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

[Steph]

Originally posted by Thunderfall
Good job, Steph!

It would be cool if you could make the program convert all units in a folder/sub-folders into multi-figure units automatically, just in case Infogrames doesn't allow posting of Civ3 PTW units. This way players can just download the program and select the units folder and press "convert"!

Is this feasible?

This is not feasable, as it would give crapy animation, and both Kryten and I would like to set some standard. So the user will have to set a few things, like the offset, the delay to desynchronise the animation, mixing attack for first rank and figdet for second rank, making figure escape in the death animation, etc.
But in version 2, I will try to add a load/save feature, so we could post "ini files for PTW", and a user will just have to load this file do get all the correct configuration, clik "generate" and get the correct storyboard.
Don't forget another point : the tool does not work directly with FLC, but with storyboards. So you still need some "manual" input to generate the storyboards with FLICSTER. So a full batch processing is not possible (unless I could get the description of the FLC format from some, or the source code of FLICSTER).

 

[Yaniv]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but what about the unit sounds. They will still sound like a single unit. And more important, if you change the length of the animations, the sounds won't work with them. Lastly what about timing of affects (i.e., the slash of the sword during the attack).

Does anyone know how to address these problems?

 

[Kryten]

The sound files are all in hand Yaniv, as you will see (or should that be hear?) when I post the first "Ready Made Ancient Multi-Figure Unit Modpack".

 

[Steph]

Ok Folks. Just to let you know that the tool is finished.

I have added the spreading option for the unit, the possibility to make the unit turn progressively before escaping, the possibility to see the shadow in the preview.

There are also lots of spin control to make the tweaking of the offset easier (no need to input the value with the figure).

You can also select the background of the preview.

The resizing is now functionnal, and works in the preview as well (but the background and the grid are not resized, so you can see how your smallest unit would look like "in game").

Lastly, I've done some general improvment (like any changed is immediately reflected in the preview, once all the necessary files have been selected).

I let tomorrow pass for some more bug hunting, and I will start to work on the user's manual.

The tool should be online tomorrow night (sunday).

I'm quite happy with it, and it tooks me only 16 days, working on it only during my free time. And with a 20 months old baby, free time is not so common...

I will also try to add a third small tool beside story board builder for single unit and the munit creation, but that's a surprise. If I can do it, I'm not sure yet.

 

[The Troquelet]

Only a day left. You guys are brilliant

I have some practical questions...

1. How do I replace an "old" unit with a munit? Not the stats, just the animation files.

2. For "new" units, like mixed formations, that are not "replacing" old units, how do I add these to the game, and what necessary changes do I need to make in the editor? [I can make stats myself of course ]

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
1. How do I replace an "old" unit with a munit? Not the stats, just the animation files.

This is preferably done differantly with Civ3 and PTW. PTW being smoother in this aspect.

In Civ3 you just replace the old FLC files with the new.

In PTW you can create a new folder where you place the animations in folders of the SAME name as the unit you want to replace the graphics of.
AND then you open the Main bix file (civ3X.bix in your Civ3PTW folder) with the Civ3X Editor (You can just double click the file).
THEN you go to the Scenario Properties, which can be found in the Scenario Menu in the menu of the Editor.
There you will find a place where you can add Scenario Search Folders. Type your relative search path there, ie: "munits\" and end it with a " ; " and it will look for your animations in the ..\Civilization III\Civ3PTW\munits\ folder

This is just an example, but I hope you get what I mean.

 

[Plexus]

Steph, you're awesome.

 

[Steph]

If I were you, I would try to go there

 

[Spooky]

There is much talk about the new multi-units being new units ... im not so sure so need a few questions answering

Q1 If you take a standard napoleonic era infantry unit and 'skin' it to give it a french uniform and another an english uniform, does the game will still treat these as the standard unit in gameplay terms Y/N ?

Q2 If you then take these skinned units and place them in a french column and and english line ..... doesnt the game still treat them as the standard unit Y/N ?

Q3 Does the english column get a better attack because they are able to direct greater simultaneous firepower Y/N ?

Q4 Does a pike and shot multi-unit get a better defence due the to pike units Y/N ?

Q5 Some formation are obviously better suited to defence, some to skirmish and some to attack .... doesnt the game just treat these formations the same Y/N ?

Unless the game engine treats these 'new' units as NEW they are not 'new' units .... just eye-candy.

Im not against eye-candy, it imporves the look of the game, but dont bring anything to the game that could be classed an NEW !

