Beginning the PTW transition process for GOTM

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by cracker
Here are a few additional changes that have been implemented into the GOTM to upgrade Civ3v1.29 to play like the functional parts of PTW Single Player:

The improvement of "Civil Defense" has been implemented exactly as featured in PTW; costs 120 shields to build, has a maintenance cost of 1 gold per turn, and requires a barracks prerequisite in that city. This improvement adds a 50% defensive bonus in that city. Civil Defense is available with the discovery of Radio.

Just a quick question. How do you know if civil defence has been built in a city? This does after all change the odds of attacking a city quite a but. Does the city get the city wallgraphic? Do cities with civil defence get an own graphic in PTW?

 

[cracker]

Originally posted by Hurricane
How do you know if civil defence has been built in a city? This does after all change the odds of attacking a city quite a but. Does the city get the city wallgraphic? Do cities with civil defence get an own graphic in PTW?

No, there are no changes in graphics to cities that have the civili defense improvement.

The only way to know for sure if the improvement exists, is to use the investigate city options.

For the record, this improvement occurs late in the game (after Radio) and will probably have little effect on any of the high scoring games in the GOTM. My assessment of the feature is that it is another example of something that was added into the game primarily for Multiplayer purposes and that how it impacts single player games may not yet be weel tested and understood. I have not yet tested whether the AI can sense its presence and use that knowledge to determine which cities to attack or not attack.

I think in the first several months of GOTM play we will be able to determine if this is a "Red Herring" or just something else to do in the game that may not improve the single player game.

 

[planetfall]

Civil Defense-- may be of value to the three lower difficulty levels but is totally unnecessary at the higher levels. As Cracker noted re limited value of Radar Towers, CD is about 1/4 the value of Radar. It is too late in the game at the higher difficulty levels to have any real effect on game play. At most CD might save one city.

Looking forward to next GOTM and QSC.

== PF

 

[ColdFever]

Originally posted by cracker
Here are a few additional changes that have been implemented into the GOTM to upgrade Civ3v1.29 to play like the functional parts of PTW Single Player...

If you want Civ3 1.29 to behave even more like PTW 1.14, then you may have a look here:

History of official BIC/BIX rule changes:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37722

For example you will see here that stealth planes received a greater "operational range" with PTW. You may implement these changes in Civ3 as well to make it a little bit more like PTW.

 

[cracker]

Thanks for the link to that table Cold Fever.

I am aware of the table, but most of the changes (95%) have no effect on the single player mode of the game in PTW or in Civ3v1.29.

The change to the operationl range of the stealth bomber from 8 to 12 cannot be implemented in Civ3v1.29 due to hard coded limits but the technical assessment is that this change has no effect on competitive game play on any difficulty level. Stealth bombers arrive too late in the game to have a strategic effect on games played by experienced players wven though they do represent domething cool to do that everyone should experience at least once in their life.

The range of the stealth fighte is increased from 6 to 8 and that will probably be implemented.

It is worth noting that out of all the proposed changes to functional unit abilities that could effect the the single player game, these were the only two choices that were implemented in any way.

 

[hahntsak]

where is the user supplied leaderheads?
i found the hidden unit, jaimo.

 

[hbdragon88]

Originally posted by cracker

PTW implements an improvement called Commercial Docks that cannot be exactly duplicated, but all civilizations in your game have been provided with the ability to build "Ports-of-Entry" as equivalent game features. Ports of Entry function differently from Commercial Docks but can produce an equivalent impact on game play. Ports of Entry are small wonders that increase the uncorrupted tax output in selected coastal cities by 50%. Each civilization only has access to build 4 of these Ports of Entry and they require a progressively increasing number of harbors in your empire. You will need 2, 5, 8, and 12 harbors respectively to enable the Ports of Entry. Technically you could build all 4 of these features in the same coastal city, but this exploit is not allowed for the human player and can be detected in the game replay.

I don't quite understand this - from what I get, this small wonder is one that can be built in coastal cities. Every city that has a harbor can reap the benefits of the Ports of Entry. I do not understand the part "you will need 2, 5, 8, and 12 harbors to enable the Ports of Entry", is this meaning the size of the map?

