Moding and Editor Question Thread:

I’ve opened this Thread for myself, and for other people who have Question about Moding and the Editor they would like answered.

I have tried looking at the Tutorials, and while they proved very helpful, I still have some unanswered Questions.
So I will Post them here, and :) hopefully someone who knows the answer will see them, and Reply.

First Question:
Can someone tell me how to add new Terrain, and City Graphics to a Scenario?

In the folder you create for your scenario create an art folder inside the art folder create a Cities folder \Conquests\Scenarios\Your Scenario\Art\Cities. for terrain \Conquests\Scenarios\Your Scenario\Art\Terrain.
The files you place in those folders will then be used as long as the biq scenario search properties is set to your scenario folder.

In the folder you create for your scenario create an art folder inside the art folder create a Cities folder \Conquests\Scenarios\Your Scenario\Art\Cities. for terrain \Conquests\Scenarios\Your Scenario\Art\Terrain.
The files you place in those folders will then be used as long as the biq scenario search properties is set to your scenario folder.

Thanks, I'll try it right away!!!

Second Question:
How do you Open .pcx Files?

You need to have an image editor that recognizes the pcx format. PCX information here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCX). Photoshop, paintshop pro and the GIMP all can open and edit PCX files. Microsoft paint cannot.

I have a question, what exactly is a palette and how does it affect civ?

A palette is a given, finite set of colors (256 for a pcx) for the management of digital images (that is, a color palette). Civ uses the palette to determine alpha (transparancy)colors. Because a PCX is also a compressed image allowing smaller file sizes it became a popular format for games.

Is there any way to get around the Sub Bug?

Sure do not flag any units as "invisible". However the so called sub bug works to the advantage of any civilization with war weariness in their government type.

The sub bug is half the fun with using invisible units! I use it a lot in my African Cold War scenario, to the desired effect (i.e., creating lots of wars due to government x stumbling upon an insurgent group commanded by state y)

What about this: giving all the units both the “Invisible and See Invisible tags?”

The AI would use Invisible Tagged Unit more Aggressively then regulars, but at the same time would be able to see them thus probably avoiding the “Sub Bug.”

Has anyone tried this, and seen what the AI would behave like?

It would probably build strong offensive/defensive land units even more in proportion to improvements than it does already...

And....
Would :confused: that be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing?

What about this: giving all the units both the “Invisible and See Invisible tags?”

The AI would use Invisible Tagged Unit more Aggressively then regulars, but at the same time would be able to see them thus probably avoiding the “Sub Bug.”

Has anyone tried this, and seen what the AI would behave like?
If every unit has both the invisible and see invisible tag then you have negated the purpose and might as well not use them.
I do not envision the AI using them more aggressively.

The only other thing you could do about is give all the "sub" units hidden nationality. But that's practically a bug in itself since the AI will the go star-crazy hunting them down, "see invisible" or no.

Hide Nationality doesn't entirely work anyway - if you see a unit belonging to someone else with the HN flag, you can't contact them.
If an Artificial Idiot controlled player sees it, they'll be able to contact you.
And they hunt down HN units with the first available see HN flagged unit, but that might just be in my tweaked out mod.

first available see HN flagged unit, but that might just be in my tweaked out mod.

see HN flag??

There is a detect invisible flag, however I have never seen a "see" hidden nationality flag. Are you using a cracked editor?

No, I wasn't paying attention and put the wrong thing down.
Though it would be a nice addition, a flag that allows you to see the owner of units with HN.

Do's the AI still Auto Raze even with the No Raze Patch?

I have installed the Patch and while there seens to be less Razing overall, the AI keeps destroying the same couple of cities every time I playtest.

These Cities both have a population of 2, a culture of less then 20 and are just one square away from another City.

Do's this couse a Auto Raze that the Patch can't prevent?

Well I have to say you made a mistake with the no raze patch. When properly applied the AI cannot raze in fact when the human player captures a city the pop-up that gives you the choice to either raze or keep the city does not even come up and you have to keep the city yourself. Although I have to wonder why you would place cities so close together impeding their growth and shield production.

