C3X: EXE Mod including Bug Fixes, Stack Bombard, and Much More Release 24

[Civinator]

I'm glad to have this mystery solved. After sleeping on it, I've decided to change the default setting of allow_stealth_attack_against_single_unit to false for R15. It's no coincidence that the one change C3X made to the game rules turned out to be the one thing that caused a compatibility problem with another mod. It's better to keep a strict policy of not modifying the game rules out of the box. Anyone who's accustomed to stealth attacks working against single units should keep this in mind for the next release, I'll tag @Civinator in particular since I remember he requested it in the first place.

Flintlock, I have no problem if in R15 the stealth attack against single units is set to false, but I don´t think, that this will solve the problem. In my eyes it is a great progress, if an anti-tank infantry can pick out a single tank in a stack for an attack and is not limited to the unlogical setting, that there must be at least two tanks in the stack so the bazooka can be used. Therefore per example in the CCM config file of R15 I will reverse that setting from false to true if this still should be possible.

The whole flexibility of your mod will be lost with such a "strict policy of not modifying the game rules" and all your great work with the configurable settings in the config file would become useless if this flexibility cannot be used any longer.

In my eyes the solution for such scenarios with extreme settings must be different. These "extreme" scenarios (like EFZI) need their own scenario.c3x_config file. Here the setting for the stealth_attack_against_single_unit should be set to false and other issues, that at present are not known when playing EFZI, could be easily treated too.

I attache a scenario.c3x_config file for EFZI to this post. The installation is very simple: Copy it into the EFZI files as shown in the following screenshot:

Now Sam Hammer can still be captured in EFZI again. One small issue stays: During the upload of EFZI a list with warnings in case some of the unit, building, or resource names in the options above don't match anything in the scenario data will appear - and this list can be huge. This list can be easily skipped by pressing the ESC key. As far as I can see, there are no consequences by skipping that list when playing EFZI. Unfortunately the option warn_about_unrecognized_names = false in the scenario config file is not working to cancel that list. Here something in the scenario config file could be improved.

 

[Vuldacon]

Flintlock... I agree with Civinator's post concerning modifying game rules such as Stealth Attack. I see no reason to comply with Original Game Rules with C3X since the MODs that have been made can simply use the biqs they were made from.
If possible, it would be good to have an option concerning the Stealth Attack setting.

 

[Arexander]

The option already exists, it's just set to modify the behaviour by default. Flintlock was saying he might change it to be disabled by default instead, so older scenarios would still work as intended.

 

[Flintlock]

The whole flexibility of your mod will be lost with such a "strict policy of not modifying the game rules" and all your great work with the configurable settings in the config file would become useless if this flexibility cannot be used any longer.

If possible, it would be good to have an option concerning the Stealth Attack setting.

You guys are misunderstanding me. The config option for the single unit stealth attack will still be there. I'm going to change it to false by default, like all the other game rules changes available through the mod. I want to make sure that the "out of the box" behavior of the mod, in other words what you get if you install it without changing anything, is to leave the game rules exactly as they are in the base game. That's how it already works in almost all cases, except for the single unit stealth attack thing, where I figured the rules change was small enough that I could leave it on by default. It turns out even that small change causes a compatibility problem, so I think that vindicates my policy of not altering the rules.

One small issue stays: During the upload of EFZI a list with warnings in case some of the unit, building, or resource names in the options above don't match anything in the scenario data will appear - and this list can be huge. This list can be easily skipped by pressing the ESC key. As far as I can see, there are no consequences by skipping that list when playing EFZI. Unfortunately the option warn_about_unrecognized_names = false in the scenario config file is not working to cancel that list.

That list of unrecognized names must be coming from your default.c3x_config file. The warn_about... option only applies to names from the same file it's in. Changing that would be awkward since the mod loads each config file independently. When I say config files are "layered" on top of one another, that's how it actually works under the hood.

 

[Civinator]

You guys are misunderstanding me. The config option for the single unit stealth attack will still be there. I'm going to change it to false by default, like all the other game rules changes available through the mod. I want to make sure that the "out of the box" behavior of the mod, in other words what you get if you install it without changing anything, is to leave the game rules exactly as they are in the base game. That's how it already works in almost all cases, except for the single unit stealth attack thing, where I figured the rules change was small enough that I could leave it on by default. It turns out even that small change causes a compatibility problem, so I think that vindicates my policy of not altering the rules.

This was the way I understood that. The problem is not solved with this setting, as every game started with the CCM settings and its enabled single unit stealth attack option will run into that "Sam Hammer problem" in the scenario EFZI. The same is true for every other configuration where this option is enabled. The proper and simple solution would be to give EFZI the special scenario config file I have posted. With that added file EFZI can be played without running into that problem, even when Civ 3 Complete is started with the configuration of the CCM mod or any other mod where that option is enabled.

That list of unrecognized names must be coming from your default.c3x_config file. The warn_about... option only applies to names from the same file it's in. Changing that would be awkward since the mod loads each config file independently. When I say config files are "layered" on top of one another, that's how it actually works under the hood.

Yes in that list are names from the CCM default.c3x_config file. So disabling that feature in the CCM default.c3x_config file will even fix this minor problem.

Vuldacon, I think you should add that special scenario config file I have posted to your next EFZI upload. In that file you can disable all other settings of the Flintlock mod, too, that run into a conflict with with the settings of your great EFZI scenario.

