A visual experiment: Would you like Civ3 to look like this -->

[Kryten]

Thanks very much for those sound files th0mas!
I haven't had a chance to listen to them yet, but I will.
Cheers.

UPDATED PROGRESS REPORT
----------------------------------

Good news everyone.
Thunderfall has agreed to open a new "Completed Multi Figure Unit Forum"!
This will operate exactly like the current "Completed Units Forum", and we could have it tomorrow if we wished.
However, as we have nothing to put in there at the moment, now would be a good time to discuss what 'sticky' threads are required.

I was thinking along these lines:-
*sticky message:"Please only post completed Multi Figure Units in this forum. All requests, previews and questions should be posted in the Creation & Customization forum".
*sticky thread: "How to create Multi Figure Units".
(Containing a tutorial on how best to use Steph’s excellent utility)
*sticky thread: "How to download Multi Figure Units".
(this could also contain a link to the Easy Upload & Files Forum Rules)
*sticky thread: "Standard Civ3 units converted to Multi Figure"
(This is for the converted original Civ3 units, not the player created ones, and is so that people can find them quickly)
*sticky thread: "Multi Figure Library".
(Now it would be nice if Lab Monkey could continue the outstanding work he has done in the current Units Forum....but it is a big task, and I don't want to impose, so I would fully understand should he decline.
I'll PM him and ask)

In addition I was thinking of having a "Current Projects" thread.
It would be somewhere for creators to announce what they plan to work on next (no previews would be needed, just a short message about what the unit is to be called, what figures they are using, and what type of formation). This is to stop 'duplication' in case two or more people are working on the same thing.
It would be best if this was not 'sticky'....if it drops off the first page, then you will all know that there is nothing new for you to read.

Any thoughts?

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

Important note.........

Originally posted by Thunderfall
One more thing: I don't think people should post multi-figure units of PTW units. I seriously doubt Firaxis/Infogrames would give permission for that.

I'm afraid that this includes even very heavily modified PTW figures (it just isn't worth the risk of a lawsuit).

This unfortunately is going to have serious repercussions for computerdude113, who was hoping to have multi figure PTW dinosaurs.
I shall PM computerdude113 to discuss it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have finished my experiments with multi figure Civ3 armies.
The results were....er....unexpected.

I created a bunch of hoplites to use as any army, but as you can see below, for some reason all the colours went weird, and in the map contol panel they look like a bunch of British holiday makers who have spent too much time sunbathing on a Spanish beach!
Also, the overlapping units looks terrible.
So I think that the current single figure standard bearer is the best solution.

There is another thing....just below the army is a city, but the phalanx unit just south of it totally obscures the city name.
Is this a problem?

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

Last of all, I have been testing Steph's utility by trying to create the most difficult unit I could think of....a 17th century "Pike & Shot" regiment.
It took me several tries (mainly because I am not quite sure what the utility can and cannot do, as well as the quickest way of doing it), but here is the result.
I think it looks rather nice.
(I'll E-mail a full report to you tomorrow Steph)

 

[Kal-el]

Kryten, you should contact Firaxis and see what they have to say about the PtW units. Who knows, maybe they would be willing to release them at their site, or possibly in the next patch.

 

[Yoda Power]

There is another thing....just below the army is a city, but the phalanx unit just south of it totally obscures the city name.
Is this a problem?

No, i think bombers and some other "original" units do the same thing. You can always rightclick on the city to see its name.

 

[Civanator]

or maybe we can get their permission? I mean, PTW will be great if we could. Or maybe we make multi-figure units, and they include it in the next patch?

 

[Steph]

Sorry folks, I thought I could work on the tool this evening and add some formation, but I had a very long and tiring day at work, and I'm to sleepy.
You will probably have to wait until saturday evening for a preview of the next features.
At that time, I think all the formation I plan to add will be finished, as well as the centering offset and the waiting delays.

I'm not sure I will have the time to add the rotation feature for this version.

 

[Schizo_Angel]

Of course, you can create multi-figure units from the ptw storyboards, you just can't release them for download.

But I believe that Firaxis should release these fine ptw figures onto the community. THis community has kept those sales of ptw up, by developing a continued interest in their wonderful series of games.
We are the Civ4 critics.
We are the people playing their games over gamespy through its troubles.
We decide who gets the bonuses and pay checks.
By leaving us out in the cold, their fan base will drop, and so will their profits.
Perhaps if sales of Play the World were to reach a certain expected level, Firaxis would consider Their goals acheived , and release graphics on the mod community.

Who knows? Maybe even extra graphics? For our continued service to corporate profits?

 

[Grawss]

They will probably let us. The more people who are into Civ3 will mean they will most likely get more money from us next time. As for the army discussion, you should just put the flag holder in the middle, substituting one guy (as I said earlier). As for Stephs utility, looks good! My favorite unit to see in this form would be the Berserk.