Actually I am using the No Raze patch that comes with TCW Fifties.

There are 2 executable files included perhaps you are not using the correct one.

No, I'm :confused: pretty sure that I installed the correct one.
I followed El Justo's Readme instructions for every step.

no, you obviously did not.

no, you obviously did not.

You know I wanted to say that but decided to be nice.

There were Two files called Civ3Conquest, and Civ3Conquest 2.
Your Readme said that I should or the Civ3Conquest file if I had C3C, or the Civ3Conquest 2 file if I had Civ Complete.
It also said that I should rename the File I Originally have to; its Name + Original, as a Backup.
Finally it said that the Name of file I add should be exactly the same as the Name of the my Original file.

look inside of your Civilization III/Conquests folder and find the [c3c] icon. click "rename" and "copy" and then add on the "ORIG" suffix to it (ie your backup). find the patch in the TCW Fifties folder that corresponds w/ the version you're running and then right click that file, hit "rename" and then "paste". lastly, "cut" that file and paste it into the Civilization III/Conquests folder.

look inside of your Civilization III/Conquests folder and find the [c3c] icon. click "rename" and "copy" and then add on the "ORIG" suffix to it (ie your backup). find the patch in the TCW Fifties folder that corresponds w/ the version you're running and then right click that file, hit "rename" and then "paste". lastly, "cut" that file and paste it into the Civilization III/Conquests folder.

I already did all of that, but for some :( reason the AI is still able to Raze Cities.
But I'll try again, maybe it will work this time.

you're doing something wrong then...b/c it works for all of us.

One question Redwall when you capture a city do you have the option to keep the city or raze it?

Um, BK, I've been using the patch for a quite a while with complete success and I always get that option??? Iow the patch has not allowed a single AI razing to my knowledge (I was testing with a second or third age MEM game) but I still had the option to raze.

abandon, yes - autoraze, no :)

Yes to both of those but also the ability to raze. :)

well, i don't get the option to raze upon capture (autoraze). however, i can abandon the city...which imho isn't razing, it's abandoning :p it's semantics though :D on a sidenote, i've never seen the AI "abandon" a city w/ the patch in place.

We were talking about that in the no-raze thread, it appears the AI does not know how to abandon (I'm with you on this def) anyway so the patch doesn't affect this area. I'm not following you on the other, it sounds like your autorazing everything?? :p

just to prevent confusion though, in my book (and I'm not saying these are absolutly correct defs) autorazing is when you have razed a city without the option to keep it ie. size one, 0 culture
razing is when you have the option to keep it but destroy it anyway ie. size 6,100 culture

The latter is what I'm refferring to when I say that I have the option to raze. :)

don't raze me, bro :lol:

correct re the patch's non-effects on abandoning. it's still an option w/ a right-click.

agreed on the auto raze specs. and since this seems to be the primary mode of razing by the AI (ie inability to "abandon"), i guess i just de facto refer to all razing as auto razing :D

Well against the flow thats rather interesting. When I use the no raze patch I never see the option to keep or raze a captured city it just is automatically kept.

Yes, I've seen you say so several times and always wondered. Atm it makes basically no difference since I don't raze when the AI can't but it doesn't sound right.

Does anyone else have/not have this option?

One question Redwall when you capture a city do you have the option to keep the city or raze it?
No...

I Repeat:
Do Cities with No Culture, and a Population of One get Auto-Razed?

No the do not if your no raze patch is working correctly.

You don't NEED to replace the exe, you know... you can place the patched exe NEXT TO the conquests.exe in the same folder, rename it to anything, for example ridemymagiccarpet.exe or ilikeeatingstrawberries.exe, and it will WORK... trust me.

really?

.

Yes. I'm using two exe files, one for regular playing (epic games), one for my personal "Stahlgewitter" WW2 PBEM with my friends.

I have made shortcuts to each file, "Civ3 Conquests" and "Stahlgewitter". You could also provide a "MyMod.exe" with your mod, for example a "The Cold War.exe".

