 |
| |
|
|
Gramphos
|
|
ACS Civ III Files Manager, Prince of Development
|
 |
Chalmers, Sweden
Apr 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
idea , Gramphos , maybe something for you as well ;
starting location(s) , in the editor , and just have two fields per civ , one field giving the latitude the other the longitude .
have a nice day |
Let's wait and see what the new editor gives us. It sounds as you at least could work with some civ-specific things on the map (as the active civ shows in the status bar)
And yes, I've been planning an updated version of the CPF-format which should have
a) sight calculations made on the connection
b) checksum calculation of the maps so that the CPFs can be used withthe right CPF, and so that the tool can look for the right CPF for a save before it asks. But this are just visions, which maybe never will be made, if the editor can place the locations in the right place as I really thing it can. I think it said something about starting locations for scenarios in the readme... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Civfan
|
|
Toronto, Canada
Sep 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
hmm did I miss something? Is there ability to place units on a map for scenario creation? With this we all can begin creating scenarios!
The basic Civ2 scenario editor should of been the basics for this Civ3 editor. Everything from Civ2 editor should be included and then begin expanding from there!
Well some good changes so far, guess we have to wait and see.
Civfan......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gramphos
Let's wait and see what the new editor gives us. It sounds as you at least could work with some civ-specific things on the map (as the active civ shows in the status bar)
And yes, I've been planning an updated version of the CPF-format which should have
a) sight calculations made on the connection
b) checksum calculation of the maps so that the CPFs can be used withthe right CPF, and so that the tool can look for the right CPF for a save before it asks. But this are just visions, which maybe never will be made, if the editor can place the locations in the right place as I really thing it can. I think it said something about starting locations for scenarios in the readme... |
hi ,
"visions" , .....
Gramhos , my dear friend (oh-oh , i call you "friend , watch out ) , if there is anyone here who can put his , huh , or someone else ideas in to "useful" "things" , programs then its you , no , this is no back kissing , no , this is just a fact .
i dont know if we understand one and an other , but i would "vision" this , in the editor , under general options , that grey window , civ no , so and so , 2 empty fields that you can fill in , longitude , xxxxxxx , latitude , yyyyyyyy , simple , ..........i know its not , but that would be the best thing , hmmmm , i wish i could draw an example , maybe later .
Gramhos , huh , units 32pics , marla's map , huh , any solution yet ? , i reformated the pc , and i have to wait for my laptop , he (laptop) is for a month in thailand , on holiday , ya see , please ,...........
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Planet fall :
quote:
* Editor: Exposed AI to AI trade rate. |
I assume it means we can see in the editor a value, which indicates how tradeprone an AI is towards another. If it's in the editor, I suppose we can edit it . If we set this rate back to 0, the AIs will probably don't trade with each other at all. However, it could affect not only tech trading, but trading in general.
About the ERA_NONE techs, I thought (again) about this "After the apocalypse" scenario for Civ2 : the Saurian Civ will have the "Saurian" tech which will allow it to produce several kinds of war-dinos, while the "Critters" Civ will have the ability to produce their madmax-like units they get from their starting critter-tech. If a scenario is quite scientifically static (a war campaign), exclusive starting techs can mean a big difference.
CivFan : I don't think there is any way to place a unit on the map, nor placing cities (and modifying them etc). The rules editor progresses slowly towards a scenario editor : it has the option to be an "active player", which will be necessary when we'll have the ability to place unit and cities (in 2 months ?). But for today it seems it's only useful to make Barbarian empires of the same tribe, which has no effect in terms of gameplay.
But I'm not a firaxian, and everything I say is pure speculation... Mike ?
Last edited by Spiffor on 18-04-2002 at 02:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chiefpaco
|
|
Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chiefpaco
About the abandoning cities, I'm not clear on how it works yet. If it was instant, wouldn't a "capture & abandon" be better than a raze? |
Perhaps the city has to be a size 1. Then it would be ok.
Also, wrt AI trading. I remember from 1.16 to 1.17, they upped the trading frequency to 'all the time'. I assume the frequency has just been made adjustable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew Cory
|
|
SF bay Area
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
Firaxis,
Please consider this a love letter. Really. Today, my GF bought me legos, but the news of this patch makes me seriously consider calling off my friday date with her so that I can cuddle up to Civ3. Bombardment can now kill! Last AI unit on a boat can now be sunk! The AI has better war-fighting ability (or, at least I infered that...)!
There is one minor persnickity problem, though. The inablity to change the .bic in such a way that it will effect the game I am playing. I mean, if I start fugding around with the editor, and get all the way to the modern age before discovering that I accidently made 10.10.200 tanks, I want to _fix_ that. But I won't be able to. I understand your reasons for changing this, but I always considered the ability to change things on the fly to be a valuble tool for ballance. Is it possible that somehow this won't find its way into the actual 1.21f?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi , huh everyone hé
okay , so , lets get this correct , ya cant restrict movement in the mountains , but ya could give a movement bonus , or take it away on the 3 different sea squares ? , bong , someting seems not right with it , why not keep mountain restriction and ad the sea option .
and how can they know if one uses it or not , their spyware cant be that good , was there a poll or so , ....................????????
i did not see it
allas , have a nice day |
You misunderstand. The movement restriction for mountains is still in place. This is done with the Wheeled attribute, which also restricts movement in jungles without a road, not the mounted. Mounted did absolutely nothing at all before, it was a completely redundant attribute.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
Panag,
The "Mounted Ability" was a useless feature previously and it's removal will have absolutely no effect on the game. The term that is used on when units can/can not move onto a mountain or jungle tile is "Wheeled Unit". So Catapults and all other wheeled units will still not be able to move onto mountains/jungle.
