Alpha testers needed for Steph's mod 2

[Steph]

Due to some bugs in Civ3, mostly the fact it cannot display properly resources if there are to many units using it, I think I will not make a whole civilopedia.

For some parts, like the resources, documentation will be external via Excel spread sheets.

 

[T.A JONES]

I like the new desert shots and some of the other terrain features are great. A nice collection of resources as well. I see tons of cool buildings and wonder what they all do.

Spoiler :

 

[T.A JONES]

Oh my god! . Stop the press.!! Everyone has to stop what there doing and look how many units are in Stephs Mod2. It took me a half hour to zoom through them all and at a blistering speed to!

THis is a all time recond for random map no question! I just got to see the tech tree now Oh You will definatly need some help with the pedia now and I will help paste some entrys from Wikipedia or anothe source upon your request.

theres is just to much Id say, well, at least 4 months of copying and pasting on a nice casual RL pace. WHen this is done I'll be first to say its will be the greatest, that is until Balancer makes a sequal

 

[Steph]

Oh my god! . Stop the press.!! Everyone has to stop what there doing and look how many units are in Stephs Mod2. It took me a half hour to zoom through them all and at a blistering speed to!

For the tech trees and a preview of the units, there is a link to the previews in my signature

I have started another Excel Spreadsheet for the technologies. It allowed me to correct a few errors... Like no tech revealed the map!

 

[JSnider]

Just dl'd and was cking in editor (did not see this reported) .. noted that a file ref in scenario properties was to Steph_history; lower case h whereas the file is upper case H. Do not know if this causes problems as in file ref's in pediaicons text file where has to be exact. I appeared unable to use your units_32 until changed to upper case H. until did this was only able to go as high as 340 something for units, got msg to change all ref in Units to that or lower. Once changed it disappeared.

Additionally, it appears that a fair number of the unit numeric ref's are off in the editor, have not tried a game yet to cross ck ...

if known issues please ignore ...

 

[T.A JONES]

THanks JSnider I was wondering if names not matching was contributing to my problems. Hopefully you speeded things being straightened out here.

OH an a big welcome to the Forum man!!

!!​

 

[Steph]

Thanks JSnider. On my computer, it doesn't cause any problem, but just in case I've changed the ref in the editor to upper case.

I'm still working on a big Excel spreadsheet that should include most of the mod info, and make it easier to understand and test it.

I'll update the civpedia in the same time.

Can you be more precise about the unit number being off in the editor?

 

[JSnider]

When open units in editor and scroll through units the 2nd one is 'scout'; icon #2 which turns out to be Eg (presumptively Egypt). Next one is 'explorer'; icon#3, which is He. Then attack helicopter; icon#414, which is some type of ground unit of king unit. And so on. Oh and the 1st one is something titled unit disabler; icon#227, basic sword dude displays.

So this may just mean i am missing something or the numbering is off be some factorial or sequence. As stated i always paly with a mod in the editor for 2-3 days before try a game ... this is day 2 in the editor and trying to check sequencing of techs, bldgs and units at this point, just my way of playing and trying to understand some of the design logic before play.

 

[JSnider]

Oh i forgot to mention that this only seems to run from the 1st unit to "army" in th icons, after that seems to dovetail with your unit_32. Might be 1 or 2 later that give a blank picture, will see if can find again, sorry for the brain fart on this info.

 

[Steph]

OK

The first units in the editors are left over of the first version of the mod. They will disappear in the final version, so don't worry about them.

The "real" units starts at "Nomad tribe".

You may noticed that most of the "to delete units" are in fact aviation, and I've not done aviation yet.

 

[JSnider]

Have run through a partial game at this point to include 1 war (4000BC - 930BC), so some observations (note if the design intends to accomplish some of the points below then please ignore):

1. Strategic Resource Distribution .. seems to be to minimal. Only found 1 iron on biggest continent in current game. No iron in another game didn't go far in. You might wish to up chance of occurance.