I realise some fanatics will get either or some may even want to me for daring to question ........ im just after some justification for calling these 'nice looking skins' new units

 

[zulu9812]

These 'munits', or multi-figure units, are purely cosmetic and have no effect on gameplay. If you want to simulate different formations having different combat effectiveness, you would need to edit the stats of these units bya dding them in the editor and giving them stats and abilities to suit.

 

[Spooky]

As i thought ................ Eye-candy

So why all the hype about NEW units ... unless they actually bring something new to the game they should be called SKINS or MODS.

Then when something comes out that actually adds to the gameplay it can truly be called a NEW unit

 

[zulu9812]

Any new unit that comes out is purely cosmetic. You always have to make changes to the rules yourself, whether the new units are single-figured or multi-figured.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Spooky
Unless the game engine treats these 'new' units as NEW they are not 'new' units .... just eye-candy.
Im not against eye-candy, it imporves the look of the game, but dont bring anything to the game that could be classed an NEW !

I think that you are missing a fundamental point Spooky......
.....we can add new units with new abilities by using the editor that Firaxis have provided us with, but we have to do it ourselves.

A unit (be it single or multi-figured) consists of two things:-
1) it's 'stats' (i.e. attack/defence/movement/cost/etc)
2) an animation ('eye candy' or 'skin' as you call it)

Now suppose I want to make a NEW UNIT called an "Eastern Horse Archer", which would fit in the gap between the Civ3 Horseman and the Knight.
First, I would go to the editor to give it all the abilities and stats.
Let's say I want it to have an attack of 3, a defence of 2, a move of 3, and (as they are armed with bows), I want to give them a defensive bombardment of 3 with a range of zero so that they can shoot at anyone attacking them, and maybe weaken them before combat starts.

Here's what I would put in the editor......



This would give the eastern Muslem nations a unit instead of the Knight.
It's faster than the Knight, and cheaper, and has ZOC and defensive bombardment, but it's attack & defence are not as good.
It is a NEW UNIT, with new abilities, so that it can do things that the Knight cannot. So it's tactical use in the game is going to be different.

Problem is.....what should it look like?
Here is where the 'eye candy' comes in.......



Now let's extend this to make some new Napoleonic Infantry units for example.
French Infantry = attack 4, defence 4, move 1
British Infantry = attack 3, defence 5, move 1
Light Infantry = attack 3, defence 3, move 2

What should they look like?
Well, by just using the same figure, but giving them different formations, here is how they could look on the map.....



.....they look different, so it is easy to tell one from the other.

Remember, the stats come first and are the most important bit, and the new 'skin' is just to be able to tell the new units apart (as well as looking nice, especially if they are historically correct.)

 

[thestonesfan]

Wow, a naysayer!

 

[Spooky]

Kryten,

I can fully understand that .... and actually think that the work you and the other 'skinners' do is of an excellent quality ... and i mean that, They look nice and i recognise that you have put effort into them, effort that others are obviously keen on using ....... ........ It just bugs me when people start proclaiming they have created new units for the game, when what they have done is a graphics tweak.

For example the french and english units in your post .... the main difference is a red jacket and a blue jacket .... hardly qualifies as creating 2 'NEW' units.

Before I posted any of this all people talked about were the 'NEW' units ...... now even you in your last post called them 'skins' ................. so i assume you agree that you do not create new units, rather good looking skins

 

[thestonesfan]

Why split hairs, Spooky? Why is this an issue? I don't recall anyone claiming that these units were anything but what they are; multiple figure units. They won't change anything in a game unless you yourself change the stats, just like any new unit.

A unit of three soldiers with better stats than a unit of two soldiers would make it a different unit. I doubt anyone will make a multi-figure unit and claim that they did the original art when they did not.

 

[Kryten]

To Spooky,

Originally posted by Spooky
Before I posted any of this all people talked about were the 'NEW' units ...... now even you in your last post called them 'skins' ................. so i assume you agree that you do not create new units, rather good looking skins

Wrong I'm afraid.......you call them 'skins', not I.
I call them new units.
Let me try this example.....

Would you say that the bulk standard straight-from-the-box Civ3 Horseman is a different unit from the Civ3 Knight?
Horseman = 2-1-2, costs 20, comes with "Horseback Riding"
Knight = 4-3-2, costs 70, comes with "Chivalry"
....or are they just the same unit with different stats and a different animation?

So now let me add that Eastern Horse Archer that I mentioned in my earlier post:-
Horse Archer = 3-2-3, costs 50, defensive bombardment of 3
.....is this a new unit or not?
No other unit in the game has these stats, so it is new.
No other unit in the game looks like it, so it is new.