 

[cracker]

When you have at least 2 harbors anywhere in your empire will be able to build the first "Port of Entry" in one of your coastal cities.

When you have 3 additional harbors anywhere in your empire, you will be able to build the "Port of Entry2" in one of your coastal cities. The total number of harbors required to build both the "Port of Entry" and the "Port of Entry2" is at least 5.

When you have 3 additional harbors anywhere in your empire, you will be able to build the "Port of Entry3" in one of your coastal cities. The total number of harbors required to build all three of these bonus improvements; the "Port of Entry", "Port of Entry2", and the "Port of Entry3" is at least 8.

I think you get the picture.

Remember that you as the human player are prohibitted from building more than one Port of Entry in any given coastal city.

Each "Port of Entry" is technically more powerful than just one "Commercial Docks" depending on the terrain specifics. This is why they are implemented a bit differently but designed to add an equivalent net effect into the game.

For these first couple of games, the Ports of Entry may look like offshore platforms or the great lighthouse. If the players who continue to play the Civ3v1.29 game or the Civ3MAC game decide to keep the Ports of Entry after we complete the trial transition period we can update the graphics to provide a unique and more permanent look.

 

[EMan]

............I'm still trying to figure out whether to play with Civ 3, PTW OR take a Vacation(again)!

Cracker, Moonsinger, SirPleb if you're still around....AND ALL other CivFanatics, of course:

A couple of people have mentioned this and I have some limited playing experience...........BARBARIANS.........Don't they play STRONGER in PTW?........Haven't they lost some of their Kamikaze tendencies in PTW?

Cracker, you have taken on a HERCULEAN task to equalize Civ3 1.29 & PTW 1.14 so that presumably players, who call themselves CivFanatics(?), won't have to shell out $20 for PTW......you have studied sooooooooo many aspects of the 2 games..........have you looked at the differences in the Barbarian actions, and if so, is there anything to the theory that PTW Barbarians are more interested in self-preservation in PTW versus Civ 3?

Of course I realize that this could be teated as a rhetorical question to our esteemed Moderator.........BUT it does pose a question that could be significant in choosing which version to play!?

Eman,
I want to make absolutely certain that this thread makes no moves whatsoever to be a discussion of the merits of PTW versus Civ3v1.29f or Civ3v1.21g. That is not a topic for discussion here. You questions are valid but they belong in the discussion thread that is open for that purpose. I'll return later this evening to this post and split and move the discussion issues appropriately. - cracker

 

[Jurimax]

@EMan:
I don't have PTW myself, but I have read in here that the barbarians in PTW will look more to do economic damage than 'kamikaze'-actions. They will rather pillage your terrain improvements than commit suicide on your fortified units on mountains or in cities.

But as I mentioned I don't know this from playing PTW, I don't have it yet

Greetings Jurimax

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes the barbarians in PTW act differently. When they appear they don't all attack your explorer right away. Usually 2 do and the third goes off into the dark. They will seek out improvements and pillage them.

 

[cracker]

Now that we have this barbarian issue in the discussion arena, I would agree that there may be barbarian behavior differences between Civ3v1.29 and PTW.

Unfortunately no one has done any real testing of the behavior differences in a control way. If you read the article I wrote reviewing the Single Play mode of PTW you will see some of the test results where we set up some very defined circumstances in PTW to see how the barbs would behave.

I would quantify the difference in the barbs as the difference in chosing to head shoot some enemies in Max Payne versus the choice to the shoot other enemies in the chest. If the enemies have on flak jackets but no helmets then head shots may be more effective. If the enemies have helmets but no flak jackets then body shots will be more effective. Using the wrong tactics or just randomly choosing approach will be less effective than any one of the informed decision modes.

I find that the PTW barbs require active intervention or they will just disrupt your game on a grand scale. In many cases they are easier to deal with because they now lack some of the drive to overwhelm you. In a number of the test cases, our units survived in PTW when they would have certainly died in Civ3v1.29 because the barbs would randomly break off the attacks or disperse their units and leave themselves open to easy counterattack.

Players who have a hard time dealing with barbs in Civ3v1.29 will probably have even a harder time with them in PTW.

