 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
rflagg
|
|
Alexandria VA
Nov 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
First, kudos to the civ3 team - I really was afraid that nothing was going to come again until the expansion pack in March (we *can* still expect the expansion pack in March, right?) I love the game, and I'm very happy to see all of these fixes taking place, you guys continue to do great work on an already great game.
Now, my complaint. And, before anyone starts to say "Oh god, give it a rest" - I paid my $50 just like everyone else for the game, and I have my right to complain.
WHY has there yet to be no player starting locations or unit/city placement? Do you all want to know what I believe the real reason to be? Because they'll put this in the expansion pack, which means you *have* to buy it, if you want to play any scenario of the slightest bit of value! Imagine all of the wonderful scenarios we could be playing right this second with this tasty game - yet the Firaxis team seems to just want more money for their unfinished product. Will I buy the expansion pack? Of course. Will I be jaded against them, yet continue to support their work? Yes - the game *is* great, afterall. But it's not one I'm playing nearly as much any more, what with Medal of Honor, and other great games on their way out. With Civ2, I had a hard time trying out all of the scenarios out there - and so many were so good! Yet, here we are, months after the game has been out, and we can't do anything with it. Even using someone's map isn't all that great, because you don't start in a defined place, it could be in any of the starting locations!
I really feel that Firaxis turned their back on the scenario community and decided they could make more money on it. Hell, for all we know, they could be sitting back creating expansion pack after expansion pack, planning on selling them for $30 a pop, and just fill them with scenarios. It feels like a big step backwards from Civ2, is all.
The fact that there has been *NO* word from Firaxis on this only proves the point, too. That's the saddest thing. They'll listen to every-freaking other complaint except this, so I know it goes to a deaf ear, but nonetheless, I needed to get it off my chest.
Still, a great game, and another great fix, but please hear our screams!
-rflagg.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MOHonor
|
|
Nashville, TN
Jan 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Still waiting for Gold Edition. Glad we have some good people to do the testing for me before then. Get to work, people! |
Hey! Who pulled the yin26 action figure's string?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:17
|
|
IMO, the top five additions are as follows:
1) "Improved unit activation sequence"
2) "Added stack movement. Hitting 'j' will produce the goto cursor. Once you select a destination, every unit of the active unit's type in that square will move to the specified location. Air units of the same type will attempt to rebase",
3) "Mobile units now have to make a die roll to determine if they withdraw. Success is also modified by their experience level"
4) "Added Sentry command: y = wake whenever next to friendly or enemy unit(s) / shift+y = wake whenever next to enemy unit(s)"
5) ""beginning wonder" pop-ups now only appear if you have an embassy or spy with the corresponding civ"
Most of these speak for themselves, but I think these fixes will contribute the most to the game, as I'm sure many others would agree. I can't begin to tell you how frustrated I get with all of wonder pop-ups I get. Now I will only get those pop-ups in a strategic way.
quote:
Lastly, most pettily, but the thing I know would bug me a lot in the course of the game is the new sentry command. I mean, how often in a game to you want one of your units to wake up when one of your own passes by? Yet this is given the 'y' hotkey and the far more used enemy-only wakeup is relegated to 'shift & y' which is a much harder order to give. |
You should re-read what was actually done with the sentry command. Also, I think you should reconsider not even giving a test game to Civ3 after the release of the patch. Even though it is your choice, but what's the harm in giving it a shot?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
I might be completely wrong (and probably am!), but the reference to government buildings might have something to do with the issue of government-specific improvements. Basically I've heard a lot of mod-makers complain that, though government specific buildings can ONLY be built by that government, when you change government, the building and it's effects remain. Hopefully, this has been removed! As I said, I'm probably wrong, and it might be just my wishful-thinking talking, but if someone out there in the know (hint hint) could correct me, I'd much appreciate it!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
and please please please firaxis, could you fix where every time a unit breaks off in an army it costs the entire army a movement point? |
could you clarify this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm...tentatively hopeful... It really looks pretty good! Tho it does sadden me to see that there's only one addition to the editor, and a relatively minor one at that. The Mod-With-No-Name then, will sit on ice a bit longer.
But I will be reinstalling the game to see how this new patch changes/improves things!