:)

well, i'll be :D good to know. thanks :cool:

np, mate, but I already mentioned that in the noraze thread...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6224574&postcount=88

:crazyeye:;)

i don't read all the threads, dude :p

No the do not if your no raze patch is working correctly.

Look, all I know is that I have done Every thing you have suggested.

I don't get even get the option to Keep or Raze a City when I capture it.

But, when I or the AI capture a newly founded City, or a City that has No Culture, and a Population of 1-2, it always gets Destroyed/Auto-Razed...

Edit: Redwall, that has nothing to do with the noraze patch, it's part of the game. Anytime you capture a city sized 1-2 <10 culture it is autorazed, patch or no.

Thanks, that all I was trying to :) Find out.

I’ve just read in another Thread that you can preplace roads on water using the editor.

Not the interesting question is; Do these roads still make Trade Links?

In the Scenario I’m working on all Air and Sea Trade is turned off to speedup Turn/Load Time.
Now; this has caused some problems, even the Suez and Panama Canals cause a break in trade that there is no way of getting around.
If I were to build roads across the Canals, would a Trade link be Restored?

An interesting idea as far as trade. One thing about it though is that it does not allow land units to cross as a bridge nor does it increase ship movement IIRC.

Yes, I know that :( it does not allow the crossing land units.

My Idea is to create some sort of regional export/import relationships.
The USA would for example import its oil and natural gas from Venezuela or Canada, while most of Europe and Asia would buy oil and gas from the Middle East and/or Russia.

It does allow trade links, but the drawbacks are the artificial idiot can't use them, and if yo build a road from one empire to another overseas to make a trade route, harbours stop working.

He said he turned off sea trade anyway.

My bad then. Didn't notice that.
But other than that, it's still more or less the same. Roads build over water make a trade route.
About the only other thing they do is increase commerce slightly if in a city radius. Other than that, they're pretty much useless.

Is there any way to make Improvements/Wonders increase Corruption?

Increase corruption? It is bad enough already :p Anyway I also have a question...why do land units have 'ignore sea' on? I cannot figure out why :lol: I tried ferrying a checked and unchecked unit and they where the same (Maybe an AI thing??).

Increase corruption? It is bad enough already :p Anyway I also have a question...why do land units have 'ignore sea' on? I cannot figure out why :lol: I tried ferrying a checked and unchecked unit and they where the same (Maybe an AI thing??).

Where in the Editor is "Ignore Sea"??

-Oz

Maybe he means the ignore terrain cost part. Though I've never actually seen any land unit with coast, sea or ocean selected in there.

Almost all the land units have "ignore sea" selected. I do it too (just because I'm superstitious like that), although I haven't seen any negative consequences when it is not done.

Almost every unit has ignore sea checked even ICBMs :lol: The newest units do not have it checked (Sams, Crusaders, modern paratroopers, etc) even the cruiser is unchecked but the battleship and every other ship of the era have it checked.

Question:
Is it possible to give every Civ its own unique City Graphics?

AFAIK no, the game only has a limited number of culture sets, Asian, European and so on. Until we learn how to add more without breaking anything, there's just those citysets.

Yeah, there's one set of city graphics per Culture Group and only 5 Culture Groups - the bane of many a modder. :(

-Oz

Yeah, there's one set of city graphics per Culture Group and only 5 Culture Groups - the bane of many a modder. :(

-Oz
A huge bane and plague upon modders. The ability to only have 5 culture groups not only effects the city graphics but also diplomacy.

A huge bane and plague upon modders. The ability to only have 5 culture groups not only effects the city graphics but also diplomacy.

How :confused:???

How :confused:???

Civs are slightly more likely to react favorably to other Civs of the same Cultural Group - rather like the real world.

Best,

Oz

Question:
Is it possible to give every Civ its own unique City Graphics?

For fixed maps: Yes and no. The city graphics can be set partly or completely to transparency and a resource with the unique graphic of the city can be placed on the city location. With this methode different city graphics in a special culture group are possible. As the graphic is a resource, only one image for for each city-tile is possible and modifications of that graphic must be done with other means (Industrial or Ancient City Sprawl-graphics and cultural city-graphics for other eras). The SOE-City graphics are partly using this methode.