I have a question for you: just what do YOU call a 'new unit'?
Are the units in the PTW expansion disk new, or are they just the old units with new stats.....oh, and they look different from the other units, because they have new 'skins' (your word, not mine).

And if I put 4 Civ3 Pikemen and 2 Musketmen into one unit, give it stats of say 2-3-1 and a defensive bombardment, then call it a "Spanish Tercio", is it a 'new unit' or not?
No other unit in the game has these stats, so it is a new unit.
No other unit in the game has this formation, so it is a new unit.

You seem very hard to please!

(Unless I am misunderstanding you.
I do admit that the ANIMATION is not new, and was created by a Firaxis artist.
But the USE of the figures is new.
Is that what you are getting at......that these new multi-figure units are not new because they use the old existing animations, even though they do so in new ways?)

 

[thestonesfan]

I think he thought that people making multi-units were taking credit for the original animation, for some reason.

Either that, or he is unfamiliar with the editor, and figures the goal of this is limited to simply replacing the current roster of units with multiple figures of the same units.

 

[Spooky]

Ok first off i'm not here to start some kind of flame war ... that
just ruins forums ... so if it looks like turning into one i'll just
retire with dignity ! And a sense of being right ;-)

My comments are not only directed at Kryten ... i have nothing personal
against the guy .... they apply to ALL user created skins.

I have already said that Kryten skins are excellent graphics - and i stand by
that statement.


KRYTEN:

{Kryten posted }
"A unit (be it single or multi-figured) consists of two things:-
1) it's 'stats' (i.e. attack/defence/movement/cost/etc)
2) an animation ('eye candy' or 'skin' as you call it)"

{Reply}
I TOTALLY agree with this. Unless I am wrong (and im sure you'll tell me) your
posted files only contain the information in '2'. By your own definition this
CANNOT be classed as a new unit. A more correct term would be a graphical overlay
to be used in the creation of new units ... or just a SKIN.

{Kryten posted }
"I have a question for you: just what do YOU call a 'new unit'?"

{Reply}
Obviously the same as you..........See above !!

{Kryten posted }
"Wrong I'm afraid.......you call them 'skins', not I."

{Reply}
Well, yes i did ... but so did you...........

{Kryten posted }
"stats come first and are the most important bit, and the new 'skin' is just to be able to tell the new units apart "

{Reply}
And you also admitted that the most important part of a new unit, is the bit you dont include !!
Though I'm almost prepared to conceed that you were just quoting me over the skin.

{Kryten posted }
"And if I put 4 Civ3 Pikemen and 2 Musketmen into one unit, give it stats of say 2-3-1 and a defensive bombardment, then call it a "Spanish Tercio", is it a 'new unit' or not?
No other unit in the game has these stats, so it is a new unit.
No other unit in the game has this formation, so it is a new unit."

{Reply}
Again totally agree this is a new unit ..... but it only exists on your PC.
NOT in the files you post on the web and class as new units.

{Kryten posted }
"You seem very hard to please!"

{Reply}
Do you know my wife
Not really ..... I just have a differing opinion to yourself (though maybe not too different if you
take the above into account)..... I assume that is allowed here (joke)


{Kryten posted }
"I do admit that the ANIMATION is not new, and was created by a Firaxis artist.
But the USE of the figures is new.
Is that what you are getting at......"

{Reply}
No but hopefully you now see my point of view on what i think it takes before
something can be called a new unit... even if you dont agree with it.


You see there is very little we actually disagree on ... apart from
NEW .... or ..... SKIN

 

[Grey Fox]

...Unless I am wrong (and im sure you'll tell me) your posted files only contain the information in '2'. By your own definition this CANNOT be classed as a new unit. A more correct term would be a graphical overlay to be used in the creation of new units ... or just a SKIN.

Here I cannot agree with you. A unit Graphics, which I consider most of the unit graphic packs released on this forum as, is most often a NEW UNIT. Which means when I use this unit graphics in my Mod, let's take the Napoleonic Rifleman, it will look not like any other unit in the game, and I might even give it new stats. Make it come with a new technology or a tech that gives no other unit like it, like magnetism or something...

This I consider a NEW UNIT, not a SKIN.

However, the Munit packs could be considered skins when used just to replace the original units as graphics replacer. That could be considered a SKIN.

A Skin is often used in 3D First Person Shooters when a model can be applied several Texture Packages, which each of them makes that model look completely, or somewhat different. THIS is a Skin.