The barb generation frequency does not appear to be increased and relationships between barbs, open space and the era changes is unchanged.

Barbs continue to be a potential ally in the fact that your AI rivals are fixated on the barbarians as a greater threat than the human player. This is not new to PTW, but because the PTW barbarians run around a lot more, they tend to serve as rabbit lures and distractions for the AI rivals more than they will distract the good human players.

For players who may have not played very many standard games on the v1.29 patch, some of the barbarian behavior in PTW is implemented in the dispersion behviors of the barbarians in v1.29.

I cover this some in the PTW review article with a few specific test examples. There definately seems to be an RNG element that is introduced into the barbarian behavior model for PTW. In v1.29 the barbs would attack you at least 9 times out of 10 even if you were fortfied on a hill. In PTW, the barbs in the circumstances will run around and look for softer targets and a few of them might randomly attack you.

If you are in command of the game and control of your world, playing with the PTW barbs will probably be a bit more fun but will generate fewer oif the guaranteed elite promotion sequences.

 

[dsr]

Originally posted by cracker
For the purposes of single player games in the GOTM games, these upgrade paths have been converted to a "game preference" just like culturally linked starting positions, preserve random seed, and allow respawning of AI players.

This new prefference setting is title "Upgrade Ancient Age Offensive Units". This preference setting effects whether the Mace and Rambo units will appear in the games.

To help ease the transition to PTW and further explore how the presence of the "feature"/"Preference" may impact game play, the prefrence for "Upgrade Ancient Age Offensive Units" will be set to OFF during Gotm17-Carthage and during Gotm18-Celts.

If you would like to help with further testing and data analyisis of the impact this preference to potetnially allow "Upgrade Ancient Age Offensive Units" please contact me by email at gotm@civfanatics.net

I am new to GOTM, and trying to take everything in here. I'm amazed by all the work that's been done. (Thanks!).

Please let me know if I've got this right: Through extensive analysis of the new PTW features, their is a recommendation of rule changes for Civ3, at least where the GOTM is concerned. This involves removing the rambo, mace, and outpost, and changing the airfield and radar tower. (Yes, I'm over generalizing, but I just want to make sure I'm getting the general idea).

My confusion is over this "Upgrade Ancient Age Offensive Units" preference. This isn't an out-of-the-box option, is it? (I looked and didn't see it). So it's a rule mod in the GOTM 17 & 18, right?

Is there a mod file out there for this and the other PTW changes for the GOTM? This would be useful to have for regular (non-GOTM) games as well.

Thanks,
dsr

 

[Hurricane]

Can you now tell us why mobilisation was turned off?

 

[Phillip_martin]

Originally posted by dsr


IMy confusion is over this "Upgrade Ancient Age Offensive Units" preference. This isn't an out-of-the-box option, is it? (I looked and didn't see it). So it's a rule mod in the GOTM 17 & 18, right?

Is there a mod file out there for this and the other PTW changes for the GOTM? This would be useful to have for regular (non-GOTM) games as well.

Thanks,
dsr

The Upgrade Ancient Units is a preferences option that you can choose when starting a PTW game from scratch. Cracker has provided the GOTM17 save with this option disabled. If you wish to explore the use of this feature in a game seperate to the GOTM feel free.

 

[hbdragon88]

Yes, I'm wondering also why mobilization was turned off - it was mentioned to stop a killer game exploit. How would this be so?

 

[LKendter]

I found a posting about war mobilization that showed the problem!

He showed on the SAME turn that he was able to reduce the number of turns remaining without spending money or disbanding units.

I **100%** agree that it is the ultimate exploit, and it should be shut off.

 

[anarres]

Hmm. Since this is in patch 1.21f we seem to be screwed. Who knows if/when Firaxis will patch again.

And Civ3 vanilla games will forever have it...

 

[hbdragon88]

Number of turns remaining on what? Building a improvement/unit?

 

[Creepster]

hbdragon88

Essentially you could adjust the production to produce anything in that turn with any and all cities. Even a city that was so corrupt to produce only one shield could be changed to produce a Nuke every turn or a wonder or what ever you wanted.