Ozzy nailed the how, the culture groups are more favorable to civ's of the same group. The second thing effecting this is favorite and shunned government. What would be nice is if the flavours worked for diplomacy also so you could set one civ's reaction to another from 0 - 100% unfortunately it does not work that way.
Yes Civinator's work around does work but being limited to a city the size of a resource also has it's drawbacks.

Question:
Can you bribe a enemy Capital?

Yes
I've done that before, but it's generally not as likly to come over.
And even then, I had to bribe them several times before they finally gave in.

Hi, I asked this in the wrong thread before, but can you use blender to create models for CIV III? And is it possible to make flavor units correspond to units that are already in the game normally, simply replacing some of the models for the different civs, without permanently changing anything?

Question:
Is it possible to capture Settlers, and then use those captured Settlers to found new cities?

Hi, I asked this in the wrong thread before, but can you use blender to create models for CIV III? And is it possible to make flavor units correspond to units that are already in the game normally, simply replacing some of the models for the different civs, without permanently changing anything?
You can use blender to make units, modles is misleading because C3C uses 2d storyboards to make the unit. Not sure what you mean by that second half. Anytime you mod the game it is a semi-permanent change and you should do so by saving the biq with a unique name and making a folder in the scenario's folder to hold all the custom artwork units and text files.
Question:
Is it possible to capture Settlers, and then use those captured Settlers to found new cities?
The Settler has no attack and no defense so they should be capturable however I have noticed in epic games when you capture a settler they turn into 2 workers so I think there is something in the hard coding.

Actually, its on the general tab in the editor. You can set the captured unit to whichever unit the settler becomes.
I've never tried making it generate settlers though.

Yeah, any unit with a population gets turned into x "captured units" (where x=population cost), instead.

Intriguing. I thought it was just 2 units, not populations cost.
I think I'll experiment with this a bit, and see what happens.

Settlers get turned into 2 units due to their pop. cost of 2. Likewise, Workers get turned into 1 unit :)

Derf, I see problems with changing the captured unit from worker to settler. But then we are limited to only one possibility in that area. I should have remembered that because I had changed that before and it also effects the "unit" that can be presented in negotiations.
Virote that is very interesting I never thought to think how population cost effects that.

Derf, I see problems with changing the captured unit from worker to settler. But then we are limited to only one possibility in that area. I should have remembered that because I had changed that before and it also effects the "unit" that can be presented in negotiations.
Virote that is very interesting I never thought to think how population cost effects that.

@Derf & BK - A captured Settler is automatically turned into two workers. That having been said, I keep hearing that only the unit in the #2 slot (i.e., the Worker) can be traded.

Best,

Oz

I can confirm that this (the 2nd slot=trading thing) is wrong :)

What if I make the Settler cost only one population?

Then you would only gain one worker when capturing it (and it'd probably make the game really unbalanced!)

I can confirm that this (the 2nd slot=trading thing) is wrong :)

So what criterion makes a unit tradeable? :confused:

I can confirm that this (the 2nd slot=trading thing) is wrong :)
You are correct
So what criterion makes a unit tradeable? :confused:
People thought it was the number 2 slot because the worker by default occupies that slot.
In the general settings you can set the default captured unit which is also tradeable.

People thought it was the number 2 slot because the worker by default occupies that slot.
In the general settings you can set the default captured unit which is also tradeable.

So BOTH the #2 slot and the "Enslave" result unit are tradeable? (We really need to differentiate between "Capture" and "Enslave" here ...)

It is not the number 2 slot but the unit assigned as the default capture unit. If the "enslaved" unit results in is set to worker then it is trade able.
Unless I am missing something.

I don't think that I properly explained my intention, I want to make a Settler style Unit and preplace it in Barbarian Encampments.

When the AI captures the Encampments, it should use the Settler to found a New City on the same spot.

This could be used to represent the conquest, and assimilation of indigenous tribes and people.

Under the regular rules Civ's that are expansionist have a higher chance of getting a settler from a barbarian camp allready.

