C3C v1.22 Patch Update (requires v1.20)

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
CB: Collateral damage works. It's simply not found in the Epic game - like the plague it was added for the benefit of conquests/scenarios.

Ok, thanks.. didn't know that.

So, please disregard those sections in my statement.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Because of the save game issue with 1.15 saves, and because not everyone has enough room on there Harddrives for a clone install of C3C, I've created two zip files that contain just the modified files from 1.15 and 1.22(includes 1.20).

Here's the two files, just unzip them into the Infogrames Interactive/Cicilization III... folder, make sure to keep the "paths" when you unzip them. Start out with just 1.15 installed and unzip the 1.22 or 1.15 files as you need to change versions.

http://216.208.153.104/Conquests1.15.zip

http://216.208.153.104/Conquests1.22.zip

Any questions feel free to ask

CS

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
I'm sorry that I can't agree with you.
The pure fact that there are companies on the market who don't care about the customer at all - aka are not able to release working patches - should result in the customers not buying any more games from them in the future.
It should *not* be an excuse for other companies to do minor things first *AND* fail even with these minor things.

Wow. So companies that releases patches "don't care about the customer at all" if those patches have problems?

Civ3 is out for about 3 years, if I remember correctly. It has a history of patches. PTW is out for 2 years and had some of the current C3C bugs already solved. C3C now is out for 6 months.
I'd guess that 6 months should be enough time to find the appropriate coding section as of PTW and to put it in C3C, as far as the sub bug is concerned.

And since when are you an expert programmer? What makes you able to state as fact what is and isn't possible and in what timeframe?

The fact that the SGL is made optional seems to be a hint that they couldn't identify the coding section which causes the SGA not to work properly.

That simply isn't true! The SGL bug was reported to Tavis late, and not in time for this patch. It may be in the bugs forum, but that itself contains many things which are not bugs at all, and lots of gameplay issues which are also not bugs. To read it all would take a few days. Someone compiled a 'master' list of bugs there for Tavis a while ago, but IIRC this was before the SGL bug was reported (not 100% sure about that, but I think so).

There seem to be other features of the game which do not work properly either. What's about the colleteral damage? A feature, which is mentioned in the editor, but seems not to be used anywhere in the game. At least, I never noticed it somewhere.

At least you have realised your mistake here...

Civ3 didn't support mp games. PTW didn't support them properly. C3C seem not to do so either.

Civ3 didn't have mp support - but then what is your point? PTW has it, and after the patches it works quite well. Would a company that "doesn't care at all about it's customers" patch a game several times to get mp working? C3C mp works pretty well! There are some issues, but these are being addressed now.

The history of Firaxis to solve those issues has gotten very poor in the last months.

For someone who has only been on "the scene" for a few months what are you basing this statement on? FWIW I think Firaxis have issues, but at least they are trying to solve these issues.

Our - the customers - willingness not only to tolerate this poor history, but to cheer and welcome any new patch, may it solve problems or create new ones, just doesn't make them eager to put more effort in their attempts.

Well, do you think whiners like you actually help motivate them to bring out patches?

And we should be very well aware that they are planning to release a Civ4 in the future.
What they learn right now is that the community of players seems to accept almost everything, whatever it is.
*We* - the customers - train them to go for the quick release, not for quality.
This is, what we should be aware of. Period.

I suggest you put Civ3 back in it's box and go be angry at something else! Seriously - you need to chill out, and spend your energy elsewhere. Firaxis are not perfect in any way, and I criticise them when it will achieve something. Your attitude is to criticise everything, and I wonder if you are like this in RL. I hope not.

 

[Aeon221]

Blah, I did not have unhappy feelings about this patch until I came here. Now I suddenly am having issues. Well, its times like these when I think of the title of a recent Eamon song. Yeah, that one.

(If you do not understand this, think of the only word in the English language that can function as any part of speech, and then put 'it' after it)

;p

And how bout we cut down on the dissage. We are all losers by default, having shown this much dedication to a videogame haha ;p

 

[Aeon221]

And since Im not coming back to this thread, feel free to slam away!

 

[Aggie]

@anarres: The SGL bug was already reported in Januari. But it probably drowned in the wave of non-bugs that clutter the bug forum: SGL bug report nr 1

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by anarres
Wow. So companies that releases patches "don't care about the customer at all" if those patches have problems?


Dear Sir,

as you have quoted some paragraphs of an article / statement / posting of mine, I feel to have the right to respond to your posting.

First of all, as you will know from our PMs as of January (IIRC), I am not a native English speaker. So, it may be my fault that you didn't get my message.
Please allow me to try to make it more understandable.

The second sentence of your quotation of mine refers to Longasc's posting #38 in this thread, in which he complained about the patching situation for a game called SACRED. For more details, please have a look to this posting.
The third sentence of that quotation indeed refers to the company releasing the patches for C3C.

And since when are you an expert programmer? What makes you able to state as fact what is and isn't possible and in what timeframe?
I never mentioned to be an expert programmer.
As you are asking about it, I have to tell you, that I am an senior consultant for an international software company, though.
In this position I am team leader for our implementation teams and being in constant and close contact with our developers.
Part of my job is to implement software, to do the education and training of my customers - who are international companies as well - to do the planning and to supervising of unit tests and integration tests and to do the quality control for the implementation. This in fact enables me to assess things like quality control or statements about things "which have been implemented after the tests".

You will understand that now *I* am eager to learn about *your* professional skills in the software business which enable you to appraise my skills.

That simply isn't true! The SGL bug was reported to Tavis late, and not in time for this patch. It may be in the bugs forum, but that itself contains many things which are not bugs at all, and lots of gameplay issues which are also not bugs. To read it all would take a few days. Someone compiled a 'master' list of bugs there for Tavis a while ago, but IIRC this was before the SGL bug was reported (not 100% sure about that, but I think so).
First, you seem to have better contacts to Tavis than I have. Which is not very difficult, since I have no contacts to him at all - except for this board.
Nevertheless, as you have quoted myself, you should have noticed that I articulated an assumption of mine. You did articulate an assumption of your own. Shall I start to say "That simply is not true!", either?

At least you have realised your mistake here...
Yes, I did. As I am addicted to quality, I have no problems in realising that I may overlook things, too. Nevertheless, I am a little bit curious why you felt the need to mention it, anyway? I mean, you did realise that I learned about my mistake, didn't you?
Would you be so kind as to explain this?

Civ3 didn't have mp support - but then what is your point? PTW has it, and after the patches it works quite well. Would a company that "doesn't care at all about it's customers" patch a game several times to get mp working? C3C mp works pretty well! There are some issues, but these are being addressed now.
As you state, mp games work pretty well. What about the issues left, then?
What I did was to indicate that it took quite some while until key features of the game and its expansion at least worked.
As there are quite some complaints about the way they do work, they seem not to have been implemented very good in the initial releases of the expansions.
Shouldn't this be a matter of concern, three years after the original game - which was announced to support mp-games, btw - and two years after the first expansion, which was announced to support them as well, have been released?

For someone who has only been on "the scene" for a few months what are you basing this statement on? FWIW I think Firaxis have issues, but at least they are trying to solve these issues.
If I interpret your statement correctly, there seems to be a time-based threshold for people to be allowed to state their personal opinion about the developing company? Is this, what you meant?
Please be informed that I make use of my personal right to disagree with you on this matter. Additionally, may I put your attention upon the fact that people may have played the game, put in the patches and have read forums like this prior to their signing on?

When a company releases the second expansion of a game which is severly bugged and then releases some patches which fail to work correctly - not to mention the fact that in that second expansion bugs re-appear which have been solved with the patches(!) for the first expansion already - then they do screw up their reputation for being capable of solving issues.
If you do not agree to this point, this will be your personal decision. Please let it be my decision which opinion I share.

Well, do you think whiners like you actually help motivate them to bring out patches?
Personally, I prefer whining about bad quality more than whining about the ones who nail the poor quality. Or, to put it in other words: "Don't shoot the messenger, when the message is bad."

I suggest you put Civ3 back in it's box and go be angry at something else! Seriously - you need to chill out, and spend your energy elsewhere. Firaxis are not perfect in any way, and I criticise them when it will achieve something. Your attitude is to criticise everything, and I wonder if you are like this in RL. I hope not
I will not state my personal opinion about who should chill out here.
In the quoted statement of mine I expressed that cheering and congratulating the company for patching the patch in my eyes is counter-productive.
When they are doing a good job, everybody is invitated to express that they did a good job. When they messed up a patch(!), I would expect them to react immediately and to solve this issue.
When my local car dealer sells me a car with busted breaks and messes up with the first attempt to repair them, then I feel that he should do the best he can do to solve this issue - ASAP. For sure, I will not cheer him for doing this.

At the bottom line: I learned that you love that game. That's fine, and if you are feeling comfortable with the game and the way the company handles all those issues, fine for you as well.
I even understand that you don't agree with people, who have a different attitude.
Nevertheless, as you have the personal right to have your opinion, I guess that other people have the same right to have their opinion.

May the reader of your and of mine statements decide whose attitude he does agree with more.

 

[alexman]

Commander Bello, I have been tempted to write something along the lines of what anarres wrote several times. Your constant whining and repetitive posts offer nothing to these boards.

Of course, you're not alone, I can name several equally annoying (to me) posters. This is supposed to be a Civ Fanatics forum, dammit! Go play another game if you don't like this one!

 

[Commander Bello]

Alexman,

you have quite a reputation as one of the most reasonable and earnest posters here.
I've read at least some of your postings and found them very helpful. For that, I pay you my respect.

The fact that you too regard my posting annoying is disappointing, of course. Nevertheless, could it just be that my "whining" is some kind of "fanatism" as well?

I am just disappointed that a game based on very good basic concepts seems to be implemented in a poor way. This disappointment is what I am expressing.
As far as I remember, there is an option in the profiles (or somewhere else) allowing to skip posting of annoying members. Maybe you may like to make use of it? At least, I don't seem to be all alone with my disappointment, as you indicated.

Thanks for your audience.

 

[alexman]

Well, after reading my post again, I have to apologise for its tone.

I certainly didn't mean to criticise all of your posts. And to say that you don't offer anything to the forum is of course not true. I'm just frustrated with the general attitude on these boards lately. Sorry.

 

[HiroHito]

Originally posted by JazzToucan
I appreciate the speed in correction, but maybe they should just give up and work on Civ 4.

leaves me speechless really.

 

[akots]

Bello, hang on, don't give up! I feel bored when you don't post for a long time! Everyone has a freedom of speech on topic!

For an alternative, come and play SG. This would divert your negative energy towards AI destruction from Firaxis elimination! And it is a great fun. There are few huge maps but there are rather many large map SG. I'll play one with you.

Edited: We'll have no submarines (will win before that)!

 

[Gojira54]

While I am very happy Firaxis has fixed the new bugs intoduced by 1.20, I would still like to know (from Firaxis) why radio has been removed. Still sticking with 1.15b.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Idea for those who like Radio:

Install the patch but keep 1.15 conquest.biq and conquest.mb files (same for civilopedia.txt from text folder).

That way you get 1.22 fixes with Radio.

 

[planetfall]

Collateral damage works in epic game. I think. Craters are now created from bombing runs. Isn't this collateral damage?

PF

 

[planetfall]

what's the radio tech bug that is fixed?

 

[planetfall]

Forget collateral damage post, epic game does NOT have collateral damage. My bad.

 

[Louis XXIV]

They should have a biq called "With Radio" and than update the "With Plague", "Quick Game", etc biqs to take out Radio.

 

[BretP]

is it true that the new 1.22 patch does not support saved games from the 1.20 patch. I trashed a game to upgrade to 1.20, started a new, and now I have to trash that to upgrade again? That seems a little crazy. I want the lastest version for the MP fixes, but still enjoy solo games. Can someone let me know about the new patch?

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by akots
Bello, hang on, don't give up! I feel bored when you don't post for a long time! Everyone has a freedom of speech on topic!

For an alternative, come and play SG. This would divert your negative energy towards AI destruction from Firaxis elimination! And it is a great fun. There are few huge maps but there are rather many large map SG. I'll play one with you.

Edited: We'll have no submarines (will win before that)!

Thanks for the kind invitation. SG does mean succession game, I assume?
Anyway, please feel free to contact me about this by PM.