A 'HUMBLE' Request from a RTW person **Note: C3C Editor Features inside!**

Hi Guys,

All of you people who are getting C3:C tomorrow, I was wondering if I could ask a HUGE favour for all of us people who, for WHATEVER reasons, will not be getting the game for a good couple of weeks?
My main interest in the game-for the time being-are all the new editor functions. That said, I was wondering if people could start posting screenshots of the various editor screens, so that those of us who want to mod the epic game can see what we can and cannot do with the new editor ?!
Anyway, thank you all in advance from this poor, poor Australian-who won't be able to get the game until the New Year ! (Long Story )

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

we will try to do what you ask!

o Landmark Terrain
o Reverse Capture the Flag
o Flavors
o Locked Alliances (Maximum of 4 teams)
o Obsolete improvements/wonders
o Unit spawning improvements/wonders
o Air Defense Ratings
o Enslavement
o Stealth Attacks
o Victory Point Scoring
o Enabling Multiple Human Players in a Scenario
o Fog of War Tool
o Retaining culture on city capture
o Volcanoes & Plagues
o Untradable techs
o Bonus Techs (give free tech to 1st player who researches them)
o Permits Sacrifices Flag
o Reveal Map Tech Flag
o Upgrade Cost
o Requires Escort Flag
o Unit shield cost X 10 (15 shields = 15 shields, not 150)

Here's a quick list off of the top of my head - I'm sure questions will be raised from them, but I'm going to have to request that you wait for the screens and fellow fanatics for more in-depth info! =)

What does flavors mean? Plagues sound interesting too. Does it work like disease in jungles and flood plains? Guess we will find out soon

So.............Much.....................Info!!!

landmark terrain sounds interesting, but I'm REAL happy with the 15 shields thing.

Hi Tavis, Thank you SO MUCH for that info-it is VERY MUCH appreciated !! I do feel incredibly honoured that my thread has gained the notice of a Firaxian !!!
Whilst you're around, though, I was wondering if I could ask a couple of minor, editor-related questions?

1) In that list you gave, one thing which wasn't mentioned, but the thing which I'm most holding my breath for , is whether or not it might be possible to give small wonders the 'Double Happiness Effects of...' and 'Counts as X in every city' flags!! So, my question is-will this be possible in C3:C?

2) Though I'm not expecting this in C3:C, do you ever envisage it being possible to give buildings (mostly wonders, I'm hoping) the ability to increase or decrease the Optimal City Number for a given government type-as another means of reducing corruption? Such an ability would be VERY useful for a Small Wonder like the 'Senate' and the 'Parliament'!!
Anyway, any info you might be allowed to give me with on these matters would, as I said before, be VERY much appreciated !!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Hello All,
I don't know if I am just overlooking it, or just the only one thinking this is VERY important, but I am still missing a "locked Goverment" Option in the editor.... Those you tried making a scenario might have noticed that as soon as you start the game, all civs go to anarchy and switch to another gov type, I tried setting the gov form I wanted as the civs prefered one in the editor, but it didn't help..... Nazi Germany going through a revolution in 1940 to become a democravy is a problem....
anyone found out how to correct it?

I'm sure questions will be raised from them, but I'm going to have to request that you wait for the screens and fellow fanatics for more in-depth info! =)

Click to expand...

Some people never listen

aeldrik, try setting the governments to "era none" techs and give them to the civ you want to have a specific government.

Originally posted by Louis XXIV


aeldrik, try setting the governments to "era none" techs and give them to the civ you want to have a specific government.

Click to expand...

Sorry Louis, but I don't really get what you mean!!! do
you mean I should create a tech for every Gov-type I want to use, and then give only one of these tech to each civ, so they only have that one option-goverment?? this would still leave the problem that the civs could research the techs and still change the gov. type....

If it is what you mean, yes it would work, but honestly, it is not the solution I expect having payed more than 100 EUR for the game...

PS: I wasn't raising a question from the listed Editor improvements....

It is very close the solution

Only "Era None" techs can't be researched or traded.

well, I didn't know there was something such as "Era none" techs, so I guess they must be new from Conquest? Meaning there is no way of doing it without conquest?

well thx for the hint, at least one solution, or how to do easy things the hard way....

I think they could be done with the latest patch to PTW.

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
I think they could be done with the latest patch to PTW.