Your talking about something completely different.
Those are Goody Huts, not Barbarian Encampments!!

Well you could always place goodyhuts then. However as to whether or not barbarian settlers can be captured I do not know. Do a quick test by setting a biq to debug mode and add some barbarian settlers to the map and see what happens.

Well you could always place goodyhuts then.

The problem with using Goody Huts is that thay are random, even the Expansionist Civ's don't :rolleyes: always get Settlers.

However as to whether or not barbarian settlers can be captured I do not know. Do a quick test by setting a biq to debug mode and add some barbarian settlers to the map and see what happens.

I'll :goodjob: do just that tomorrow, will report the results.

You cannot capture Barbarian Settlers by default - they will also turn into workers. You can, however, make a new Settler, make it available to everyone, but require a resource not available on the map (or, a resource which will be available at a later date, but by this time, have this "Settler" upgrade to another unit)

Just remember to keep the Settler's population cost as 0! (although you'll need to flag is as "join city" if you want the AIdiot to use it, not that they'll ever use it to join cities anyway!...)

A question have I.

Civ X and Civ Y have access to the same tech. Said tech enables Building x and Building y. I would like Civ X to be able to build Building x but not Building y, while having Civ Y able to build Building y but not Building x.
My question is: what are all the possible ways of doing this (if any)?

Thanks in advance. :)

A question have I.

Civ X and Civ Y have access to the same tech. Said tech enables Building x and Building y. I would like Civ X to be able to build Building x but not Building y, while having Civ Y able to build Building y but not Building x.
My question is: what are all the possible ways of doing this (if any)?

Thanks in advance. :)


I don´t know, if I can tell you all possible ways of doing this, because I don´t know everything. But I can tell you how I did it in CCM (Civ Complete Mod) and another much more complicated way how to achieve the same result. :)

In CCM I wanted that the two machinegunners, that are available with Civ Complete (the German and the US-one in the PTW Extras) are beeing autoproduced by buildings that are available with the tech "Totalitarism" as they have much better defense values as the normal infantry units.

I gave the Germans an Era-None-Tech called "German Flavour" which let them build a very cheap special building, the German flag.


http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=200109&stc=1&d=1215637573


Then I set the building, that should produce the US-machinegunner for 30 civs to be available with the tech "Totalitarism" and to go obsolete with the Era-None-Tech "German Flavour" that is only available to Germany.


http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=200116&stc=1&d=1215637988


Then I set the building, that should produce the German-machinegunner, to be available with the tech "Totalitarism" and with a German flag-building as perequisite. Now both buildings are visible on the techtree.


http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/58536/Era3.JPG


-----------------

A more complicate way with the same result would be, to give all the other civs also an flag with a special era none tech that is needed as a perequisite for the building that should be available for 30 civs.

A small advantage of that methode is, that now the standard-building for 30 civs can go obsolete with a technic in the future.

Then I set the building, that should produce the US-machinegunner for 30 civs to be available with the tech "Totalitarism" and to go obsolete with the Era-None-Tech "German Flavour" that is only available to Germany.

Could you have also set the German Machine Gun Factory to go obsolete with an Era None "US Flavor" tech, rather than have it require the German Flag? Would that have allowed a German Machine Gun factory for Germany and an American one for the US (and everyone else)?

all of my biq files got switched to civ3QEdit.document files will it still work right? it even affected my zipped backups!

Could you have also set the German Machine Gun Factory to go obsolete with an Era None "US Flavor" tech, rather than have it require the German Flag? Would that have allowed a German Machine Gun factory for Germany and an American one for the US (and everyone else)?

In that case you have to give the "US Flavor" tech to 30 civs. Otherwise these 30 civs (or any civ that doesn´t have the "US Flavor" tech) would produce both buildings. :)

Those flags could be very useful.

Do you mind if I use them.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=182728&d=1215883255

Those flags could be very useful.