Also, as a tip to your writing structure, try to use less commas and less interrupting words, such as "huh". It becomes very difficult to read your posts with the plethora of commas and interrupters you use.
quote:
About the abandoning cities, I'm not clear on how it works yet. If it was instant, wouldn't a "capture & abandon" be better than a raze? |
I doubt you will gain new units/workers/settlers when abandoning a city, at least I hope not. If settlers were gained when abandoning a city, then many exploits would be viable. So when abandoning a city there should be no gain and only retain of the unit/workers/settlers that were inside the city at the time.
quote:
I assume it means we can see in the editor a value, which indicates how tradeprone an AI is towards another. . . |
I complete agree with your assumption, Spiffor, on how what "* Editor: Exposed AI to AI trade rate." means.
quote:
* Decreased Large Map Size to 130x130.
* Decreased HugeMap Size to 160x160. |
No offense to anybody here, but it seems fairly obvious why Firaxis did this. Everybody complains about the excessive wait times between turns, especially on larger maps, and the main reason for slow downs is the larger map size. The reason why larger map size is the main problem is because of the additional units, which causes more processing towards the pathfinding. So decreasing the map size for the most 'tedious' maps will cause less of a slow down, and people won't complain as much about the slow downs. Basically, Firaxis got tired of hearing all of our *****ing about slow downs and felt this would be the best temporary (at least it better be temporary) solution.
quote:
blitz mod, here we go again! |
No kidding.
quote:
So we can change battleships to a movement rate of 2, treat all terrain as roads (which results in an actual movement of 6), give them the blitz ability, and they'll be able to bombard 2 times (but not 6 times) per turn. |
Appearantly we can also change the movement cost for ocean terrain now. This means that we could increase the movement cost on oceans squares to two, which would prevent early game ocean exploring even more so. Make ocean have a movement cost of 2, then decrease the speed for a lot of the ships throughout the ages, next give a lot of the modern ships "see all terrain as roads", and that should balance out naval movement quite a bit. Remember, though, that I am just putting out a preleeminary idea.
EDIT: Actually we always could edit the movement coast of water squares, but I'm not sure if it was a functional feature or not.
quote:
Why do the firaxis patches almost always end with the letter f. |
The "f" stands for "finalized" and is only given to a patch when it is, well, finalized. The "b" would stand for beta on a patch. Pertaining to the reason why the number of each patch goes up inconsistenly is because that relates back to the testing of the patch. For each time the patch gets rejected by the testing team the number goes up one. So, for example, v1.18b was rejected, then v1.19b was rejected, next v1.20b, after that v1.21b was accepeted, therefore, v1.21b turned into v1.21f and became ready for release.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
* Removed "God mode" save cheat.
Ah Multi, I hardly knew ye.
Did anyone use this anyway? I only would if I was trying to find that exiled galleon w/ settler that was eluding me.
I wonder if they removed it completely, or just changed the trigger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe the map reduction was intended for the casual gamers who don't want to use the editor, and are tired by the long waiting time between turns. Maybe it has to do with their view of game harmonization, which will be necessary when MP comes |
Why not just play on a smaller map then (without the use of the editor)? Will Huge maps be the only setting on MP?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
I wish they hadn't changed the sizes, which will be the first thing I hit in the editor.
I think that self restraint would be the better answer to the slowdown, if your computer can't hack it, then play the tiny maps. of course, a evidenced by many of the posts, a lot of people here do not show such restraint.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
Hey, I LIKE the map size changes. Personally my favorite size is 120x120, simply because it gives ample elbow room without distorting the game to the point where extra fiddling becomes necessary to maintain the game flow. Not that I'm adverse to some extra fiddling, especially with the editor getting better and better each patch...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
After checking the posted readme, it seems we forgot something:
* Editor: Added the ability to customize player properties.
This means that you can configure the following on a per-player basis:
- Starting gold
- Starting era
- Starting government type
- Difficulty level
- Number and types of starting units (land-units only!)
- Civilization (chosen from civs designated as 'playable')
- Team color
- Leader name/gender
- Free techs
Any of these that are configured for the map/scenario cannot be changed in the game setup screens. For example, if you set player 2 to be Rome, you will not be able to select any other civ for player 2, when playing that map/scenario. Note that you can set a player's civ to be 'Any' so that you can change it within the game.
As noted in the readme, this is also true for game settings and victory conditions which are now included in the scenario properties. You can turn off specific victory conditions for your map/scenario which will make those victory conditions unavailable for the map/scenario.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-04-2002 01:25
MultiPlayer Patch... please!
There is always going to be some people *****ing about something. Yes I know I can change it in the editor... but why couldn't Firaxis let those complaining change it in their editor or simply pick a smaller map?! 
|