 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
EPW, i have civ3 and c3c too, although i didnt buy them.
The AI plays only to make it as hard as possible for the human, so it always feels to me like your playing programming rather than a random thinking opponent. Which makes me turn it off quite quickly sometimes.
Fancy a c3c pbem?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fromafar
|
|
The language is determined by the 4th line in the file ctp2_program\civpaths.txt. So, yes. After changing english to yourlanguage in this file, you may just copy all files in ctp2_data\english (and similar subdirectories under scenarios) to ctp2_data\yourlanguage and start translating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Protra3211
|
|
I voted no.
But I did bring up diplomacy. I feel like many in the civ3 fourms that it needs to fixed. The ai factions soom or later will rise up against you no matter how many gifts you give
.Also I compared ctp2 to civ3 that -I think the bargin table is not always the best-the way its set up in ctp2 is better. Waiting for Peters new diplomod anyone hear from him on this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
i havent played Civ3 yet, but its an interesting poll - i'm surprised it wasnt a more one sided result(in favour of Civ3). I dont think its actually a crap game in the way i'd define crap(value for money and longevity being important to me), but i can believe it may have been a dissapointment to many. Hopefully the next Civ game will take some of Civ3 critisims on board - I guess we all still want the ultimate civ game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Protra3211
|
|
Whats the future for CtP2?
Seems the patch is coming along many problems being fixed .A new Apolyton version of CtP2 would be a great selling point for someone at Activision maybe to take another look at the game. I know the odds are not good. Put a update version using CtP2 as a base with mods would sell-I think many of the Civ3 fans would even run out to buy out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I was looking at
code:
IMPROVE_FACTORY {
DefaultIcon ICON_IMPROVE_FACTORY
Description DESCRIPTION_IMPROVE_FACTORY
EnableAdvance ADVANCE_INDUSTRIAL_REVOLUTION
ProductionCost 2025
Upkeep 8
ProductionPercent 0.15
AllowGrunts
}
What does "allowgrunts" do? or what is it supposed to do? I guess its supposed to allow labourers in a city once a factory is built but it doesnt work? or does it do something else and works already?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drulius
|
|
Lubbock, Tx USA
Jan 1970
time: 23:35
|
|
searching for references to 'AllowGrunts' in the code there are 8 instances, 7 of them in
...\gs\newdb\BuildingRecord .cpp or .h
the other one is in
...\gs\outcom\C3BlgDB.cpp
The interesting entry seems to be line(679) of BuildingRecord.cpp. It is one of many cases in a single switch block.
case k_Token_Building_AllowGrunts
shares the same switchblock with
case k_Token_Building_PreventConversion
case k_Token_Building_NoRushBuyPenalty
case k_Token_Building_FoodVat
case k_Token_Building_IncreaseMaxPopulation
and many other cases
The BuildingRecord code is automatically generated by the ctp_database code, and the reference in C3BlgDB.cpp is in the middle of an #if(0), #endif block
AllowGrunts appears to be the name of a bit flag in the BuildingRecord maintained for each city. Building a factory would turn the flag ON, but there doesn't seem to be any check for the flag's status anywhere else in the code.
The code for CityData::ProcessProduction is in
...\gs\gameobj\CityData.cpp(1402)
This is where building production bonus, feat production bonus, wonder production bonus, etc are accumulated.
code:
if(m_specialistDBIndex[POP_LABORER] >= 0) {
gross_production += LaborerCount() *
g_thePopDB->Get(m_specialistDBIndex[POP_LABORER])->GetProduction();
}
appears to be the Laborer contribution, but there is no check for the 'AllowGrunts' flag...
I guess the check here could be moot if the UI does the flag check before it enables the button on the city specialist tab. That way, until the button is enabled, the number of laborer specialists would always be 0 for the above quoted code.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Thanks drulius. So obviously its not "broken", they decided to enable labourers with advances only instead? which is easier for the AI to get along with.
So can we add these options to pop.txt or building.txt or something? so that specialists can (optionally to advances) require buildings in cities?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fromafar
|
|
Like drulius said, all the machinery is in place to use this flag, but in the current code it is completely unused.
Based on the name, I would expect it to trigger some kind of unhappiness (complaints because of the monotone work in factories?). Could it be a leftover from CtP1?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drulius
|
|
Lubbock, Tx USA
Jan 1970
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fromafar
I would expect it to trigger some kind of unhappiness (complaints because of the monotone work in factories?). |
or perhaps it could indicate a type of "modern" slavery, half wage/ same labor... enabled by building one of the newly allowed Gov_Modified buildings instead of a vanilla factory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Flinx is right it appears in improve.txt in CtP1 here
code:
IMPROVE_FACTORY {
IMPROVEMENT_PRODUCTION_COST 2025
IMPROVEMENT_UPKEEP 20
IMPROVE_DEFAULT_ICON ICON_IMPROVE_FACTORY
IMPROVE_DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION_IMPROVE_FACTORY
ENABLING_ADVANCE ADVANCE_INDUSTRIAL_REVOLUTION
OBSOLETE_ADVANCE NULL
### FLAGS HERE
IMPROVEMENT_FLAG_PRODUCTION_PERCENT PRODUCTION_TYP
E_PRODUCTION 50
IMPROVEMENT_FLAG_POLLUTION_BONUS 1
IMPROVEMENT_FLAG_ALLOW_GRUNTS
}
and of course in CtP1 and 2 the specialist is
code:
POP_FACTORY_GRUNT "Laborer"
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-07-2004 10:05
but i'd find really great if someone'd be interested in that project too ...
It sounds like a flag to turn on labourers in that city to me (grunts being slang for the factory labourers). Do you mean its more likely to be a flag for something other than labour specialists because labour specialists are already taken care of with an enabling advance?
|