Do you mind if I use them.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=182728&d=1215883255

Of course you can use them. I use your excellent graphics, too. :)

But these flags are not only useful for graphical reasons. There is a lot of power in that idea I presented here. With these flags/national symbols each civ can receive its own civ-traits - even civ traits, that don´t exist with the normal Civ 3 game. Think of cheap wonders, that give these flags to every city of a civ and these flags can have every combination of options that is possible with civ 3. Additionally they are perequisits for civspecific buildings and wonders. This is one of the central ideas of my mod. :)

Of course you can use them. I use your excellent graphics, too. :)

But these flags are not only useful for graphical reasons. There is a lot of power in that idea I presented here. With these flags/national symbols each civ can receive its own civ-traits - even civ traits, that don´t exist with the normal Civ 3 game. Think of cheap wonders, that give these flags to every city of a civ and these flags can have every combination of options that is possible with civ 3. Additionally they are perequisits for civspecific buildings and wonders. This is one of the central ideas of my mod. :)

I do like the idea alot and will probably implement in my game as soon as I figure out unique units for the 31 civs and a way to implement them with some balanced.

Could someone help me figure out a way to differentiate between the attributes for "mountains" and "snow covered mountains"? Specifically, I want to make the snow-covered mountains impassible, but leave the regular mountains open for exploration and mining.

My thought was to add a new kind of terrain to the editor list, but I don't know how to do that. (I don't want to just "rename" one of the existing types, because then I loose that type for other areas of the map.)

Thanks in advance!

Could someone help me figure out a way to differentiate between the attributes for "mountains" and "snow covered mountains"? Specifically, I want to make the snow-covered mountains impassible, but leave the regular mountains open for exploration and mining.

My thought was to add a new kind of terrain to the editor list, but I don't know how to do that. (I don't want to just "rename" one of the existing types, because then I loose that type for other areas of the map.)

Thanks in advance!

You can't really add new terrain types - just LM. Your best bet would be to either (a) make mountains impassable and use LM Hills terrain for passable or (b) set all terraform bonuses for snow covered mountains to zero. That will at least keep roads and mines etc. from being built there. (You can even rename and use snow-covered mountains for this.)

Best,

Oz

Speaking of snow covered - is there actually any differance? I've never got around to finding out.

Unfortunatley, Snow-capped Mountains use the rules of the normal mountains, not their own set of rules, like LM terrain. Just another "hardcoded" feature :(

Unfortunatley, Snow-capped Mountains use the rules of the normal mountains, not their own set of rules, like LM terrain. Just another "hardcoded" feature :(

Yes, but they are a different graphics set and (as I mentioned above) could be swapped for any other set. A likely candidate for most modders might be swamps: use the snow-covered gfx and make them, i.e., impassable. Remember, it's just software, labels and gfx. At least that part's not hard coded. :)

Best,

Oz

Some terrains, like snoopy's, have more terrain types than the regular ones. Like, for instance, a "plataeu" terrain, and "ancient forest" and such.

Some terrains, like snoopy's, have more terrain types than the regular ones. Like, for instance, a "plataeu" terrain, and "ancient forest" and such.

:confused: I use Sn00py's Greener Terrain and there are no such terrain types. Are you certain you aren't thinking of a mod using Sn00py's terrain with LMs?

It could be they're only in a certain set of his graphics, and not the greener, which I also use.
Do you know which version it is? I'm curious to see these graphics myself... particularly the plataeu one.

Here's a pic:

And also, it may not be sn00py's. It is used in Rhye's of Civilization.
The ancient forests one is used in Warhammer.
There is also a forest hills one:

Thank you for your help. Since I have to sacrifice one of my other terrain types, I chose to use tundra - however I'm having a hard time locating the files to replace. "irrigation TUNDRA.pcx" is easy enough to spot, I can't find the right tundra files to replace.

i dont understand what you are asking.

I am asking what are the file names for the tundra tiles. I don't see anything like a "tundra.pcx" or the transitional artwork between tundra tiles and other tiles.

EDIT: and while you are at it, could I have the file names for the transition art between snow mountains and other tiles? I'm having a hard time locating those too.

Actually, I cant find those terrain graphics either.

