v1.17f Reaadme

[TechWins]

Lib, could you just give it a break for once? 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.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by ACooper
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!


I wonder if some people feel silly now?

Couldn´t they have sent a messenger here with some news and answered a few questions. It doesn´t take THAT much time, you know But they have apparently been skulking and picking up a lot of criticism and then acted on it

And no, I don´t feel a bit silly

[Provost Harrison]

I am disappointed that still you can not eliminate the minimum of 4 turns/tech limit, it makes the game feel like it is on rails too much, and makes the later stages of the game drag on waaaaay too long.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I am disappointed that still you can not eliminate the minimum of 4 turns/tech limit, it makes the game feel like it is on rails too much, and makes the later stages of the game drag on waaaaay too long.

You can eliminate this with the editor right now.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Gramphos
Doesn't seem to involve any changes to the BICs, maybe I don't have to upgrade C3MT after all.

This looks like a BIC change to me:
* Civ-specific units are now part of the regular upgrade chain.

[wervdon]

* Fixed bug which prevented cruise missiles from targeting units with only 1 hit point.

Does that mean cruise missiles can kill units now? (could they already I assumed they couldnt and never really tried) Or are they just going to bounce harmlessly off the 1 hit point units

If they can be lethal that would be cool, my one serious gripe with this game has always been bombers being non-lethal (though I just think it should be an editor option)

In any case, impressive patch list and I see why its taken so long Ill probally dust off the CD and give it a go friday with the rest of you and put the original MOO back up

[player1]

Originally posted by star mouse


This looks like a BIC change to me:
* Civ-specific units are now part of the regular upgrade chain.

Don't forget, in 1.16f there was a lot of chages in bic (costs, culture points, etc...), but is was UNDOCUMENTED in Readme file.
So maybe there are some changes here too.

[ChrisShaffer]

I just hope they've improved the way the governors assign population to work squares. If they haven't done that, I'll be waiting for the next patch.

When I tell the governor to emphasize food (and tell it not to emphasize commerce and not to emphasize production) I darn well want it to use the two food square before it uses the forest!

[korn469]

cruise missiles have always been able to kill units unless they also changed that in the patch

before although cruise missiles wouldn't normally target a 1 hp unit, you could use the infinite range bombard cheat to attack 1 hp units which cruise missiles could kill

cruise missiles however are a ground unit, not an air unit in civ3 and that is why they have the power to actually kill units instead of just damaging them

[rflagg]

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.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Mark, who owns Apolyton, doesn't seem to appreciate the sort of viscious and vulgar posts that infest the cited thread.

Well, it is kinda my fault. I did bait poor Ironikinit rather hard

[star mouse]

Originally posted by player1
Don't forget, in 1.16f there was a lot of chages in bic (costs, culture points, etc...), but ... was UNDOCUMENTED in Readme file.
So maybe there are some changes here too.

Good point

It does mean I will have to redo my custom BIC file, but I've documented the changes I made so it will only take half an hour to redo.

[Steve Clark]

rflagg, you apparently do not recall Civ2:FW and Civ2:MGE, both $30/$40 products. IIRC, FW was the first with scenarios and the ability to create them, MGE obviously was the first with MP, plus more scenarios. Civ3 looks like they will be following that same path and that is perfectly fine with me since we'll get a better scenario product than if it was some patched stuff.

[Grumbold]

Hmm, interesting patch notes but as it stands I'm not going to bother downloading it. I freely admit there are some great improvements in there. Unfortunately some key parts of what they have included I want the option to turn off (banning pop rushing, random withdrawal) and other stuff like the AI trading during your turn that I desperately want fixed is not even mentioned.

The absence of more significant editor improvements (unless it didn't make the patch notes) just show that they didn't even suggest it should be expanded upon according to Dan's post about why this is 1.17f. It should have been the first thing they improved because the scenario community can't get started without it. At least the average gamer had a playable game.

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.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I was as well expecting a few more options available in the editor, but well... I think that the game as is out of the box will play much better since there are ways now which make unit managment easier -the most important stacked movement and settler automation

[nato]

I just wanted to add my voice saying good work to Firaxis!

Good work selecting which problems to fix, and good work programming solutions for them!

I would also like to ask what exactly "It is now possible to completely suppress a city's cultural reversion with enough military units" will mean?

It would really help players who are frustrated by reversion to know the formula.

Once again, this looks great, good work!

[yin26]

Still waiting for Gold Edition. Glad we have some good people to do the testing for me before then. Get to work, people!

[MOHonor]

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]

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.

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?

[FNBrown]

Well, I'm gonna wait until I can actually play the patched version before I pass judgement, but if the readme file is accurate, I'd say they've done a nice job with it so far.

I'd still like more editor enhancements (setting player starting positions would be nice without having to use a third-party save utility). A true scenario tool would be nice, too.

It appears that the multi-player feature is being reserved for an expansion pack or, as Yin puts it, the "Gold" edition.

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
rflagg, you apparently do not recall Civ2:FW and Civ2:MGE, both $30/$40 products. IIRC, FW was the first with scenarios and the ability to create them, MGE obviously was the first with MP, plus more scenarios.

The original Civ2 had 2 scenarios, Rome and WW2 and the ability to create scenarios. Then came Conflicts in Civilization with about 20 scenarios and a patch. FW did come with a more advanced scenario editor though...

[Steve Clark]

Hmmm, forgot about CiC. But would it be true that the original Civ2 had the equivalent scenario-making capabilities as Civ3? In other words, didn't they release the events.txt file (or something) until FW, thus that was when the true scenario-making community took hold? I think the point is that the same thing should be expected for Civ3, but probably not three expansion packs though. Personally, I want this to be in a $50 Gold Edition, if it has EVERYTHING needed to create clever and complex scenarios. It would more than worth it, imo.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

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]

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]

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)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Minmaster


i know its could be done by editor i want this to be official: how about giving army unload ability? it will make armies more useful and allow upgrades to those units.

Unless I screwed up somhow, this isn't possible to change in the editor. I tried it and it didn't work.

[korn469]

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)

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

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

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)

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

[Leonidas]

The Stack Command is really just a pseudo "stack command".

Let me explain:

The patch readme states that only units of the SAME TYPE within the stack will move to the designated location. So if you are being sensible and have a variety of DIFFERENT units, you will have to give them ALL individual unit commands. So much for stacked movement. . .

If you want to implement the so-called "stack movement", you'll have to make sure that all your stacks contain the EXACT SAME UNIT. So much for combined arms. . .

[Flight]

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.


It was said above but i thought i'd clarify for your benefit
friendly unit in this ocntext means another civ's unit - not your units (presumably)

sounds like a great patch, covers everything i wanted that i can think of right now and some more. Even fixed my bug (civil disorder popup crash)

nice one firaxis but of course the editor needs its own patch

[Daniel Frappier]

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.