2. Time to construct buildings .. way to long (opinion), e.g. in my current best producing city it takes 50 turns to build a forge or 500 years (at 10 years per turn). In effect it takes 20-50 turns to build things, but 4-8 to build units .. so result is few buildings vs units.

3. So far tech flow seems to be about right .. although it might be a tad faster to improve flow (but if change 1 & 2, would probably result in faster tech flow).

4. Certain cities show up in the game when built as walled already (nope haven't built walls). Usually by mountains.

5. Seems strange to have berries on the tundra but not seals or game/big game.

6. I really wish there was an option to produce nothing ... get to near 0 income and would like to build nada until can get a positive cash flow.

7. Presue the lack of strat resources in the mountains is intentional.

8. Church and church plus Cathedral and cathedral: This was in the editor with diff being the upper/lower case letters. Presume a name change will occur at some future update .. diff techs and some diff effects.

9. Steam Boats vs Armored Ship: One obsoletes the shipyard (SB) but can't build Naval Yard until AS, thus no veteran ships .. intentional?

10. Shouldn't a 'large sewer' be better then 'sewer' at fighting pollution; both -1.

11. Power Plants replacing others in the chain. I never liked this as somewhat non historical. In mod i'm working on (extending RaR into the future) they just build on one another (and yes AI builds more then 1). But personnal pref here.

12. Need some form of explorer or caravan unit to see the world and die faster.

Thats all at this point

 

[Steph]

Thanks for all the comments, that's this kind of feedback I'm after .

1. Strategic Resource Distribution .. seems to be to minimal. Only found 1 iron on biggest continent in current game. No iron in another game didn't go far in. You might wish to up chance of occurance.

The appearance ratio is the same as in conquest. It could simply be bad luck?
However, don't forget the resources do not work as in Conquest. You can always produce a unit if you lack a resource. However, it costs more. Having access to strategic resources is more a large bonus than a game winner.

2. Time to construct buildings .. way to long (opinion), e.g. in my current best producing city it takes 50 turns to build a forge or 500 years (at 10 years per turn). In effect it takes 20-50 turns to build things, but 4-8 to build units .. so result is few buildings vs units.

Noticed. If other people feels the same, I'll reduce the cost.

3. So far tech flow seems to be about right .. although it might be a tad faster to improve flow (but if change 1 & 2, would probably result in faster tech flow).

OK, but in some of my tests, it was going to fast after a while . What was your tech level in 930 BC?

4. Certain cities show up in the game when built as walled already (nope haven't built walls). Usually by mountains.

Strange... I'll try it to se.

5. Seems strange to have berries on the tundra but not seals or game/big game.

Seals and Big games are allowed in Tundra. You should get same. Bad luck again?

6. I really wish there was an option to produce nothing ... get to near 0 income and would like to build nada until can get a positive cash flow.

Hmm.. I'll try to think of something. I agree it's sometime boring to have to produce something.

7. Presue the lack of strat resources in the mountains is intentional.

A left over of an attempt to make mountains completly impassable. I'll correct it.

8. Church and church plus Cathedral and cathedral: This was in the editor with diff being the upper/lower case letters. Presume a name change will occur at some future update .. diff techs and some diff effects.

They will be kept that way, unless you have a better name to suggest. You build Churches and Cathedrals first, then they become obsolete when you discover reformation, resulting in no happyness bonus from them for a while (my attempt at religious turmoils caused by reformation ), and then you can build them again as church and cathedral, but with a weakened effects, to simulate the lesser importance of religion in "modern" life. Or simply the fact reformed / schism create tension

9. Steam Boats vs Armored Ship: One obsoletes the shipyard (SB) but can't build Naval Yard until AS, thus no veteran ships .. intentional?

Yes, we are going from the age of sail to the age of iron. It get some time to adjust and get new veteran units...

10. Shouldn't a 'large sewer' be better then 'sewer' at fighting pollution; both -1.

Isn't the effect cumulative? So building a large sewer on top of a sewer gives a net result of -2, instead of -1 with only the sewer?