And for your edit, i have absolutely no clue.
(could you tell that i am not a very proficient modder? ;))

Well, thanks for trying. Hopefully someone else who knows will show up and enlighten us.

On a completely unrelated note:

For the pink transparency color, do you know what kinds of things can go wrong to prevent it from showing up as transparent? For example, I found some cities (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2297615&postcount=2) that I really like, but the "transparent" background is still showing up. I'd ask the creator directly, but it doesn't appear like he's been active in a long time.

hmmm...
i like those cities too.
do you have gimp or another photo editor progam?

I've got both Gimp and Photoshop. I tried playing with it in Photoshop a little in order to fix it, but I didn't figure out how to make it work.

I don´t know, if I can tell you all possible ways of doing this, because I don´t know everything. But I can tell you how I did it in CCM (Civ Complete Mod) and another much more complicated way how to achieve the same result. :)

In CCM I wanted that the two machinegunners, that are available with Civ Complete (the German and the US-one in the PTW Extras) are beeing autoproduced by buildings that are available with the tech "Totalitarism" as they have much better defense values as the normal infantry units.

I gave the Germans an Era-None-Tech called "German Flavour" which let them build a very cheap special building, the German flag.


http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=200109&stc=1&d=1215637573


Then I set the building, that should produce the US-machinegunner for 30 civs to be available with the tech "Totalitarism" and to go obsolete with the Era-None-Tech "German Flavour" that is only available to Germany.


http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=200116&stc=1&d=1215637988


Then I set the building, that should produce the German-machinegunner, to be available with the tech "Totalitarism" and with a German flag-building as perequisite. Now both buildings are visible on the techtree.


http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/58536/Era3.JPG


-----------------

A more complicate way with the same result would be, to give all the other civs also an flag with a special era none tech that is needed as a perequisite for the building that should be available for 30 civs.

A small advantage of that methode is, that now the standard-building for 30 civs can go obsolete with a technic in the future.

Thank you very much, Civinator. I may try it that way. :)

Well, thanks for trying. Hopefully someone else who knows will show up and enlighten us.

On a completely unrelated note:

For the pink transparency color, do you know what kinds of things can go wrong to prevent it from showing up as transparent? For example, I found some cities (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2297615&postcount=2) that I really like, but the "transparent" background is still showing up. I'd ask the creator directly, but it doesn't appear like he's been active in a long time.

I think that you have to copy the image in GIMP, then set the backround transparancy color to magenta (which is the color civ uses for transparent).
Here is the link to a GIMP tutorial: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=241250
if this doesn't tell you, then i can't. I just downloaded GIMP yesterday, and am trying to figure out how to work it. ;)

I get the issue with the 'pink' every now and then when edit or paste another graphic into it, find when reset palette (load one created from a civ3 specific graphic that does work) it goes away ... somehow the 'pink+green' gets messed over when edit every now and then.

I tried following the tutorial, but I couldn't get it to work. It was a bit confusing to me.

JSnider - could you clarify what you mean by the palette reset?

I would go to the tutorial and references part of the forum and look around there for a tutorial on how. i'm not exactl the guy you should be asking.

HERE'S (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2637435&postcount=2) a rather thorough Gimp tutorial.

-Oz

And scroll down for Photoshop and Jasc HERE. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=83122)

-Oz

Ahh, thanks Oz. I needed that too.

Issue with palettes (in Paint shop Pro) is that when edit and existing civ graphic the magenta gets shewed and for some reason lets the base terrain come through. What I normally do is say for forest (et al) is insure i have a palette saved from a good pcx into PSP then mod the file and then load the palette back in before save ... has worked every time.

Thank you for the help everyone! I figured out how to fix the graphics! (Not exactly through the tutorials, but the pointed me in the right direction. The key in Photoshop seemed to be defining the first two spots on the color table during the conversion to Indexed colors - not after.)

Sharing the product below for anyone who wants to use these cities. I'll also post this on the original thread.

Ahh, good work (do you mind if i just call you wizard?). Those tutorials are helping me out as well. I am finally being allowed to post new UNITS!!! *cackles softly*

Sure, you can call me that.