 

[Flintlock]

The problem is not solved with this setting, as every game started with the CCM settings and its enabled single unit stealth attack option will run into that "Sam Hammer problem" in the scenario EFZI.

Why not enable single unit stealth attack only in CCM's own scenario config? Is it because CCM is a total conversion, so you want its settings in the default config?

In any case, I agree that EFZI should include its own scenario config with the settings it needs. That was what I had in mind when I implemented scenario configs in the first place. I imagined the default config would work kind of like user preferences and the scenario configs would work like extra game rules to go along with a BIQ scenario, filled in the modder who created the scenario. By the way, there is no need for the scenario config file to include every config option. It only needs to include the ones it cares about and all others will be left as they were in the default config. Like in my original demo.

 

[Civinator]

Why not enable single unit stealth attack only in CCM's own scenario config?

Because CCM is an expansion mod for C3C and its config file is the default.c3x_config file in the C3C mainfolder.

This concept allows to reduce the upload space of a scenario or mod drastically, as most space in these uploads is used by units and leaderhead flics and many times in every mod or scenario the same units and flics are contained in every one of those mods or scenarios so it would have been sufficient to have these units, flics and other stuff only one time in the C3C mainfolder. With this method I was able to reduce the upload space of the files for the RARR mod from over 1 GB to 13 MB with the consequence, that the RARR files now have no problems with the upload limit in CFC posts and can be easily hosted by CFC.

I hope I can do the same with the scenarios SOE, WW2 Global Gold and may be AOI, too. Every other modder, who has installed CCM 2.50 could use this option to minimalise the upload space of his mod/scenario, too. In this case the upload of such a mod/scenario must only contain the files that are not included in CCM 2.50 or should be corrected in some sound or graphics setting.

Additionally CCM 2.50 holds its own graphics setting for the city view, what is only possible for a game using the C3C mainfolder.

 

[Ozymandias]

Another thought, this time about ZOCs - They're all but meaningless as implemented in the main game: can anything be done to increase their Fire Power / Damage Done?

 

[Vuldacon]

OZY... the main problem I believe would happen with ZOC causing more damage is Enemy Units would not be able to get through the "Lines" of ZOC Units in good enough shape for Battle.
I have also thought about ZOC Units causing more damage... it would seriously be a Game Changer.

That said, I suppose if fewer Units had ZOC with Stronger Hits of those Units could be used wisely in a MOD

 

[Ozymandias]

If Flintlock can access this function, I'm hoping that an .ini line/number entry might address this (OK, it's a disgusting emoji, but I'm still on a now 21-year-long quest to use every one of them once - & that ain't easy!)

 

[Flintlock]

Another thought, this time about ZOCs - They're all but meaningless as implemented in the main game: can anything be done to increase their Fire Power / Damage Done?

I've never looked at the code for ZOC, but it's probably possible to buff it. I'm not sure how the AI would handle that. I believe it's very particular about avoiding damage from coastal fortresses (making them even more useless), but that logic may not also apply to unit ZOC. Also it would be nice if tiles that were threatened by enemy ZOC were indicated visually somehow. That would help a lot toward making the whole thing less forgettable.

 

[Arexander]

I believe the AI ignores ZOC at least partially, I had an AI I was at war with escort a settler on their own roads past two of my invading stacks, both of which had a unit with ZOC in them (apparently, the civilopedia of the mod I was using is a bit lacking), and the escort took damage from both of them before running away. I haven't really had any other experience with ZOC, since I tend to not use fortresses/barricades, and a lot of the mods I play with don't have ZOC for units, or they're so late I haven't got to use them yet.

 

[Ozymandias]

For me, one of the big ZOC problems is that each unit firing from a ZOC can only inflict 1 HP of damage.

 

[Chalito]

For me, one of the big ZOC problems is that each unit firing from a ZOC can only inflict 1 HP of damage.

I like that as it forces you to attack, instead of trying to sneak pass the enemy. Defenders should always have some sort of advantage.
I think in Civ2 you could just ignore the enemy while using their railways, haha!
Anyway, what’s great about the Flintlock Mod is that he leaves everything modifiable, in case you don’t want to implement the change.

 

[Chalito]

Oh wait, I read your post wrong! You want them to inflict more damage!!! Okay yeah that would great!!

 

[Rômulo Prado]

For me, one of the big ZOC problems is that each unit firing from a ZOC can only inflict 1 HP of damage.

I liked this idea. Make the zone of control configurable in terms of the amount of damage or even allow the destruction of units in the passage (En passant combat, flanking the stacks of moving units, either advancing or withdrawing). Working on a new dynamic of positioning units across the terrain. In which reconnaissance of enemy units becomes more meaningful.

 

[ynot56]

So here is a dumb request. I went through a few turns of anarchy with dozens of cities. When not in anarchy, it is easy to find the cities in rebellion, I sort by production, leaving the cities in rebellion at the top when I sort in descending order the cities with no production are the cities in rebellion. When in anarchy, there is no production, so the sort by production is meaningless and I have to go through the entire list.

Could you find a way to sort the city list by in rebellion?

 

[Civinator]

Could you find a way to sort the city list by in rebellion?

This option is included in normal C3C. By clicking on the button to cycle through the cities, the graphics of that button is changing and now you can cycle through all disorderly cities of your civ.

 

[ynot56]

Thanks Civinator, I did not know that.

 

[Theov]

Thanks Civinator, I did not know that.

Me neither!