C3X: EXE Mod including Bug Fixes, Stack Bombard, and Much More Release 23

[Alekseyev_]

Have you tried C3X though? Its quality of life improvements are so nice, I'd never want to play without it again, it's like deliberate self-torture. HOF be damned

 

[Spoonwood]

Have you tried C3X though? Its quality of life improvements are so nice, I'd never want to play without it again, it's like deliberate self-torture. HOF be damned

Yes, I have. I think I even mentioned one of my games in this thread somewhere and I recall others that I didn't mention. I thought that I wouldn't go back to playing HoF games after playing with the C3X mod I think over a year and a half ago now. But, I did start playing HoF games again later even despite inconveniences. The HoF and the XOTM competitions have kept saves around for years. They can still inspire people or help them get ideas about how to have better games. They also make it easier to discuss strategies, since they have standardized versions. Or give a social motivation to try a game.

 

[Alekseyev_]

I was adressing superslug.

 

[Spoonwood]

I was adressing superslug.

I took his comment as expressing discomfort with the mod for maintaining integrity of the HoF, not as an attack against the C3X mod which warranted a counterattack.

 

[CousinTommy]

I tried and failed to install it a few times. I don't want to screw up the game again. Is there anyway you can do it remotely for me?

 

[Quintillus]

I have to agree with superslug - keeping the sanctity of the HOF intact seems worth keeping C3C 1.22 as the version to me. Even if it's just "quality of life", and doesn't affect the AI, it can still affect how the human plays the game. Fixing the scientific leader bug can affect strategy. Stack bombard is a great improvement, but it effectively makes it easier (even if primarily via "less tedious") to set high scores on domination/histograph. Don't get me wrong, I'd be very interested to see someone break the 100,000 score mark with the aid of C3X making artillery less cumbersome, but the playing field isn't the same.

I'd say there should at least be a clear indication of a submission being played with C3X, if not a separate list/filter option; we already have indications of the expansion and patch used. Which is a lot to ask of a competition that doesn't get a ton of submissions these days.

But take it with a grain of salt, as I'm both someone who's naturally cautious about change, and someone who is hoping the HOF gets updated soon enough that I become a Quartermaster based on my January submissions, before too many people submit new games (potentially with the help of C3X!) and knock my existing games off the tables. Not entirely unbiased!

Ideally a 'locked down' version looked after the HOF guys themselves like in civ 4. The game is possibly a bit old for that though. Maybe an alternative qol + bug fixes only comfig file could be added to new releases, saving having to comb through it and switch everything off manually

That, to me, would be the worst-case scenario. I have had no end of trouble getting the Civ4 HOF/GOTM mod to run and recognize GOTM saves on new computers/Windows installs. On the plus side, it's meant I've played a few more Civ3 GOTMs after failing to get the Civ4 one to run, but it's another hurdle for new players.

What I could see working is if C3X set the bit in a save file that marks a game as incompatible with the HOF/GOTM, if not configured according to an agreed configuration standard (maybe it already does that?). I already set that bit in my editor when a save-modification function is used, so any attempts by someone to cheat with those tools will be detected. I'm not sure if C3X also sets that bit, but if the discussion does move forward towards a C3X-compatible HOF/GOTM option, that should be considered.

(Obviously I'm not going to post how to set that publicly, but it exists)

 

[Lord_Hill]

To be honest, I agree that its probably not worth the time to integrate at this stage. I was mostly speculating about how one would do it if c3x had existed back in the day.

 

[Spoonwood]

Fixing the scientific leader bug can affect strategy

I thought that The Hall of Fame started out before the Conquests expansion. At least, one version of PtW still can get used, and Civ 1.29f. There exist plenty of histographic tables with empty spots, and some other spots where those versions could get used for an entry. Though I haven't used PtW from what I can tell, allowing Conquests changed strategy if going for a likely optimum map or convenient enough map in enough cases. In PtW one might go to war early for an MGL to rush The Pyramids. In Conquests, one researches for an SGL for The Pyramids. Or while researching hopes sometime an SGL appears, especially if playing for a rather full and competitive 20k table, right?