Click to expand...

They could be added before the 1.27f, but the latter expanded their functionality in a way I can't recall atm. Check the patch readme for details.

I think they could be traded, now they can't

for the slow ones like me (correct me If this is wrong):

By setting the Era of a tech to "none" instead of one fo the usual 4 in the Editor, the Techs becomes only available to a civ it is given to in the scenario, meaning other civs have no way of researching or trading or spying that technology....
This way one can have a CIV having only one form of goverment at its disposal, and thus making sure it won't change...

Originally posted by Tavis
o Untradable techs
o Bonus Techs (give free tech to 1st player who researches them)

Click to expand...

Oh, very, VERY cool. Can't wait to get my hands on the editor.

@Aussie_Lurker: I'll try to tear myself away from the game and get you some screenshots once I have it.

Hrrmmm.... I was really hoping that Conquests was going to utilize a different method for the Civ-specific techs than the "era none" option in the last PtW patch.

I've been pulling out my hair trying to create decent tech trees, but it's extremely difficult.

I'm trying to create a scenario where every civilization (or sometimes groups of civilizations) have their own tech trees. But the problem is that for every era, I have to make a separate tech tree for the civ-specific route and another tech tree for everybody so they can get stuff like Iron, Saltpeter, diplomatic options, drafting, etc.

It's just not possible to have two technologies from different Civ-specific tech trees as prerequisites for a common tech.

Let's take a hypothetical, we have England and China.

If we set the tech tree up like this:

England

Engineering ---> Invention ----> Gunpowder

China

Herbal Medicine ----> Alchemy ----> Gunpowder

Instead of having both civs reach the common tech of Gunpowder, neither civilization will be able to research the tech because they are each missing one of the other prerequisite techs Invention or Alchemy.

What would be nice is if in the event that there are two mutually-exclusive techs set as prerequisites for a common technology that the game would thus interpret it as say Invention OR Alchemy rather than Invention AND Alchemy.

Of course, there is an even simpler option which is to have techs (and improvements for that matter) work like units where there's a list of all the civilizations and you select which one's can research the current tech, but even that would need the "OR" rather than the "AND" for prerequisite technologies. But it could be made to work like the upgrade paths for units in that you can have one unique tech be a prerequisite for the next one, but the computer will merely bypass each of them until they get to the next researchable tech for that civilization.

couldn't you just make the tech tree like this?

engineering --->invention--->gunpowder
herbal medicine--->alchemy--->gunpowder
make both gunpowders exactly the same. then the ai should research one and not the other as long as one of them is not needed to advance the era.

or am i wrong here somewhere?

Well, there's two problems... one is that I don't think you can have two techs with the same name, but that's not major since you could just make it "Chinese Gunpowder" or call it by the names in the respective languages. The bigger problem is that only one of those "Gunpowders" can be what gives you saltpeter. Unless you make multiple kinds of saltpeter for each civ, in which case, the chances of getting the wrong saltpeter is much higher, and if you separate tech trees from the beginning, you might find this problem with all of the resources. You may find all of the civilizations fighting with horsemen and spearman in the Industrial Age! Well, I suppose not since Rifleman don't require anything.

I just don't think it'll work... so basically, what I've been trying to do is to separate into sort of "social" and "scientific" tech trees. The social tech tree is pretty much civ-specific or region specific while the scientific tech tree is basically universal, but it would be nice to have a bit more fluidity.

Yep, we need to be able to use the logical OR for prerequisites. Hmmmm...may in the first Conquest patch? Unless they've already adressed this problem and haven't told us yet.

"Unit spawning improvements/wonders" - does this mean what I think it means? That, at last, we can make a building as a prereqisite to creating a unit? You need a Barracks to create a militia or a Stable to create a horseman or Docks to create a boat etc! Of course, that is starting to come dangerously close to RTS style...

"Untradeable techs" - probably a checkbox for each tech; if checked as untradeable then the tech can only be researched but you cannot get it from another civ or from a goodie hut (I presume). Also, this means you could force techs in the "None era" to become tradeable if you wish. This means, you could give some unique abilities to different civs at the start but, if they are essential for a fullly-funtioning civilization (eg mining or farming), then you are made to play nice up to other civs early in the game in order to get that vital tech. Yes, there are all sorts of strategic possiblities with this one "small" change.