 

[Stormbringer]

I don't really know much about unit creating, but I have quite a bit of free time on my hands, so I could probably run the MultiUnit Library, if there is noone else to do it. BTW, I can't wait for the utility to come out, it will make working on my Napoleon scenario A LOT easier

 

[Neomega]

BTW steph, I like the size reduction thing, and will probably use it in my next mod.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Grawss
As for the army discussion, you should just put the flag holder in the middle, substituting one guy (as I said earlier).

Unfortunately Grawss, that won't work for technical reasons.

Civ3 armies are always placed on the very eastern edge of a tile, no matter which way the unit is moving or facing.

Take that sceenshot above for example, and imagine the standard-bearer as being one of the 'lobster coloured' hoplites.
Ignoring the colour changes for the moment, you end up with the army unit halfway inside and halfway outside the tile....but the units within the army are still shown as normal, centred in the middle of the tile.
The result is two units overlapping each other and the adjacent tile.....and looks a right mess!

The current single figure standard-bearer, which we are already used to, works fine because there is just enough room for him on the very eastern point of the tile.

Of course, once Steph has released his excellent utility, you could always try it for yourself and see if you can improve it somehow.


To Stormbringer,

Thank you very much for your offer to host the "Multi Figure Library".

However I am still waiting to hear from Lab Monkey (after all, it is only right and proper that he be given the first choice).

I will let you know his responce.

 

[Neomega]

you could use the x offset in flicster to situate the army figure in the middle.

Then With the other "munits" leave a hole in the back center row for him to show up in.

 

[Steph]

I don't think it will work, unless you put the unit to the left, so it SEEMS to be in the center when you put the leader in the army. But it will work only when facing S. When facing N, it will be even more outside.

OOO
OOO
.|...X...|

X is where the leader stands when facing S.
| are the limits of the leader frame (so normally X is in the center, and civ III offset the global animation when displaying an army).
So with flicster you offset the whole animation, to get this
|X......|

Result when facing S :

OOO
OOO
.|X..........|
The army is where it should be!

And then when facing N

|X........|
.......OOO
.......OOO

It's worse...

The solution would to to use my to offset the leader to the left, and not flicster, because if you offset a unit to the left in the S animation, it it then offset to the right when building the N animation!

I hope I've been clear

 

[Kryten]

Good idea Steph!

Although I don't like the thought of leaving 'gaps' in the units (as it would muck up the formations), I would like to see the 'standard-bearer' moving around the edges of the tile, depending upon the direction being faced, so that he is always behind the units that make up his army.
"Leave it with me"

(And I am still trying to write that report for you.)

 

[Neomega]

The red legionnaires are most likely a result of there being a white or off white color in the upper two rows of the color palette, where civ-specific ccolors is supposed to be.

 

[GIDustin]

Could you not shift each direction in the leader a seperate amount, to get the desired effect? It may not be easy to code in your program, but once you have ONE made, you can base the other units off it.

GIDustin

 

[Stormbringer]

no problem, I totaly agree that Lab Monkey done a great job, and if he can do it again, it would be awesom.

 

[Steph]

After all the tests I have done, it was time to do some cleaing... This morning I've done a first pass of cleaning and optimisation, and the size of my code has been divied by 4 I think.

So I was unable to add new features this morning, but the new way the code is organized will allow me to add the next features faster.

So you still have to be patient...

 

[Kryten]

No problem Steph.
You are doing a grand job, and we all appreciate it.

MF Armies:-
After following everyones advice, I gave them another go.

I successfully manged to get the 'standard-bearer' to move round the tile edge so that he is always behind the units that make up his army.....but there is a problem......

As you can see, because the units are the last thing to be drawn on the screen, when moving N/NW/NE the 'standard-bearer' is overwriten, so only his feet can be seen!
(This is a bit obvious when you think about it, and I wish I had)

So the best compromise that I can come up with is to have the 'standard-bearer' behind the units in all directions except when facing N/NW/NE, when he will be in front of the units......

Now I am still open to suggestions, but to be honest, I don't think we are going to get anything better, and I really don't want to waste any more time on this and move on.

Later Edit:
When I say that the units are the last thing to be drawn on the screen, I mean the units within an army, not those outside moving about on their own....

Is it acceptable?
(The alternative of course is to leave it as it currently is, with him always on the very eastern point of the tile no matter which way he faces)

 

[Dragon King]

Originally posted by Kryten
(The alternative of course is to leave it as it currently is, with him always on the very eastern point of the tile no matter which way he faces)

I think that this would be the best option. I think that it would look really weird when moving your armies about to have the leader suddenly swop from being at the front to suddenly being at the back, otherwise some pretty nifty teleporting from that leader!

 

[Kryten]

Good point Dragon King.

(And it means that I don't have to fart about changing all the flcs of all the armies)