11. Power Plants replacing others in the chain. I never liked this as somewhat non historical. In mod i'm working on (extending RaR into the future) they just build on one another (and yes AI builds more then 1). But personnal pref here.

It may be worth a try. And I have another idea in mind for the "replace building".

12. Need some form of explorer or caravan unit to see the world and die faster.

The "agents" (explorers, spies, etc) have not been done yet. I also have to add aircrafts, helicopters and missiles.

No comment on the units balancing yet?

 

[Steph]

Slight update available on the website:
- New version of the Excel spreadsheet
- New version of the civilopedia, and minor correctin in the biq. I have checked mostly the "game concept" part of the pedia and updated it. Some parts are marked "OUTDATED", meaning they will be updated later, after I checked the buildings for instance. The civilization part has also been updated.
I have also added some new game concepts (named 0 Something so they appear first), explaining some concepts.

 

[JSnider]

Quick response as have to go cook dinner for the wife and me ...

Tech Level?? not sure what you mean here .. was still on 1st age, just done iron age and some of the later techs after it. Would say had done about 35%or so of available techs on the 1st age. Have mining and irrigation, but because of the war fought could not build a lot of workers .. needed military. Actually had to get rid of some workers and buildings to support the war effort .. now that it is over will see what can do to speed production.

Unit Balance seemed fine to me at this point in terms of combat units. I tend in my designs to give workers/settlers a movement rate of 2 vs 1 even in these early times. Helps the game along and makes things seem to flow better.

Resource balance .. never liked the base Conquest numbers as seem to be a heck of a lot more restrictive then nature is. Iron, coal and even oil isn't as hard to find as the game results based on the games number. I've tried to set my occurance chance for the core strat resources so that have a better then even chance of having iron and coal .. personnal taste.

 

[Steph]

Tech Level?? not sure what you mean here .. was still on 1st age, just done iron age and some of the later techs after it. Would say had done about 35%or so of available techs on the 1st age. Have mining and irrigation, but because of the war fought could not build a lot of workers .. needed military. Actually had to get rid of some workers and buildings to support the war effort .. now that it is over will see what can do to speed production.

Historically, the iron age started aroung 800 BC, so if you did it in 930 BC, the tech speed seems correct.

Unit Balance seemed fine to me at this point in terms of combat units. I tend in my designs to give workers/settlers a movement rate of 2 vs 1 even in these early times. Helps the game along and makes things seem to flow better.

I've done it on purpose to limit expansion. For instance, initial settlers are wheeled unit, and cannot go through mountains, forrest, or cannot board the earlier ships.

Resource balance .. never liked the base Conquest numbers as seem to be a heck of a lot more restrictive then nature is. Iron, coal and even oil isn't as hard to find as the game results based on the games number. I've tried to set my occurance chance for the core strat resources so that have a better then even chance of having iron and coal .. personnal taste.

I know... I've seen games where there all the source of iron were in the same civilization territory, and he could happily invaded everyone with his knights...
I changed it so having a resource is still a great bonus, but not a game killer

 

[JSnider]

For what it is worth did a series of map generations and checked resource numbers and locations (used C3MT and had gane in debug mode).

On Large/Huge MAps ended up with 9-14 iron, 14 horses and about 9 or 10 or the other resources. One thing noted on iron so far .. 90% of it turned up in tundra. Turned tundra of as an option and then in hills and had a little better spread on the map for it.

Also as you indicated, you don't require the resources to build the units; what i was wondering is couldn't you have one where need resources but cost is 2/3rds (or some fraction) of normal, and the other at full price not needing the strat resource (represents the cost of gettin the resource through trade or such thus costs more). Tis somehting i am trying to implement in mod working on now. So far think the one with resoucres would just have a generic look vice the national unit (vs duplicating 100% of the graphics, txt, etc.). Being lazy (retirment didn't change this factor) seemed easier then the alternative. Just an idea as it still makes control of resources valuable but not a game killer for those without them.

