Civilization 5 system requirements revealed

@Faenix

There is definitely somebody out there that can't play this because they're still rockin the cd drive...

@Faenix What? No Steam?

@koehler83 You only need a DVD-Rom Drive for a "disc based installation", so I would say there will be Steam.

@Dusse Install windows ??? profit

@Dusse
I have a mac too and I want it, I'm probably just gonna run bootcamp and just install games on the windows half

@Dusse Who knew Mac sucked for gaming? Oh yeah, everyone.

@Pure Black World Tendency

You're just a small overclock away!

@antwerpo
Just use bootcamp. Or buy a PC. If you bought a Mac to play games, then you're clearly on the wrong track.

@Special Agent Steve

Dear Agent Steve. Been using Mac for 10 years now and never had problems playing games. Why? Because I only play games like StarCraft or Civ on my Mac. I own a PS3 for all other games.

I am certainly not going to install bootcamp on my Mac to play Civ V. Like I said. Sid lost a sale!

@antwerpo

Chip on your shoulder much? I've been using a PC for 25 years and have never had a need for a Mac..........but if I wanted to play a kick ass game that was only on a Mac I'd buy one. This will be a kick ass game. Drop the elitism, we're tired of it. I support Macs as part of my job, they have problems just like PC's.
I think it's great that Valve's supporting the Mac now but ultimately it's 8% of the market, and nobody bought their Mac anticipating to buy core games for it.
Real men build their own system.

@antwerpo
So they lost a sale.
Do you think your one sale, and all the other Mac-only gamers, would make up the cost of porting the game over to Mac?

If you answer "yes," think for a while about why so few games make that leap, and why so many that do take months to do so.

Your single "lost sale" doesn't necessarily matter in the scheme of development costs. It's your own fault for choosing the platform.

@Cap Morgan

Well of my 10 years working with a Mac i never needed support. This is not about elitism this is just about having to pay for Windows to play one game. If there where so much kick ass games for PC I wouldn't have a console wouldn't I?

Stop whit that Windows elitism and stop pushing people to buy something they don't need.

I don't need a Windows system to play only one game. Sale lost!

@MosquitoControl

Oh here we go again. If it's true what you are saying why are game publishers pushing their stuff to the Mac? Never been so much games out for the Mac. Why? Because lots of people are switching to Mac in the comfort of their home.


Every Civ game has been out for the Mac so it's very reasonable to wonder why they don't anymore as the Mac userbase has risen a lot since the latest Civ V

@antwerpo

Do what I did and find somebody with a windows key they don't use anymore. Mission... complete!

@antwerpo
Quit your bitching.

@Acosta02

Yeah right and why should I buy Civ V when I already stole Windows then, if i'm starting with piracy, why would I stop with Windows?

Even if I would install Windows it would be a lost sale.

@antwerpo Would you like come cheese with your whine?

@Special Agent Steve
Intel integrated in their core ix CPUs is only slightly less powerful than the last gen offerings from ATI and Nvidia (like the 9400M). So its not super surprising, just a good thing that Intel is finally taking their IGP seriously.

@fel
Ah, I see. I own an older i7, which doesn't have that feature. Good to know Intel's taking a step in the right direction, but Ion still has a one up. Too bad Larabee was cancelled :\; could've been something.

@Special Agent Steve

The i7 line doesn't have integrated graphics, that's why you don't see it. And the integration is still not quite up to snuff when compared to inexpensive mobile GPUs.

@LaughingTarget
Did you stop at "Ah, I see."?
That's pretty much exactly what I said... in the rest of my post.

@Zopyrus The 32 bit version of Windows 7 goes up to 4 GB, I'm pretty sure. That said, for new computers built in the past two years or so, I don't know why you WOULDN'T get a 64 bit operating system.

@litrock Well, I have 32-bit Win7 with 4GB Ram installed but it says that only 3.5GB is usable just FYI mate. I personally don't feel that 64-bit Windows is reliable just yet. Application and games tend to have some sort of problems with it, that's why I've chosen 32-bit.

And also, I hate installing additional software just for a game, like STEAM.. why do they have to have Steam authentication nowadays. Auugh!

@Zopyrus I've been using 64-bit 7 and there are no problems at all. If you have 4gb of RAM you might as well upgrade. 32bit is old hat.

@Zopyrus I've been running x64 for about 4 years (XP first, now 7). I've run into fewer issues than the initial switch to Windows 2000 back in the day.

@Zopyrus
Windows 32 bit is perfectly capable of using 4 gigs of ram, if your only showing 3.5 gigs you may need ot check your bios settings (make sure theres no switchs in there or that theres no integrated graphics causing issues).

Try using the PAE boot switch.

Theres also somethign to do with the way the drivers work and there need for memory as well.

@Zopyrus

So the real answer is, Windows 32bit is capable of addressing 4 gigs of memory TOTAL system-wide (regardless if it is system or device memory). That means 4gig of ram minus bios/pci boards/graphic memory. So if you have a 512MB graphics card, that leaves 3.5 gigs of RAM that windows can address right up front.

64 bit windows, since it can address more memory, can support significantly more.

@LaughingTarget

You make video games sound really fun!

@LaughingTarget
a 4870 cant max crysis @ 1920x1200. My OCd GTX 285 cant.

It ran damn fine and looks better than any game out with this config from crymod I used, but still its not maxed out.

@fel

I OC'd the 4870 by about 20% to pull off that stunt on my old system. It can be done, just not at stock.

@LaughingTarget
How do you overclock them?

@BananaBoat I never go with Diplomacy since it can fail if you try to push it without kissing everybody's ass. For me its space race or genocide all the way.

This is way late, but firefox crashed on me, and this is the random page that came up first.

I was going for a military victory, but I didn't press my advantages hard enough in the early years. I spent hundreds of turns systematically wiping out four other civilizations on my continent (another continent existed, but everyone was far too busy with their own problems to build a navy and come attack me) and by the time I was done, a fifth civilization (very small comparatively in land size) had gotten all the way to mechanized infantry (I was one step lower). I had all of my towns pumping out units (and ICBM's to the detriment of my economy) just to stem the tide. Then something quite amazing happened; The enemy created the U.N, and I was elected head of it in a landslide. From there it was just a matter of using my units as human shields until I could kiss enough ass to win a political victory.

That is the genius of the civilization franchise, and also sort of its downfall. The commitments you make very early on in a civilization can have lasting ramifications later down the road. This would be fine if it were accurate, but look at how a nation like the U.S or England, or Germany, or Russia for that matter is able to field an enormous army almost out of thin air when the situation calls for it. Obviously a hell of a lot of industry had to be converted (and almost all metal products were sucked out of the economy) but it was possible. In this game, if you aren't min/maxing from the beginning, it is very hard to recover. Had the A.I not made the mistake of creating the U.N while I had such a massive point lead, I probably couldn't have held out another few hundred turns until a time victory (which is the lamest of all victories)

I'm hearing that combat is a lot more streamlined in Civ V. I hope this is the case, because it would make it a lot simpler to go on those long conquests (where your home cities have to be rather undefended as a result). I'm worried though, because each unit taking one hexagon means that a large army would probably just choke the map. We shall see.

@shadowhowl1900
wut is your GPU?