What kind of new units are you making?

Oops. I typoed. I ment download new units. i still haven't found out how to make new ones yet.

I want to make a some Flag Leaderheads, for that I need to modify pcx and flc Files.

I will use GIMP to modify the pcx's, but I'll need to use a diffrent Program for the flc files.

Can some one suggest a good Program that can read, modifiy and create flc's?

Preferably, one ;) thats Freeware or Shareware.

For flag leaderheads RAD Video tools (http://www.radgametools.com/bnkdown.htm)will work.

Is it possible for an improvement to produce negative production or culture?
I have it in my mind that it is, but since I can't actually recall any instances in which I've seen this, I thought I'd double-check.

Also, while I'm here:
Say a city has a building that increases luxury output by 50%. A second building is built in the city; it's also supposed to increase luxury output by 50%. The two buildings now exist side by side. Is the result cumulative? Or does the second building's function cancel out the first?

It's non-cumulative, and you can have negative effects yes :)

hi, newb here. can i ask you guys a question? how do i add a new civ to my scenario?

I only have civ III and i noticed that theres an add button in the civilizations category so i created new civs. it worked fine and i can also pick out the civs i recently created but as i start the game, only 16 players are there. how do I expand it to 17+ players in-game?

When you say you have only civIII do you mean only vanilla?
I opened the vanilla editor and it is the same as the conquests one concerning increasing the number of Civilizations available.
Go to rules / edit / world sizes. There you can adjust the number of starting civilizations world size and distance between civs. Remember unless you want a crowded world you should also adjust world sizes if increasing the number of available civs.

It's non-cumulative, and you can have negative effects yes :)

Ok, thanks!

I have more questions already:

Untradeable Tech Y requires untradeable hidden (no era) Tech Z. Civ A begins the game with Tech Z, while Civ B does not. Without Tech Y, will Civ B be able to advance to the next era?

Given the above, assume Tech Y is in Era 2. Civ B has the 'Scientific' civ trait. Upon entering Era 2, could Civ B have been given Tech Y for free?

Also, assume Civ B builds the Great Library. If either Tech Y or Tech Z are owned by two other civs, could Civ B be given Tech Y or Tech Z for free?

Is there any way to mod diplomatic actions? I'd like to create a "poacher" unit (or tech) that allows you to steal food from enemy cities.

Is there any way to mod diplomatic actions? I'd like to create a "poacher" unit (or tech) that allows you to steal food from enemy cities.

Nope, sorry, can't be done.

-Oz

Does anyone have a link to a terrain creating guide, or know of a program I can use to make my own terrain?

Specifially, I'm looking to create some space terrain where the space is a land tile, as opposed to the space being an water tile like in Vadus' Space Empires (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71552). I tried just renaming the WOOO.pcx files but the xdgc.pcx type ones are messing me up.

I have more questions already:

Untradeable Tech Y requires untradeable hidden (no era) Tech Z. Civ A begins the game with Tech Z, while Civ B does not. Without Tech Y, will Civ B be able to advance to the next era?

Given the above, assume Tech Y is in Era 2. Civ B has the 'Scientific' civ trait. Upon entering Era 2, could Civ B have been given Tech Y for free?

Also, assume Civ B builds the Great Library. If either Tech Y or Tech Z are owned by two other civs, could Civ B be given Tech Y or Tech Z for free?

Just in case anyone in the know about these things didn't see this a couple months ago... could anybody help me out here? That would be swell. :)

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. No.

Era=None techs are AFAIK exempt from the Great Library etc. - but more to the point, a tech which a Civ cannot typically acquire essentially doesn't exist for that Civ. This is why we refer in modding to "individual tech trees". E.g., in (1), B cannot acquire Y, so Y is "invisible" to B.

Caveat: I can't recall what happens if a tech "W" progesses from Y, i.e., does W then need to be made an optional tech, but this should be an easy test to set up.

Best,

Oz

:goodjob: Thank you Ozymandias! I appreciate your help.
Now, back to my tech trees... :coffee: