle it, due to an inability to group more than something like 8 units at a time. Supreme Commander may have gone overboard on the graphics, but I simple won't bother with an RTS anymore that doesn't have strategic zoom and the ability to infinitely queue your actions. Sins did this too, but it actually had a functional AI as well (although not the innovative supreme commander style economy). So while I agree with you about the need to stop focusing so much on the graphics, I don't think that's stopped the genre (RTS anyway) from substantially improving on other fronts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about RTSes is that even though the older games often offer better gameplay , I can never go back to the old control systems .
I somehow missed out on the whole starcraft thing and tried to play it a few years after , but could n't handle it , due to an inability to group more than something like 8 units at a time .
Supreme Commander may have gone overboard on the graphics , but I simple wo n't bother with an RTS anymore that does n't have strategic zoom and the ability to infinitely queue your actions .
Sins did this too , but it actually had a functional AI as well ( although not the innovative supreme commander style economy ) .
So while I agree with you about the need to stop focusing so much on the graphics , I do n't think that 's stopped the genre ( RTS anyway ) from substantially improving on other fronts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about RTSes is that even though the older games often offer better gameplay, I can never go back to the old control systems.
I somehow missed out on the whole starcraft thing and tried to play it a few years after, but couldn't handle it, due to an inability to group more than something like 8 units at a time.
Supreme Commander may have gone overboard on the graphics, but I simple won't bother with an RTS anymore that doesn't have strategic zoom and the ability to infinitely queue your actions.
Sins did this too, but it actually had a functional AI as well (although not the innovative supreme commander style economy).
So while I agree with you about the need to stop focusing so much on the graphics, I don't think that's stopped the genre (RTS anyway) from substantially improving on other fronts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440830</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>SMACX guy</author>
	<datestamp>1268334120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
I concur.</p><blockquote><div><p>Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?</p></div></blockquote><p>
I think there's another way to look at it.  Some people like tactical games <em>too</em>; not an either-or kind of thing. But when you play a tactical game (my favored example is Kohan, simply because I'm mainly only familiar with games that have been ported to Linux), you often sort of want a strategic/empire\_building element <em>added</em> to that.  Maybe Civ5 could be in both markets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For my money , I personally think that the best " Civ " game ever made was , by leaps and bounds , Alpha Centauri .
I concur.Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat ?
I think there 's another way to look at it .
Some people like tactical games too ; not an either-or kind of thing .
But when you play a tactical game ( my favored example is Kohan , simply because I 'm mainly only familiar with games that have been ported to Linux ) , you often sort of want a strategic/empire \ _building element added to that .
Maybe Civ5 could be in both markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.
I concur.Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?
I think there's another way to look at it.
Some people like tactical games too; not an either-or kind of thing.
But when you play a tactical game (my favored example is Kohan, simply because I'm mainly only familiar with games that have been ported to Linux), you often sort of want a strategic/empire\_building element added to that.
Maybe Civ5 could be in both markets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437198</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1268321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I miss the original Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.  That game was awesome and introduced me to the strategy genre.  I just wish they(blizzard) would re-release it.  Warcraft2 and Warcraft3 are also good, but I still miss the original.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I miss the original Warcraft : Orcs and Humans .
That game was awesome and introduced me to the strategy genre .
I just wish they ( blizzard ) would re-release it .
Warcraft2 and Warcraft3 are also good , but I still miss the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I miss the original Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.
That game was awesome and introduced me to the strategy genre.
I just wish they(blizzard) would re-release it.
Warcraft2 and Warcraft3 are also good, but I still miss the original.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440186</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268331600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firstly, let's look at HoMM and Civilization. These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an "empire" level, as well as defeat enemy armies. They are not solely about combat, they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight, i.e. Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V?</p></div><p>In Civ 1 (at least the Amiga version) you could "zoom in" to see an individual city in full detail, or as much of it that the crude 320x200 graphics would allow you to. You gained nothing from a playability perspective, but it was just a nice feature to have. Same thing with zooming to an unit on the newer game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , let 's look at HoMM and Civilization .
These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an " empire " level , as well as defeat enemy armies .
They are not solely about combat , they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight , i.e .
Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V ? In Civ 1 ( at least the Amiga version ) you could " zoom in " to see an individual city in full detail , or as much of it that the crude 320x200 graphics would allow you to .
You gained nothing from a playability perspective , but it was just a nice feature to have .
Same thing with zooming to an unit on the newer game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, let's look at HoMM and Civilization.
These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an "empire" level, as well as defeat enemy armies.
They are not solely about combat, they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight, i.e.
Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V?In Civ 1 (at least the Amiga version) you could "zoom in" to see an individual city in full detail, or as much of it that the crude 320x200 graphics would allow you to.
You gained nothing from a playability perspective, but it was just a nice feature to have.
Same thing with zooming to an unit on the newer game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439294</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>loudmax</author>
	<datestamp>1268328480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.</i></p><p>I haven't played the newer Civ games, but Alpha Centauri was so full of awesome that I don't find that hard to believe.  And you're right, it wasn't about the tactics.  Being able to build your own units was cool, but what made it a great game was the narrative.  There was a real sense of different, evolving cultures fighting for the soul of the planet.  In my experience, what made playing Civilization so enjoyable wasn't just the conquest strategy, it was the sense of playing out history.  Alpha Centauri got that right.  If the rest of the Civ franchise hasn't, they may be fun games, but they won't be anything special.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think that the best " Civ " game ever made was , by leaps and bounds , Alpha Centauri.I have n't played the newer Civ games , but Alpha Centauri was so full of awesome that I do n't find that hard to believe .
And you 're right , it was n't about the tactics .
Being able to build your own units was cool , but what made it a great game was the narrative .
There was a real sense of different , evolving cultures fighting for the soul of the planet .
In my experience , what made playing Civilization so enjoyable was n't just the conquest strategy , it was the sense of playing out history .
Alpha Centauri got that right .
If the rest of the Civ franchise has n't , they may be fun games , but they wo n't be anything special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.I haven't played the newer Civ games, but Alpha Centauri was so full of awesome that I don't find that hard to believe.
And you're right, it wasn't about the tactics.
Being able to build your own units was cool, but what made it a great game was the narrative.
There was a real sense of different, evolving cultures fighting for the soul of the planet.
In my experience, what made playing Civilization so enjoyable wasn't just the conquest strategy, it was the sense of playing out history.
Alpha Centauri got that right.
If the rest of the Civ franchise hasn't, they may be fun games, but they won't be anything special.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618</id>
	<title>don't it get boring?</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1268317080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII? Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum? Were are the new ideas, new concepts. I mean, even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it's a really great game, so where are the new concepts of today?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII ?
Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum ?
Were are the new ideas , new concepts .
I mean , even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it 's a really great game , so where are the new concepts of today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII?
Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum?
Were are the new ideas, new concepts.
I mean, even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it's a really great game, so where are the new concepts of today?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436852</id>
	<title>Re:I was never good at Civ</title>
	<author>koreaman</author>
	<datestamp>1268319060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try Civ4. Modern units are much less likely to lose to spearmen than in previous games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Civ4 .
Modern units are much less likely to lose to spearmen than in previous games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Civ4.
Modern units are much less likely to lose to spearmen than in previous games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441132</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1268335380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if it did... It wouldn't really fix anything though. Crazy Nut jobs will still find an excuse to justify their violence.   People will still knock on your door trying to force you to think like them...</p><p>But what could happen are the current "God Fearing" people The people who really don't have their own moral value in place, will not have a place to turn to tell them that what they are doing is wrong.  Also I am fairly sure new superstitions will pop up without the hundreds/thousands of years philosophy to help moderate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it did... It would n't really fix anything though .
Crazy Nut jobs will still find an excuse to justify their violence .
People will still knock on your door trying to force you to think like them...But what could happen are the current " God Fearing " people The people who really do n't have their own moral value in place , will not have a place to turn to tell them that what they are doing is wrong .
Also I am fairly sure new superstitions will pop up without the hundreds/thousands of years philosophy to help moderate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it did... It wouldn't really fix anything though.
Crazy Nut jobs will still find an excuse to justify their violence.
People will still knock on your door trying to force you to think like them...But what could happen are the current "God Fearing" people The people who really don't have their own moral value in place, will not have a place to turn to tell them that what they are doing is wrong.
Also I am fairly sure new superstitions will pop up without the hundreds/thousands of years philosophy to help moderate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436132</id>
	<title>One unit per tile is dumb</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1268309940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should be around three or something. One doesn't really make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be around three or something .
One does n't really make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be around three or something.
One doesn't really make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441332</id>
	<title>Re:Swell...</title>
	<author>Seq</author>
	<datestamp>1268336040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was laid off for a bit last year. I'd be downstairs playing when the lights start flickering. I'd yell up "Time for bed?" My wife says "No, I'm going to work"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was laid off for a bit last year .
I 'd be downstairs playing when the lights start flickering .
I 'd yell up " Time for bed ?
" My wife says " No , I 'm going to work "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was laid off for a bit last year.
I'd be downstairs playing when the lights start flickering.
I'd yell up "Time for bed?
" My wife says "No, I'm going to work"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436290</id>
	<title>Civ4 with mod FFH2 is plenty enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268312520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've recently discovered the <a href="http://kael.civfanatics.net/" title="civfanatics.net">Fall From Heaven 2</a> [civfanatics.net] mod for Civ4. It's the most sophisticated and complete mod for Civ4 out there. It's a fantasy mod set in a <a href="http://fallfromheaven.wikia.com/" title="wikia.com">deep and well fleshed out universe</a> [wikia.com]<br>It brings much more new concepts and content than both commercial extensions, Warlords and Beyond the Sword (although it requires these to work).</p><p>I expect it to keep me busy enough well past Civ V enters the discount bins. Having the mod ported to Civ V, however, will make me switch in an instant. Hint hint, Firaxis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've recently discovered the Fall From Heaven 2 [ civfanatics.net ] mod for Civ4 .
It 's the most sophisticated and complete mod for Civ4 out there .
It 's a fantasy mod set in a deep and well fleshed out universe [ wikia.com ] It brings much more new concepts and content than both commercial extensions , Warlords and Beyond the Sword ( although it requires these to work ) .I expect it to keep me busy enough well past Civ V enters the discount bins .
Having the mod ported to Civ V , however , will make me switch in an instant .
Hint hint , Firaxis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've recently discovered the Fall From Heaven 2 [civfanatics.net] mod for Civ4.
It's the most sophisticated and complete mod for Civ4 out there.
It's a fantasy mod set in a deep and well fleshed out universe [wikia.com]It brings much more new concepts and content than both commercial extensions, Warlords and Beyond the Sword (although it requires these to work).I expect it to keep me busy enough well past Civ V enters the discount bins.
Having the mod ported to Civ V, however, will make me switch in an instant.
Hint hint, Firaxis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437680</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268324040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[flamebait'ed but ill assume some idiot really believes your comment...]</p><p>an atheist engaging in hope beyond reason? who would have thought?</p><p>since religion appears to be an hard-wired in to our brains and since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas, your comment is not only silly, but probably misinformed at its base.</p><p>combine with the fact that atheists are one of the highest statistically groups to practice scapegoating, that mosque attendance is a negative predictor of violence and terrorism, and that there is no indication that on average atheists are more rational than anyone else about anything... you get the picture.</p><p>read a book or ten and stop making bald statements that make you feel better about yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ flamebait'ed but ill assume some idiot really believes your comment... ] an atheist engaging in hope beyond reason ?
who would have thought ? since religion appears to be an hard-wired in to our brains and since recent research ( google is your friend ) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas , your comment is not only silly , but probably misinformed at its base.combine with the fact that atheists are one of the highest statistically groups to practice scapegoating , that mosque attendance is a negative predictor of violence and terrorism , and that there is no indication that on average atheists are more rational than anyone else about anything... you get the picture.read a book or ten and stop making bald statements that make you feel better about yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[flamebait'ed but ill assume some idiot really believes your comment...]an atheist engaging in hope beyond reason?
who would have thought?since religion appears to be an hard-wired in to our brains and since recent research (google is your friend) in cognitive anthropology shows that even atheists harbor strong religious ideas, your comment is not only silly, but probably misinformed at its base.combine with the fact that atheists are one of the highest statistically groups to practice scapegoating, that mosque attendance is a negative predictor of violence and terrorism, and that there is no indication that on average atheists are more rational than anyone else about anything... you get the picture.read a book or ten and stop making bald statements that make you feel better about yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268311440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, I think from that short little preview I am indifferent.  I could see how it could be good, but frankly, nothing in that preview really hit on the 'heart' of Civilization.</p><p>Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?  Who cares if the diplomacy screen has the guys walking around instead of just portrait?</p><p>The stuff that makes Civilization games either great or suck is in how it deals with culture, expansion, technology, city management, improvements, government types, etc.  Frankly, I don't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games.  They added some neat futures, but they also managed to dumb down a lot of interesting things from earlier Civs.  The civics from Civ4 were especially vapid and uninteresting.</p><p>For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.  That game had interesting world events, awesome civics, and each nation had a real sense of personality.  I personally hope that they go down that road for Civ5 and give the game more personality, rather than strip it down further like they did with Civ4.  Granted, it is really still far too early to make any judgments on the game, I am just not terribly hopeful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , I think from that short little preview I am indifferent .
I could see how it could be good , but frankly , nothing in that preview really hit on the 'heart ' of Civilization.Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat ?
Who cares if the diplomacy screen has the guys walking around instead of just portrait ? The stuff that makes Civilization games either great or suck is in how it deals with culture , expansion , technology , city management , improvements , government types , etc .
Frankly , I do n't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games .
They added some neat futures , but they also managed to dumb down a lot of interesting things from earlier Civs .
The civics from Civ4 were especially vapid and uninteresting.For my money , I personally think that the best " Civ " game ever made was , by leaps and bounds , Alpha Centauri .
That game had interesting world events , awesome civics , and each nation had a real sense of personality .
I personally hope that they go down that road for Civ5 and give the game more personality , rather than strip it down further like they did with Civ4 .
Granted , it is really still far too early to make any judgments on the game , I am just not terribly hopeful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, I think from that short little preview I am indifferent.
I could see how it could be good, but frankly, nothing in that preview really hit on the 'heart' of Civilization.Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat?
Who cares if the diplomacy screen has the guys walking around instead of just portrait?The stuff that makes Civilization games either great or suck is in how it deals with culture, expansion, technology, city management, improvements, government types, etc.
Frankly, I don't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games.
They added some neat futures, but they also managed to dumb down a lot of interesting things from earlier Civs.
The civics from Civ4 were especially vapid and uninteresting.For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.
That game had interesting world events, awesome civics, and each nation had a real sense of personality.
I personally hope that they go down that road for Civ5 and give the game more personality, rather than strip it down further like they did with Civ4.
Granted, it is really still far too early to make any judgments on the game, I am just not terribly hopeful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441542</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>mots</author>
	<datestamp>1268336940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are serious about HoMM 3, I'm sure I won't need to tell you about <a href="http://wog.celestialheavens.com/" title="celestialheavens.com" rel="nofollow">WoG</a> [celestialheavens.com]

In case you don't know it, it's an awesome Mod for HoMM that adds tons of new Gameplay features as well as quite a few new buildings, creatures etc.

Oh and btw: Check out <a href="http://forum.vcmi.eu/portal.php" title="forum.vcmi.eu" rel="nofollow">VCMI</a> [forum.vcmi.eu] as well. It's an (not quite finished) open source rewrite of the HoMM 3 engine which promises things like proper mod support, high resolution support, simultaneous turns for LAN Games and much more</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are serious about HoMM 3 , I 'm sure I wo n't need to tell you about WoG [ celestialheavens.com ] In case you do n't know it , it 's an awesome Mod for HoMM that adds tons of new Gameplay features as well as quite a few new buildings , creatures etc .
Oh and btw : Check out VCMI [ forum.vcmi.eu ] as well .
It 's an ( not quite finished ) open source rewrite of the HoMM 3 engine which promises things like proper mod support , high resolution support , simultaneous turns for LAN Games and much more</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are serious about HoMM 3, I'm sure I won't need to tell you about WoG [celestialheavens.com]

In case you don't know it, it's an awesome Mod for HoMM that adds tons of new Gameplay features as well as quite a few new buildings, creatures etc.
Oh and btw: Check out VCMI [forum.vcmi.eu] as well.
It's an (not quite finished) open source rewrite of the HoMM 3 engine which promises things like proper mod support, high resolution support, simultaneous turns for LAN Games and much more</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437074</id>
	<title>Damn you, Slashdot</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1268320860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just put in the Civ4 disk and lost three hours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just put in the Civ4 disk and lost three hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just put in the Civ4 disk and lost three hours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436538</id>
	<title>But is it compatible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... with wine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... with wine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... with wine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436884</id>
	<title>Re:don't it get boring?</title>
	<author>tangelogee</author>
	<datestamp>1268319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean like Oregon Trail 1-5, plus phone/DS/Blender/Refrigerator versions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean like Oregon Trail 1-5 , plus phone/DS/Blender/Refrigerator versions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean like Oregon Trail 1-5, plus phone/DS/Blender/Refrigerator versions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436860</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1268319180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely: the animated leaders are just dumb. The clouds and water effects are cute the first time you see them, and afterwards irrelevant. Civ2 and Civ4 have the best gameplay of the bunch (Civ3 was just a waste). But the resources that CIV-4 eats while just sitting idle (even while minimized!) are just ridiculous.

</p><p>Reading the description, they are making a lot of changes just for the sake of change, and spending way too much effort on irrelevant graphics. Civ5 promises to be another odd-numbered disappointment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely : the animated leaders are just dumb .
The clouds and water effects are cute the first time you see them , and afterwards irrelevant .
Civ2 and Civ4 have the best gameplay of the bunch ( Civ3 was just a waste ) .
But the resources that CIV-4 eats while just sitting idle ( even while minimized !
) are just ridiculous .
Reading the description , they are making a lot of changes just for the sake of change , and spending way too much effort on irrelevant graphics .
Civ5 promises to be another odd-numbered disappointment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely: the animated leaders are just dumb.
The clouds and water effects are cute the first time you see them, and afterwards irrelevant.
Civ2 and Civ4 have the best gameplay of the bunch (Civ3 was just a waste).
But the resources that CIV-4 eats while just sitting idle (even while minimized!
) are just ridiculous.
Reading the description, they are making a lot of changes just for the sake of change, and spending way too much effort on irrelevant graphics.
Civ5 promises to be another odd-numbered disappointment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436340</id>
	<title>Re: the "who do your respect poll"</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1268313360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Baby, I'd love to test you for Turing-completeness, if you know what I mean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Baby , I 'd love to test you for Turing-completeness , if you know what I mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baby, I'd love to test you for Turing-completeness, if you know what I mean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31444758</id>
	<title>Re:Wesnoth -- Ranged attacks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268303640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Westnoth is a great game, but it is not truly original, it is strongly based off of Master of Monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master\_of\_Monsters). Heck, even the Westnoth people themselves admit it! (http://wiki.wesnoth.org/WesnothPhilosophy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Westnoth is a great game , but it is not truly original , it is strongly based off of Master of Monsters ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master \ _of \ _Monsters ) .
Heck , even the Westnoth people themselves admit it !
( http : //wiki.wesnoth.org/WesnothPhilosophy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Westnoth is a great game, but it is not truly original, it is strongly based off of Master of Monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master\_of\_Monsters).
Heck, even the Westnoth people themselves admit it!
(http://wiki.wesnoth.org/WesnothPhilosophy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31443606</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268299920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because religion has never been a significant factor in the development of a civilization.  Why include it in the game?  lol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because religion has never been a significant factor in the development of a civilization .
Why include it in the game ?
lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because religion has never been a significant factor in the development of a civilization.
Why include it in the game?
lol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437016</id>
	<title>Re:Wesnoth clone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268320440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ranged attacks can only hit adjacent units in Wesnoth.  But given that you must have played the game quite a bit to come up with that clever, astute remark, I'm sure you knew that already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ranged attacks can only hit adjacent units in Wesnoth .
But given that you must have played the game quite a bit to come up with that clever , astute remark , I 'm sure you knew that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ranged attacks can only hit adjacent units in Wesnoth.
But given that you must have played the game quite a bit to come up with that clever, astute remark, I'm sure you knew that already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440018</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268330940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Frankly, I don't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games.</i></p><p>It was not.  It was a return to form after the turd that was Civ III.   Still not up to the greatness that was Civ II.  IMO, the best thing they could do is re-release Civ II with better graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I do n't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games.It was not .
It was a return to form after the turd that was Civ III .
Still not up to the greatness that was Civ II .
IMO , the best thing they could do is re-release Civ II with better graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I don't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games.It was not.
It was a return to form after the turd that was Civ III.
Still not up to the greatness that was Civ II.
IMO, the best thing they could do is re-release Civ II with better graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437308</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1268322540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm glad they got rid of religion. Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.</p></div></blockquote><p>If this hasn't happened yet, it's because you don't pray hard enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad they got rid of religion .
Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.If this has n't happened yet , it 's because you do n't pray hard enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad they got rid of religion.
Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.If this hasn't happened yet, it's because you don't pray hard enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392</id>
	<title>Wesnoth clone</title>
	<author>fph il quozientatore</author>
	<datestamp>1268314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hexes, one unit per tile, ranged attacks, tactical combat, no need to garrison a city... Wow, civ5 will be an overpriced giant 3D Battle of Wesnoth clone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hexes , one unit per tile , ranged attacks , tactical combat , no need to garrison a city... Wow , civ5 will be an overpriced giant 3D Battle of Wesnoth clone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hexes, one unit per tile, ranged attacks, tactical combat, no need to garrison a city... Wow, civ5 will be an overpriced giant 3D Battle of Wesnoth clone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441084</id>
	<title>Re:New AI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268335140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read more than one interview on this topic. While I agree with you about having cheating AI really sucks, the point made in the interviews was that even now it is difficult to get an AI to win at chess. Chess has a large but finite number of moves with only two opponents. In a game like Civ, with random land masses and features, multiple opponents, and variable numbers and capabilities of game pieces, and even more variables when you through culture, religion, civics, and the rest in, it is impossible to make honest and challenging AI. So they let it cheat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read more than one interview on this topic .
While I agree with you about having cheating AI really sucks , the point made in the interviews was that even now it is difficult to get an AI to win at chess .
Chess has a large but finite number of moves with only two opponents .
In a game like Civ , with random land masses and features , multiple opponents , and variable numbers and capabilities of game pieces , and even more variables when you through culture , religion , civics , and the rest in , it is impossible to make honest and challenging AI .
So they let it cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read more than one interview on this topic.
While I agree with you about having cheating AI really sucks, the point made in the interviews was that even now it is difficult to get an AI to win at chess.
Chess has a large but finite number of moves with only two opponents.
In a game like Civ, with random land masses and features, multiple opponents, and variable numbers and capabilities of game pieces, and even more variables when you through culture, religion, civics, and the rest in, it is impossible to make honest and challenging AI.
So they let it cheat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436514</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views?</p> </div><p>TA and Supreme Commander are not about skirmishing, they are about massive battles on a huge scale. And the awesome zoom function of SC makes those battles manageable. I am unable to go back to any other RTS game (with the exception of the Total War series) - I always try desperately to zoom out further.<br>To me, the zoom function of TA is the single best feature of game GUI design in the last 15 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Secondly , Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert .
There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management , where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case , why in hell do I want ( or even need ) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views ?
TA and Supreme Commander are not about skirmishing , they are about massive battles on a huge scale .
And the awesome zoom function of SC makes those battles manageable .
I am unable to go back to any other RTS game ( with the exception of the Total War series ) - I always try desperately to zoom out further.To me , the zoom function of TA is the single best feature of game GUI design in the last 15 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&amp;C/Red Alert.
There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views?
TA and Supreme Commander are not about skirmishing, they are about massive battles on a huge scale.
And the awesome zoom function of SC makes those battles manageable.
I am unable to go back to any other RTS game (with the exception of the Total War series) - I always try desperately to zoom out further.To me, the zoom function of TA is the single best feature of game GUI design in the last 15 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441498</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>Delusion\_</author>
	<datestamp>1268336760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri."</p><p>Seconded.</p><p>It's also the last game of its sort that allowed me to play the epic scale game I prefer:  preposterously large maps and unreasonable amounts of cities.  I enjoy that sort of gameplay, with very long-form games.</p><p>Every game since Civ 3 has seemed to make a mission out of forcing me to play a single-player game as if it were a multi-player game; short, small, and decisive.  I wish the licensing for Alpha Centauri was such that it could have a proper sequel.  But I also suspect they'd shrink it down for multiplayer expectations the way they did with Civ3 and Civ4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For my money , I personally think that the best " Civ " game ever made was , by leaps and bounds , Alpha Centauri .
" Seconded.It 's also the last game of its sort that allowed me to play the epic scale game I prefer : preposterously large maps and unreasonable amounts of cities .
I enjoy that sort of gameplay , with very long-form games.Every game since Civ 3 has seemed to make a mission out of forcing me to play a single-player game as if it were a multi-player game ; short , small , and decisive .
I wish the licensing for Alpha Centauri was such that it could have a proper sequel .
But I also suspect they 'd shrink it down for multiplayer expectations the way they did with Civ3 and Civ4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri.
"Seconded.It's also the last game of its sort that allowed me to play the epic scale game I prefer:  preposterously large maps and unreasonable amounts of cities.
I enjoy that sort of gameplay, with very long-form games.Every game since Civ 3 has seemed to make a mission out of forcing me to play a single-player game as if it were a multi-player game; short, small, and decisive.
I wish the licensing for Alpha Centauri was such that it could have a proper sequel.
But I also suspect they'd shrink it down for multiplayer expectations the way they did with Civ3 and Civ4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436846</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1268319060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.</p></div><p>Cheap computer and console gamers happened. The unlimited ammo, keep shooting till the millions of identical enemies are dead, learn to twitch faster than the boss on the screen to win the level, action <b>action <i>ACTION</i> </b> gaming idiot happened. Vast hordes of unsophisticated gamers created a big market that dwarfed the previous smaller market of more cerebral computer dorks. Companies started developing games for them, rather than us. That's why we have slightly updated EA sports games released <i>every year</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I 've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.Cheap computer and console gamers happened .
The unlimited ammo , keep shooting till the millions of identical enemies are dead , learn to twitch faster than the boss on the screen to win the level , action action ACTION gaming idiot happened .
Vast hordes of unsophisticated gamers created a big market that dwarfed the previous smaller market of more cerebral computer dorks .
Companies started developing games for them , rather than us .
That 's why we have slightly updated EA sports games released every year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.Cheap computer and console gamers happened.
The unlimited ammo, keep shooting till the millions of identical enemies are dead, learn to twitch faster than the boss on the screen to win the level, action action ACTION  gaming idiot happened.
Vast hordes of unsophisticated gamers created a big market that dwarfed the previous smaller market of more cerebral computer dorks.
Companies started developing games for them, rather than us.
That's why we have slightly updated EA sports games released every year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31469570</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>ilyag</author>
	<datestamp>1268499300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm almost sure you'll enjoy <a href="http://c-evo.org/" title="c-evo.org">C-Evo</a> [c-evo.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm almost sure you 'll enjoy C-Evo [ c-evo.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm almost sure you'll enjoy C-Evo [c-evo.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439002</id>
	<title>Re:don't it get boring?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268327640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII? Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum? Were are the new ideas, new concepts. I mean, even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it's a really great game, so where are the new concepts of today?</p></div><p>I dunno, why don't you offer some money for them and see how far you get?</p><p>Also, you can only use each idea once.  No repeats.  No sequels.  All completely novel.</p><p>Believe it or not though, sometimes refinement is the way to go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII ?
Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum ?
Were are the new ideas , new concepts .
I mean , even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it 's a really great game , so where are the new concepts of today ? I dunno , why do n't you offer some money for them and see how far you get ? Also , you can only use each idea once .
No repeats .
No sequels .
All completely novel.Believe it or not though , sometimes refinement is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII?
Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum?
Were are the new ideas, new concepts.
I mean, even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it's a really great game, so where are the new concepts of today?I dunno, why don't you offer some money for them and see how far you get?Also, you can only use each idea once.
No repeats.
No sequels.
All completely novel.Believe it or not though, sometimes refinement is the way to go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437062</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>MRe\_nl</author>
	<datestamp>1268320800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree Civ 4 wasn't a step forward.<br>But for me personally a top down 2D map is easier for tactical Civ type games.<br>An ideal mix, AFAIK, would be Civ III Conquest as the basis, Priest, Slavers, Future Techs and Space Combat from Civ Call to Power, and battles/combat like Rome Total War Gold/Barbarian invasion. A hex based map is nice. Alpha Centauri-style "design your own" units are nice.<br>But 3D only in the battles, not in the "worldview"-mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree Civ 4 was n't a step forward.But for me personally a top down 2D map is easier for tactical Civ type games.An ideal mix , AFAIK , would be Civ III Conquest as the basis , Priest , Slavers , Future Techs and Space Combat from Civ Call to Power , and battles/combat like Rome Total War Gold/Barbarian invasion .
A hex based map is nice .
Alpha Centauri-style " design your own " units are nice.But 3D only in the battles , not in the " worldview " -mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree Civ 4 wasn't a step forward.But for me personally a top down 2D map is easier for tactical Civ type games.An ideal mix, AFAIK, would be Civ III Conquest as the basis, Priest, Slavers, Future Techs and Space Combat from Civ Call to Power, and battles/combat like Rome Total War Gold/Barbarian invasion.
A hex based map is nice.
Alpha Centauri-style "design your own" units are nice.But 3D only in the battles, not in the "worldview"-mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31496870</id>
	<title>limit units in a hex instead?</title>
	<author>arcade video gamer</author>
	<datestamp>1268758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>stacks are nice, but why not limit the stacks to something reasonable, like only so many infantry or whatever in a hex. Give each unit a mass and dont let the hex have too much mass in it, either that or just set the limit to like 10 units max in a hex</htmltext>
<tokenext>stacks are nice , but why not limit the stacks to something reasonable , like only so many infantry or whatever in a hex .
Give each unit a mass and dont let the hex have too much mass in it , either that or just set the limit to like 10 units max in a hex</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stacks are nice, but why not limit the stacks to something reasonable, like only so many infantry or whatever in a hex.
Give each unit a mass and dont let the hex have too much mass in it, either that or just set the limit to like 10 units max in a hex</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436526</id>
	<title>Re:3D In Strategy Games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268316180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want strategy ?</p><p>just get europa universalis III or Hearts of Iron III from Paradox Entertainment they are awesome and the modding community is HUGE with many flavors of the game added every day by the users.</p><p>and chek out they forum. ITS ENORMOUS http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/</p><p>Personally i just love the mod for Hearts of Iron II mod 34 some people from spain spend an insane amount of time adding events and techs to create a whole new game!</p><p>have fun!</p><p>- Namreg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want strategy ? just get europa universalis III or Hearts of Iron III from Paradox Entertainment they are awesome and the modding community is HUGE with many flavors of the game added every day by the users.and chek out they forum .
ITS ENORMOUS http : //forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/Personally i just love the mod for Hearts of Iron II mod 34 some people from spain spend an insane amount of time adding events and techs to create a whole new game ! have fun ! - Namreg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want strategy ?just get europa universalis III or Hearts of Iron III from Paradox Entertainment they are awesome and the modding community is HUGE with many flavors of the game added every day by the users.and chek out they forum.
ITS ENORMOUS http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/Personally i just love the mod for Hearts of Iron II mod 34 some people from spain spend an insane amount of time adding events and techs to create a whole new game!have fun!- Namreg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436976</id>
	<title>Re:Swell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268320080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When my wife read about Civ IV, she informed me that I would not be buying it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When my wife read about Civ IV , she informed me that I would not be buying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my wife read about Civ IV, she informed me that I would not be buying it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436316</id>
	<title>Re:I'm already excited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268313000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another way the stack of doom problem can be solved is by applying "coordination" penalties on stacks with a large number of units, as in Hearts of Iron 3.</p><p>The danger with forcing only 1 unit per tile is that the battles will become too tactical, which is great for games like the old Panzer General where there are relatively few units, but may not work for grand strategy games like Civ. Endgame wars already take too long in Civ4 due to the sheer number of units to move, and making combat tactical means you also have to be concerned about the formation of your units as you move them through hostile territory (imagine the nightmare of manually coordinating 2 fronts with 100 units on each front). They'd need to have some pretty spiffy unit and unit-group automation to make sure this doesn't become too annoying to more casual (i.e. non-grognard) players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way the stack of doom problem can be solved is by applying " coordination " penalties on stacks with a large number of units , as in Hearts of Iron 3.The danger with forcing only 1 unit per tile is that the battles will become too tactical , which is great for games like the old Panzer General where there are relatively few units , but may not work for grand strategy games like Civ .
Endgame wars already take too long in Civ4 due to the sheer number of units to move , and making combat tactical means you also have to be concerned about the formation of your units as you move them through hostile territory ( imagine the nightmare of manually coordinating 2 fronts with 100 units on each front ) .
They 'd need to have some pretty spiffy unit and unit-group automation to make sure this does n't become too annoying to more casual ( i.e .
non-grognard ) players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way the stack of doom problem can be solved is by applying "coordination" penalties on stacks with a large number of units, as in Hearts of Iron 3.The danger with forcing only 1 unit per tile is that the battles will become too tactical, which is great for games like the old Panzer General where there are relatively few units, but may not work for grand strategy games like Civ.
Endgame wars already take too long in Civ4 due to the sheer number of units to move, and making combat tactical means you also have to be concerned about the formation of your units as you move them through hostile territory (imagine the nightmare of manually coordinating 2 fronts with 100 units on each front).
They'd need to have some pretty spiffy unit and unit-group automation to make sure this doesn't become too annoying to more casual (i.e.
non-grognard) players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436116</id>
	<title>New AI</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1268309880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love diplomacy but it sucks when you know the AI is going to cheat. I hope Civ V will finally have an AI that doesn't cheat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love diplomacy but it sucks when you know the AI is going to cheat .
I hope Civ V will finally have an AI that does n't cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love diplomacy but it sucks when you know the AI is going to cheat.
I hope Civ V will finally have an AI that doesn't cheat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440812</id>
	<title>Not sure if serious...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1268334000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no clue if you're serious or not. There are about a billion games that meet your requirements, so I suppose by your logic they're all Wesnoth clones. Of course, since Wesnoth itself is a clone of the Warlords series of games, maybe you should just shut your trap, eh?</p><p>And if I got trolled-- sorry all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no clue if you 're serious or not .
There are about a billion games that meet your requirements , so I suppose by your logic they 're all Wesnoth clones .
Of course , since Wesnoth itself is a clone of the Warlords series of games , maybe you should just shut your trap , eh ? And if I got trolled-- sorry all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no clue if you're serious or not.
There are about a billion games that meet your requirements, so I suppose by your logic they're all Wesnoth clones.
Of course, since Wesnoth itself is a clone of the Warlords series of games, maybe you should just shut your trap, eh?And if I got trolled-- sorry all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436602</id>
	<title>No city defection</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1268316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm kinda bummed they got rid of city defection, because "my flavor" was that of cultural conquest.</p><p>No stack of doom: I am ambivalent on this one. Frankly, I never understood the huge uproar against the stack. If a player has the industrial muscle to build one, what whine is that of yours? Build your own stack of doom to counter it, or shut up and lose.</p><p>Hexes: I love that, and was eagerly awaiting for this feature to be implemented.</p><p>No religion: it's OK, I was never too fond of the way it was implemented, anyway. I understand why it was implemented the way it was, and why it was dropped - it's the good-ole political correctness at work. But, it's all fine, peace brother...</p><p>I just hope there still will be a "peaceful mode"-option to play the game, like there was for Civ IV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kinda bummed they got rid of city defection , because " my flavor " was that of cultural conquest.No stack of doom : I am ambivalent on this one .
Frankly , I never understood the huge uproar against the stack .
If a player has the industrial muscle to build one , what whine is that of yours ?
Build your own stack of doom to counter it , or shut up and lose.Hexes : I love that , and was eagerly awaiting for this feature to be implemented.No religion : it 's OK , I was never too fond of the way it was implemented , anyway .
I understand why it was implemented the way it was , and why it was dropped - it 's the good-ole political correctness at work .
But , it 's all fine , peace brother...I just hope there still will be a " peaceful mode " -option to play the game , like there was for Civ IV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kinda bummed they got rid of city defection, because "my flavor" was that of cultural conquest.No stack of doom: I am ambivalent on this one.
Frankly, I never understood the huge uproar against the stack.
If a player has the industrial muscle to build one, what whine is that of yours?
Build your own stack of doom to counter it, or shut up and lose.Hexes: I love that, and was eagerly awaiting for this feature to be implemented.No religion: it's OK, I was never too fond of the way it was implemented, anyway.
I understand why it was implemented the way it was, and why it was dropped - it's the good-ole political correctness at work.
But, it's all fine, peace brother...I just hope there still will be a "peaceful mode"-option to play the game, like there was for Civ IV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436106</id>
	<title>Stack o' Doom</title>
	<author>Psychotic\_Wrath</author>
	<datestamp>1268309580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They thought they fixed this with the collateral damage caused by seige weapons. They talk about it on the civ forum. The airstrikes do a pretty good job of weakening the Stack O' Doom</htmltext>
<tokenext>They thought they fixed this with the collateral damage caused by seige weapons .
They talk about it on the civ forum .
The airstrikes do a pretty good job of weakening the Stack O ' Doom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They thought they fixed this with the collateral damage caused by seige weapons.
They talk about it on the civ forum.
The airstrikes do a pretty good job of weakening the Stack O' Doom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437202</id>
	<title>Re:Wesnoth -- Ranged attacks?</title>
	<author>phiwum</author>
	<datestamp>1268321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wesnoth does not have ranged attacks in any reasonable sense of the term.  Units must be adjacent to attack.  Civ V adds the capability of ranged attacks between unengaged units.</p><p>That's not to say they do it well.  Since when do archers fire over ponds and farmers' fields in order to hit city units?  How far can these archers shoot? Somehow, that image bothers me.</p><p>In any case, I'm certainly not intending to disparage Wesnoth with my comments.  Wesnoth is, as far as I've seen, the hands-down best totally original open-source strategy game out there.  I'm also not trying to compliment Civ V, since I haven't played the commercial version of Civilization since Civ II.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wesnoth does not have ranged attacks in any reasonable sense of the term .
Units must be adjacent to attack .
Civ V adds the capability of ranged attacks between unengaged units.That 's not to say they do it well .
Since when do archers fire over ponds and farmers ' fields in order to hit city units ?
How far can these archers shoot ?
Somehow , that image bothers me.In any case , I 'm certainly not intending to disparage Wesnoth with my comments .
Wesnoth is , as far as I 've seen , the hands-down best totally original open-source strategy game out there .
I 'm also not trying to compliment Civ V , since I have n't played the commercial version of Civilization since Civ II .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wesnoth does not have ranged attacks in any reasonable sense of the term.
Units must be adjacent to attack.
Civ V adds the capability of ranged attacks between unengaged units.That's not to say they do it well.
Since when do archers fire over ponds and farmers' fields in order to hit city units?
How far can these archers shoot?
Somehow, that image bothers me.In any case, I'm certainly not intending to disparage Wesnoth with my comments.
Wesnoth is, as far as I've seen, the hands-down best totally original open-source strategy game out there.
I'm also not trying to compliment Civ V, since I haven't played the commercial version of Civilization since Civ II.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142</id>
	<title>I'm already excited</title>
	<author>buruonbrails</author>
	<datestamp>1268310060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One unit per tile system will certainly add some realism, as you (and your enemies) can't achieve infinite troops concentration any more. Hope the new Civilization combat system will be well-thought, or it risk turning into micromanagement hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One unit per tile system will certainly add some realism , as you ( and your enemies ) ca n't achieve infinite troops concentration any more .
Hope the new Civilization combat system will be well-thought , or it risk turning into micromanagement hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One unit per tile system will certainly add some realism, as you (and your enemies) can't achieve infinite troops concentration any more.
Hope the new Civilization combat system will be well-thought, or it risk turning into micromanagement hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31444554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31462906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31442166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31449354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31469570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31444758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31443606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_082226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31449354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31444758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31440186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31469570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31444554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31442166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31441132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31462906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31437362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31443606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31439002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_082226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_082226.31436538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