-=Vel=- |
I know they're still working on it. Mike, I think that's his name, answered a query from some poster and he mentioned that he was focusing on being able to have civ specific starting points, and the ability of placing units/cities on the map. So I guess we'll just have to wait a bit longer. It looks like they're focusing on game play issues at the moment, the bells and whistles will follow.
I'm sort of disappointed there's very few additions to the editor as well, but at least I feel that it will get there eventually. Hopefully Jeff will start a new thread for next patch ideas soon. (Nudge,nudge,wink,wink)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
Soren
from the research done on armies in the Blitz mod thread here is what we have found
of course we've changed things a bit, like giving armies blitz but here are the relevant posts
original post (save game included cleo 1918)
quote:
I built an army and loaded it with 3 calvalry units (who, also in your mod, don't have the ability to blitz). However, I was able to attack with this army two times per turn. As the army retreated after the first attack and had only one movement point left, this corresponds to the cavalry's movement rate of 3. Apparently a cavalry army has blitz!
Savegame is enclosed. The army is loaded on a transport; move it to the continent to the west and attack an American city. |
responce
quote:
earlier, techwins reported that an army of knights did not have blitz, and then you report that a cavalry army does have blitz
well here is what is happening
Armies do have blitz, but every time a unit retreats that means that the army loses one one movement point, so what probably happened was that the first knight in techwins army most likely broke off the attack (1mp) and the retreat (another 1mp) eat up all of the knight armies movement
so if you were able to attack with a cavalry army and none of the units ever retreated then it could have up to three attacks, but if you attacked, and the first two units in the army then retreated, all of the armies movement would be gone, i don't like that firaxis implemented it this way, but oh well
what i am wondering is does each time a unit retreat it uses up an army mp even when the army doesn't have blitz? if that was the case then this makes armies even weaker |
more discussion
quote:
here is what happened, there was a full movement (3) full hitpoint cav army beside three riflemen, the cav army attacked using one movement point, the first unit in the army had to break off but the attack continued, however that one unit breaking off cost the army another movement point, then the second cav unit in the army attacked and killed the first rifleman, then the cav army still had the option of attacking because the army conferred blitz on it |
last reply on the issue (save game included cleo 1928)
quote:
I did some further testing with my savegame.
*Parked the cav army to the north of San Francisco, declared war and attacked the city on the next turn. Killed a rifleman with my first attack, then retreated automatically because the city was defended by a second unit. Had one movement point left, attacked the second unit (a pikeman), killed him. A cavalry turns out to be the third unit in the city. End turn.
*Attacked cavalry with cav army, destroyed it, took San Francisco and razed it. No retreat, therefore two movement points left. Two riflemen appear on the mountain to the northwest, army attacks, kills one of them, retreats automatically, no movement left. End turn.
*Second rifleman disappears to the northwest. My army follows him. End turn
*Army has just 5 hitpoints left, rifleman (conscript) has 4. Army attacks, loses 2 hitpoints. First cav unit in army has to break off. Army continues attacking, kills rifleman, occupies rifleman's square and still has 2 movement points left |
ok here is what we think is happening
if you had three cavalry units in an army in normal civ3 (no mods) and they started their turn beside of a single enemy and kill it, the army will advance and only lose movement point no matter how many units broke off (that appears to be what's happening and it seems to hold true for a single break off), but if your cavalry unit started beside of two units where it could not advance after combat, then if no units broke off it would use one movement point in the attach, if one unit broke off it would use two movement points in the attack, and if two units broke off then it would use all three movement points in the attack
here is two save games that we used to test this, they are modified though, so you might want to set up your test on an unmodifed bic and test with both a single unit defending against an army and two or more units defending against an army to see if your results match ours
 Attachment: armytesting.zip
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Daniel Frappier
|
|
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
worse... if you have swordsmen and horsemen and you don't want to leave you're weak (defensively) horsemen unprotected you will have to move them each turn so they don't jump ahead of the other units.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2002 04:06
Your constant stating of your position on Civ3 is starting to get quite repetitive. Every thread you take part in doesn't have to turn into a discussion about your feelings does it? Now I'm not suggesting that you can't post your feelings, in all honesty I could careless, however, I think there is a more fitting place to do that in - OT.
All the time people have spent bashing them and complaining how they were never on the boards answering questions. Maybe they were working on this all along!
But they have apparently been skulking and picking up a lot of criticism and then acted on it 
|