Or at least allowing Conquests would have changed strategy for 20k fast finishes *if* the HoF got expanded to include multiple victory conditions by finish date before our Conquests version became an acceptable version. Or maybe I misunderstand my history here and the HoF only started with that version of Conquests out.

Also, kind of funny that you pick the scientific leader bug affecting strategy as something bad? It seems hard to think that using an SGL to rush wonders for purposes of research got intended as a given. It seems extremely more likely that how to best use an SGL could end up a decision with meaningful choices. We could have used an SGL to increase the research capacity of Ur for hundreds of years, or we could have improved the entire research capacity of the empire for 20 turns with Cope's or Newton's. But alas, the people at Breakaway Games released a buggy version where didn't have any sort of meaningful choice.

 

[Quintillus]

I thought that The Hall of Fame started out before the Conquests expansion. At least, one version of PtW still can get used, and Civ 1.29f. There exist plenty of histographic tables with empty spots, and some other spots where those versions could get used for an entry. Though I haven't used PtW from what I can tell, allowing Conquests changed strategy if going for a likely optimum map or convenient enough map in enough cases. In PtW one might go to war early for an MGL to rush The Pyramids. In Conquests, one researches for an SGL for The Pyramids. Or while researching hopes sometime an SGL appears, especially if playing for a rather full and competitive 20k table, right?

It does predate Conquests (AFAIK), or at least allow PTW/Vanilla games. And it's true, I've considered that for certain tables, PTW or Vanilla may make for an easier time of receiving a high score. 20K on PTW fueled by lots of military leaders? Huge Histographic Deity on Vanilla, where the map size is larger (or was that changed before 1.29f?)?

So there is some precedent for having multiple rulesets. Maybe something can be agree upon. The possibility of someone playing with a different set of C3X rules still seems like a concern to me though. The HOF can easily check for the current Civ version, or if a game was started with non-standard rules, but how can it ensure the right rulset is enabled?

But that's probably a discussion for the HOF sub-forum.

GOTM... I've long tried to advocate for the GOTM featuring scenarios/modifications occasionally, and a C3X GOTM could fit in their nicely. But so far there's been little interest in such proposals among the GOTM crowd. I'd be happy to see that start to change though.

 

[Volman.me]

Otherwise, how is it going in terms of progress with the things we talked about a few months back? (fighting the 256 building limit, adding the ability to generate resources conditional on government types, unhappy faces, negative culture, and so on)
Do we have anything big to look forward to for R17?

As far as the building limit (256) and city limit (512), there is a strong possibility that won't fixed any time soon.

There is an engine limitation (or bug) that exist when save file exceeds 32MB of size, you can no longer save your game. The save file is corrupted.

Since the code of the game is 32 bit, that explains the 32 MB save file size limit (or about 32768 Kb).

I play long sessions (more than 1000 turns) and I encounter that problem.

The source of that problem is that there are too many units, cities, building and general information to be saved and 32 MB of size is too little.

If the building or city limitation (or both) bugs get fixed, that save bug will occur much sooner.

I hope the magician (Flintlock) will have a solution for that bug.

 

[Kokuryutei]

Greetings,
I read now the last 5-6 pages of discussion on the forum and, to my chagrin, found that an acceptable solution to the limit problem for 512 cities was still not found.
Nevertheless, I've another question for the developers, yet this problem hasn't been solved. Is it possible to make a restriction on the minimum distance between cities on huge maps?
Now the situation is as follows: if you play on maps in the size of more than 250x250 tiles, then AI uses these vast spaces extremely irrational. A computer player can found settlements within the limits of only one tile from each other. Thus, the region of cities processed by the citizens within the so-called "Big Cross" zone intersects with a similar area of the neighboring city. Such a density of settlements leads to the stagnation of the economy of competitors, since in such settlements there isn't enough food and shields for their development. At the same time, the human player receives a dishonest advantage over AI when correctly calculates the minimum distance between settlements. At the same time, as the limit of 512 cities is exhausted, many empty and uninhabited spaces remain on the map.
Therefore, I ask: is it possible for such maps to make a setting in the "C3C Editor" to the minimum distance between cities? For example, 4 tiles in a straight line and 2 diagonally.

 

[Civinator]

Greetings,
I read now the last 5-6 pages of discussion on the forum and, to my chagrin, found that an acceptable solution to the limit problem for 512 cities was still not found.
Nevertheless, I've another question for the developers, yet this problem hasn't been solved. Is it possible to make a restriction on the minimum distance between cities on huge maps?
Now the situation is as follows: if you play on maps in the size of more than 250x250 tiles, then AI uses these vast spaces extremely irrational. A computer player can found settlements within the limits of only one tile from each other. Thus, the region of cities processed by the citizens within the so-called "Big Cross" zone intersects with a similar area of the neighboring city. Such a density of settlements leads to the stagnation of the economy of competitors, since in such settlements there isn't enough food and shields for their development. At the same time, the human player receives a dishonest advantage over AI when correctly calculates the minimum distance between settlements. At the same time, as the limit of 512 cities is exhausted, many empty and uninhabited spaces remain on the map.
Therefore, I ask: is it possible for such maps to make a setting in the "C3C Editor" to the minimum distance between cities? For example, 4 tiles in a straight line and 2 diagonally.

The Flintlock Mod holds an option to set the minimum distance between two cities:

 

[Spoonwood]

Therefore, I ask: is it possible for such maps to make a setting in the "C3C Editor" to the minimum distance between cities? For example, 4 tiles in a straight line and 2 diagonally.

This sort of requirement, and I think your example in particular also, is likely to necessarily result in tiles within one's cultural borders and in core uncorrupted areas which can never get used. If you ask me, that leads to another problem, because why do you want some of the best tiles in your empire necessarily to end up useless? Anything good to use should be usable at least at some point in time, should it not?

Thus, the region of cities processed by the citizens within the so-called "Big Cross" zone intersects with a similar area of the neighboring city.

For the human player, this results in circumstances where managing the best use of tiles becomes more complex than wider spacing. Two cities sharing tiles makes for a more difficult optimization puzzle than two cities which could not share tiles. Consequently, the game has more complexity to it, and could get studied or improved on more. Even if one never develops an interest in such complexities, having such puzzles as possibilities, I think, better than not having them. It implies longterm there's still more that could get learned, improved on, thought about, or maybe even used for a story. Or for another way of playing the game.

Also, tile overlapping cities for AIs may have the advantage of them getting luxuries or resources earlier. Consequently, couldn't they end up more of a challenge to conquer or better researchers, than if they necessarily got forced to wider spacing and have to build culture more often to have iron in their cultural borders first? Even Gandhi can use iron to defend his cities earlier sometimes.

 

[Flintlock]

Is there any possibility that we could get a version which just has the bug fixes and quality of life improvements?

I've been thinking about this for quite a while but I can't think of any convenient way to do it. Ideally you could have multiple C3X config files in the mod folder then pick one when starting a new game and have that config apply during the whole game including when it's saved and reloaded. So that requires adding a bit of data to save files which is not something I've attempted yet.

I tried and failed to install it a few times. I don't want to screw up the game again. Is there anyway you can do it remotely for me?

Is your Civ 3 installation somewhere in the Program Files directory? If so you'll need to run INSTALL.bat as administrator since admin-level permission is needed to edit the contents of Program Files. That's the only catch I know of regarding mod installation. If that's not the issue, please explain more about how it's failing to install. I'd like to understand the issue so I can fix it permanently. If nothing else works, I could send you an already patched executable but that's only a temporary solution.

As far as the building limit (256) and city limit (512), there is a strong possibility that won't fixed any time soon.
There is an engine limitation (or bug) that exist when save file exceeds 32MB of size, you can no longer save your game. The save file is corrupted.

Interesting, I had never heard of the 32 MB save limit. Can you share what the exact error message is that the game gives you when you exceed that limit? That should help me find the relevant part of the code. This feels to me like an arbitrary limit (like the unit limit) and not something deeply baked into the engine (like the 31 civ + barbs limit). The building and city limits are the middle where they're baked into the code but not so deeply that I can't imagine un-baking them. That's still something I'd like to attempt at some point. One of the reasons I haven't attempted it yet is I'm concerned I'll end up with a limit removal feature that appears to work but causes lots of rare/subtle bugs I'll be chasing down for years afterward.

The Flintlock Mod holds an option to set the minimum distance between two cities:

[/URL]

Oops, I forgot to update the readme when I reworked some of the config options to make them more straight forward. The min city distance setting now takes a simple separation in tiles instead of an adjustment to the base game value. I'll have to remember to update that.

 

[Kokuryutei]

The Flintlock Mod holds an option to set the minimum distance between two cities:

View attachment 685884
View attachment 685885

Thank you for your reply, I saw a item you quoted in the section "C3X Release 16". In truth, it was this item that raised the question of whether it was possible to make this settings flexible, having tied a minimum distance to the size of the world map. As far as I understand, the mentioned setting in the quoted passage refers not to the C3C Editor, but of the INI configuration file. Thanks again, I'll try to download the update and at the same time deal with the settings.

This sort of requirement, and I think your example in particular also, is likely to necessarily result in tiles within one's cultural borders and in core uncorrupted areas which can never get used. If you ask me, that leads to another problem, because why do you want some of the best tiles in your empire necessarily to end up useless? Anything good to use should be usable at least at some point in time, should it not?

Well, try to imagine the situation: here you have a valid restriction on 512 cities on the map 362x362 tiles. When this limit is exhausted, giant uninhabited spaces with many unused bonus resources will remain on the map. Luxury and strategic resources can still be obtained by creating colonies, but the mass of other lands and the bonuses associated with them will still be useless. If you prohibit AI too tightly and closely build cities, then, of course, it won't be able to cultivate some tiles inside the cultural borders. At least, citizens won't be able to use them. However, this drawback with more than is blocked by the benefits of mastering the empty territories, which said above.
In addition, I noticed that computer players, as they approach the limit for cities, begin to hastily build settlements in a hurry. For example, they can establish the city at the distance of one tile from their capital and thereby bring down the production of food and shields in it. Since AI often chooses unsuitable places for its cities in tight development, this subsequently damages its income to the treasury due to high maintenance. That is, the opponent drives himself into an economic hole at an early stage of the game.

For the human player, this results in circumstances where managing the best use of tiles becomes more complex than wider spacing. Two cities sharing tiles makes for a more difficult optimization puzzle than two cities which could not share tiles. Consequently, the game has more complexity to it, and could get studied or improved on more. Even if one never develops an interest in such complexities, having such puzzles as possibilities, I think, better than not having them. It implies longterm there's still more that could get learned, improved on, thought about, or maybe even used for a story. Or for another way of playing the game.

Yes, it looks quite difficult. However, this is not necessary to do a tough condition. It is enough to add this to the game, as another setting, included at the request of the player before the new game.

Also, tile overlapping cities for AIs may have the advantage of them getting luxuries or resources earlier. Consequently, couldn't they end up more of a challenge to conquer or better researchers, than if they necessarily got forced to wider spacing and have to build culture more often to have iron in their cultural borders first? Even Gandhi can use iron to defend his cities earlier sometimes.

I agree with this argument. It really can be useful on small maps, where very tough competition for resources. But I offered something else. It is necessary to add the opportunity to prohibit AI dense development of cities on huge maps. In such vast spaces, as a rule, all civilizations should have enough basic resources for development. In addition, AI is not as stupid as it might seem. He really knows how to build entire routes through the entire mainland to resource colonies, and also strengthens them with forts and adequate garrisons.

 

[WildWeazel]

Ideally you could have multiple C3X config files in the mod folder then pick one when starting a new game and have that config apply during the whole game including when it's saved and reloaded. So that requires adding a bit of data to save files which is not something I've attempted yet.

As I'm low-key gearing up to design a whole mod around C3X I've been meaning to ask about something like this. I kind of imagined I'd include a batch/shell script to back up and apply my own config file but that still requires extra steps each time you switch games. Could you just key off of some optional syntax in the scenario description? Does that get preserved in saves? Or even leverage the scenario search path, and look for a specific file name at each respective path.

 

[Volman.me]

Thank you for your reply, I saw a item you quoted in the section "C3X Release 16". In truth, it was this item that raised the question of whether it was possible to make this settings flexible, having tied a minimum distance to the size of the world map. As far as I understand, the mentioned setting in the quoted passage refers not to the C3C Editor, but of the INI configuration file. Thanks again, I'll try to download the update and at the same time deal with the settings.


Well, try to imagine the situation: here you have a valid restriction on 512 cities on the map 362x362 tiles. When this limit is exhausted, giant uninhabited spaces with many unused bonus resources will remain on the map. Luxury and strategic resources can still be obtained by creating colonies, but the mass of other lands and the bonuses associated with them will still be useless. If you prohibit AI too tightly and closely build cities, then, of course, it won't be able to cultivate some tiles inside the cultural borders. At least, citizens won't be able to use them. However, this drawback with more than is blocked by the benefits of mastering the empty territories, which said above.
In addition, I noticed that computer players, as they approach the limit for cities, begin to hastily build settlements in a hurry. For example, they can establish the city at the distance of one tile from their capital and thereby bring down the production of food and shields in it. Since AI often chooses unsuitable places for its cities in tight development, this subsequently damages its income to the treasury due to high maintenance. That is, the opponent drives himself into an economic hole at an early stage of the game.


Yes, it looks quite difficult. However, this is not necessary to do a tough condition. It is enough to add this to the game, as another setting, included at the request of the player before the new game.


I agree with this argument. It really can be useful on small maps, where very tough competition for resources. But I offered something else. It is necessary to add the opportunity to prohibit AI dense development of cities on huge maps. In such vast spaces, as a rule, all civilizations should have enough basic resources for development. In addition, AI is not as stupid as it might seem. He really knows how to build entire routes through the entire mainland to resource colonies, and also strengthens them with forts and adequate garrisons.

When I was developing my map last year, I tested out this option. If I remember well, I set the minimum distance between cities to 3 tiles.

The result was nations (2-4 nations) that share too small land, for example the Iberian Peninsula contains Spain, Portuguese and another nation (I dont remember which), created cities outside Europe.

I saw Spanish cities at the todays territory of Ukraine, Russia, Armenia, etc.

Same happened to Arabic Peninsula (Babylonians, Sumerians, Hittites, Persians, Arabs, etc).

At the end, the first civilizations that got demolished where these.

At a first glance, your idea make civilizations with little available space less powerful and candidates for early elimination.

But I do not know the outcome when there is only one civilization in charge on populated areas.

My next experiment will make Spain the only country in Iberian Peninsula and Persia the only country in Arabic Peninsula.

I hope this weekend to have a result to this experiment and also encounter the save limit bug to inform the magician (and probably provide the save files with detailed explanation).

 

[Flintlock]

As I'm low-key gearing up to design a whole mod around C3X I've been meaning to ask about something like this. I kind of imagined I'd include a batch/shell script to back up and apply my own config file but that still requires extra steps each time you switch games. Could you just key off of some optional syntax in the scenario description? Does that get preserved in saves? Or even leverage the scenario search path, and look for a specific file name at each respective path.

That's great to hear, I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your mod. It's already possible for scenarios to have their own additional config files. The way it works is the mod looks for a special file called "scenario.c3x_config.ini" in the scenario's folder and loads it after the default config. That scenario config gets layered on top of the default config so it only needs to include the settings that are relevant for that scenario.

 

[WildWeazel]

It's already possible for scenarios to have their own additional config files. The way it works is the mod looks for a special file called "scenario.c3x_config.ini" in the scenario's folder and loads it after the default config.

Perfect!

 

[Predator145]

On the topic of AI city spacing, the AI would perform better if it could be nudged to place its cities more tightly to make better use of real estate.