The non movement through mountains was a real pain initially in game playing, given that the best town locations were on the other side of a mountain/forest range when started. Had to build roads fast to get to them before the AI. Still think a movement of 2 for workers at least would help the game flow, but once finalized the editor allows for adjustments for individual tastes .. why like civ3 over 4 at this point.

 

[Steph]

On Large/Huge MAps ended up with 9-14 iron, 14 horses and about 9 or 10 or the other resources. One thing noted on iron so far .. 90% of it turned up in tundra.

Ever heard of the Swedish iron during WWII ?

Also as you indicated, you don't require the resources to build the units; what i was wondering is couldn't you have one where need resources but cost is 2/3rds (or some fraction) of normal, and the other at full price not needing the strat resource (represents the cost of gettin the resource through trade or such thus costs more). Tis somehting i am trying to implement in mod working on now. So far think the one with resoucres would just have a generic look vice the national unit (vs duplicating 100% of the graphics, txt, etc.). Being lazy (retirment didn't change this factor) seemed easier then the alternative. Just an idea as it still makes control of resources valuable but not a game killer for those without them.

I don't understand. That's roughly what I'm doing. Unit with resource: normal cost, normal strength. Unit without resource: cost double, reduced strength (like 1 HP penalty), and for oil , reduced speed (for ships/armor) or range (for aircraft). Both version use the same graphics.
How is it different from what you propose?

 

[JSnider]

Yep have heard of the swedish iron, but then i don't think 90% of the worlds iron is on tundra .. all was saying did about 10 map gens and that iron tended to be placed on tundra over hills. May be skewed and bad luck on my part or it may be that there is a pref in the code to place resources there. Just an observation.

Your right, i plead poor vision ... i missed that part as by the time had a resource (copper) was making other units needing iron which didn't have, so never looked at the cost of the unit needing cooper (will do so when playing again). Great ... you had a lot more patience then me on this as i'm still sitting here looking at doing the same thing.

 

[Steph]

Yep have heard of the swedish iron, but then i don't think 90% of the worlds iron is on tundra .. all was saying did about 10 map gens and that iron tended to be placed on tundra over hills. May be skewed and bad luck on my part or it may be that there is a pref in the code to place resources there. Just an observation.

I don't know how Civ3 handles resources placement, if there is a real preference. I'll give it a try.

Your right, i plead poor vision ... i missed that part as by the time had a resource (copper) was making other units needing iron which didn't have, so never looked at the cost of the unit needing cooper (will do so when playing again). Great ... you had a lot more patience then me on this as i'm still sitting here looking at doing the same thing.

There is another indicator in the name of units. In the current version, if you see 03I - Swordman (It) you are looking at an Italian Swordman of the 3rd sub era (ie iron age), that will require a resource.
Of you see 03I - Swordman (It) (-) it's the version without the resource, and it's weaker and cost more (hence the - ).

When updating the mod, I'll change a bit the coding.
It will be something like
It_03I + Swordsman --> Version with resource, full strength
It_03I - Swordsman --> Weaker version without resource
It_03I = Archer --> Archer never requires resource and are always full strength

I have 20 civs, 150 type of units in the unit line, and there is flavour variation for each civ, and possibly a full/weakened version for each unit.
So that's a potential of 6000 units in the editor

 

[JSnider]

I.m not clear on how it does it either .. In latest testing i have been doing i've made everything a strat resource (so can use it if need to) and dropped bonus and luxury. I get a really nice spread of resources this way with little to no clumps of resources (were have 5/6/7 or more of 1 kind in one small area). To compensate for dropping luxury I am raising the 'happiness' points for certain buildings. As near as i can determine for strat resources they must be 'x' distance apart from another strat resource (i think, based on map generations done). This distance spread does not seem to apply to luxury and since can't use bonus for anything build wise i tend to drop them.

All above subject to correction based on testing or what others may know who have delved into this more than me.

I like the new coding system over the other .. easier to see and makes sense to me (I noted that in the editor a lot of the names are not displayed as the flow outside the unit boxes diplay area).