 |
|  |
 |
|
Greg1
|
|
> Animations are not assosiatec with icons, but with the > Civliopedia Entry...
Right, and you can add an animation for a unit that is already part of that game just by copying and pasting the civilopedia link into the appropriate box in the editor. However, that doesn't work if the animation isn't already a part of the scenario. For instance, if I want to modify the epic game so that it includes the warrior monk, I can't just copy the link from the Sengoku scenario and paste it into the unit writeup in my modified epic game. I get a crash because the civilopedia in question doesn't have the warrior monk animation.
I shouldn't have to leave the editor to get that animation - it should be linked to the icon. It wouldn't be so bad if I knew anything about programming, but I don't. :-(
Greg
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:32
|
|
I've noticed, at least in my current game, that the ai is avoiding sanitation like the plague-already early in modern age, three or four techs discovered around the world, but no hospitals to be seen. would greatly help the ai, more pop=better defense.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by alexman
Remove the explore command from Leader, Catapult, Trebuchet, Cannon, Hwach'a, Artillery, Radar Artillery, Settler, Worker. These units are not meant for exploring territory, and the change reduces erroneous commands (the E key is right next to the W key!). You can currently fix this using the editor.
|
OMG someone else that hates this!! I am ALWAYS accidentally hitting the E instead of the W.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Master Zen
Now that I got that out my system, here's a change I would like:
NO LETHAL BOMBARD FOR BOMBERS
Bombers have INCREDIBLE bang-for-the-buck, heck, they usually never even make Stealth Bombers necessary. To top it off, now they have lethal land bombardment?!? I remember a scenario in the beta test where my bombers would simply wait in an offshore city and pick off enemy units one by one as they came into view. I didn't even have any troops in the enemy territory and his army was decimated. How real is that for a WW2-era military unit?
How many WW2 heavy bombers sank enemy ships? How many WW2 heavy bombers destroyed army formations? This is not only unrealistic from a historical point of view, but it makes the bomber unit just TOO powerful. Yeah I b*tched about this one too during the beta... 
(btw, I understand that in the WW2 Pacific scenario the lethal bombard makes the scenario more realistic but emphasis here should be on the epic game default rules.) |
I vehemently disagree with you on this one. Lethal bombard is very, very realistic and necessary IMHO. Look at all the major conflicts the U.S. has been involved in the last 15 years. We have invested tons of R&D into air superiority, and for good reason. In literally a matter of days we are able to rip to shreds a well-fortified army. Lethal air bombard must stay in.
EDIT: Maybe a good compromise would be to disallow lethal air bombardment with standard bombers, but allow lethal bombardment for F-15s, Jet Fighters, and Stealth Fighters/Bombers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Stuie
IMO, bombardment should have logic something like this:
1. Is there an enemy resource in range?
Yes--> Bomb the tile until the resource is disconnected.
No-->
2. Are there enemy ships in range?
Yes--> Bomb the ships until they all sink.
No-->
3. Are there enemy land forces in the open in range?
Yes--> Bomb the exposed enemy land forces.
No-->
4. Are there enemy cities in range?
Yes--> Bomb the enemy cities.
No-->
5. Is there enemy infrastructure in range (any other tile improvement) ?
Yes--> Bomb closest enemy tile improvement.
No-->
6. Rebase to a location with enemy targets in range. |
This is EXACTLY how I feel it should work. Exactly.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by vmxa1
Huh? Trading for Iron will do nothing for making the IronWorks small wonder. You must have coal and Iron in the same city, don't you? |
vmxa1, you are correct.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Thoth
Early switches to Republic are much tougher, but by the time you reach the mid-to-late Middle Ages, they can support an impressive military for low/no maint cost. By the time Democracy rolls around, there is even less point in switching now than there was in PTW. Your unit support costs with a decent sized empire will be far lower under a Republic than a Democracy.
By the mid industrial, it's a fairly straighforward matter to have 15-20 metros (more on larger than standard maps). As a Republic this means 60-80 free units. In order for a Democracy to pull ahead in support costs, you'll need to have more than twice that number of units. Factor in Demo's increased war weariness, and the 6-8 turns of anarchy just for faster workers (and often higher unit costs) just isn't worth it. |
Oh so true. This was the first game I never had to switch to another govt. other than Republic. I love big-a*s militaries, so Republic is definitely the most viable govt. for me right now when I'm not Religious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Ummm, DrSpike, look at my suggestion !!! I think the problem with Republic in Civ3, generally, is that the enabling tech occurs around the time of the Roman Republic, yet the government they describe sounds more like our Modern Republics-like the US-which was never how Rome really was! After all, the ROmans and Carthaganians were more warlike, but Probably had big problems with Corruption in their far-flung cities! I doubt that they would have used paid labour to fast track most of their big construction projects either-but I could be wrong on this last point ! Still, I think there should be TWO types of Republic, and possibly even two types of Democracy (Classical and Modern) What do YOU guys think?
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker. |
Two types of Republic sounds like a great idea, but there should only be one type of Democracy IMO. Roman Republics functioned very differently than America, which is for all intents and purposes a Modern Republic, NOT a Democracy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001 time: 05:32
|
|
Traelin, you are ABSOLUTELY correct that the Roman Republic worked VERY differently from the Modern republics in the world today but, by the same token, the type of Democracy which existed in Athens in the Classical age is VERY different from that which is practiced around the world today! After all, our modern system relies on us electing people to represent and make decisions for us, wheras the Athenians relied mostly on a Plebicite model! The point is that both classical governments would have improved war weariness, but worse corruption, 'cause these forms of the government seemed to work best when the nations which practiced them were very small!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Greg1
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gramphos
The problem for Firaxis in doing so is that there is currently no relation of anything between the icons and the animations. (The icons are just an offset in one file whilest the animations are given by a name) |
Hm. Well at the very least, they could have included all of the animations used in the expansion in the list of available animations in this editor. Since those particular animations are on my machine anyway, they may as well make them available - like the dinosaur in the old Civ III PTW who was available in the editor even though he was no part of the epic game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|