C7 Feature Requests
- Thread starter WildWeazel
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
Not quite a "feature request", but recently I mentioned that one of the challenges of this thread is that most ideas are suggested in isolation. Reviewing the list of improvements in the "Civ Proposal" document, that's also mostly the case there. It probably isn't surprising, since most of the suggestions are from Civ3 modders and are what would be useful in the mods they'd like to create - which are still based on the original game. We've also been talking about giving C7 its own identity lately.
Thinking on those has resulted in writing a draft of a proposal of a higher-level design for "C7 mode" (as opposed to "legacy Civ3" mode). I want to sleep on it and re-read it before posting, but the summary of the "tl;dr" version is keeping a similar overall feel, while focusing improvements on government types, combat (combined arms), diplomacy, domestic industry, and later on electricity and pollution/global warming. Does it follow Firaxis's 1/3 old, 1/3 improved, 1/3 new rule? Probably not, it's probably more like 2/3 old, 1/6 improved, 1/6 new. But when the whole reason you're considering it is that you liked a lot about the "old"... maybe that's not such a bad thing.
Still, part of my goal is to have the new aspects of the proposal work together cohesively, rather than being one-off improvements.
I've also built a draft tech tree. Well, it's a list so far, in general order, but it will eventually assume a more tree-like shape. And I have a semi-complete list of units, although without stats yet, and a list of governments. I want to think more about buildings and happiness, as well as wonders (I'll probably reduce the number). Finally, I want to reorganize some things as I realized some of my ideas would be better for the first expansion pack than the base game.
Thinking on those has resulted in writing a draft of a proposal of a higher-level design for "C7 mode" (as opposed to "legacy Civ3" mode). I want to sleep on it and re-read it before posting, but the summary of the "tl;dr" version is keeping a similar overall feel, while focusing improvements on government types, combat (combined arms), diplomacy, domestic industry, and later on electricity and pollution/global warming. Does it follow Firaxis's 1/3 old, 1/3 improved, 1/3 new rule? Probably not, it's probably more like 2/3 old, 1/6 improved, 1/6 new. But when the whole reason you're considering it is that you liked a lot about the "old"... maybe that's not such a bad thing.
Still, part of my goal is to have the new aspects of the proposal work together cohesively, rather than being one-off improvements.
I've also built a draft tech tree. Well, it's a list so far, in general order, but it will eventually assume a more tree-like shape. And I have a semi-complete list of units, although without stats yet, and a list of governments. I want to think more about buildings and happiness, as well as wonders (I'll probably reduce the number). Finally, I want to reorganize some things as I realized some of my ideas would be better for the first expansion pack than the base game.
All along, I've been saying (rephrased here) -
- A (
) "Project Plan," not as in Major Corporate Nightmare Land, but rather as in, "What gets rolled out when, in which order - and, oh, are there any dependencies I should know about? - However you wish to phrase it: "Standard Module Interface;" "API" (always simply having an "expandable" common "handshake" between functionally defined modules of code.)
- A common, code base, library of functions, both to accommodate any "handshaking" as well as not reinventing the wheel - and each me to different gauges & circumferences...
) methodology at all, just some agreed upon standards ... Maybe even a "mission statement ..."
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
All along, I've been saying (rephrased here) -
- Really; honestly, truly, not a (
- A (
- However you wish to phrase it: "Standard Module Interface;" "API" (always simply having an "expandable" common "handshake" between functionally defined modules of code.)
- A common, code base, library of functions, both to accommodate any "handshaking" as well as not reinventing the wheel - and each me to different gauges & circumferences...
Ah, you are thinking of things working together cohesively from a technical standpoint. I was referring to them working together cohesively from a gameplay standpoint. Technical/software architecture design, versus gameplay design.
I'm afraid I'm not the person to solve the software architecture issues upfront, especially for a game that will support mods as I have no prior experience with games or mods from a development standpoint. The best I can do is learn and refactor as I go. However, the long-awaited proof-of-concept issue for @WildWeazel 's Component-Event framework is slated for Carthage. I'm hoping that shines some light on the direction from a software architectural standpoint, as my understanding is there was a vision for this. WildWeazel also claimed the "System architect/technical lead" role in the initial proposal document, and while I've done some of the latter (both on this project and previously), I have no doubt he's better-prepared for the former. I considered going into software architecture at one point, but after meeting with some architects to discuss it, realized it wasn't what really interested me.
The "Proposal" (linked above) and "Projects page" do list what gets rolled out in what order, but that is subject to change, and is a very rough idea. "Major Corporate Nightmare Land" probably refers to how corporations tend to set schedules years in advance with no flexibility? If so, that's why I take the order with a grain of salt. It's always changing as we learn more, sometimes changing more, sometimes less.
So I guess what I'm saying is... I have some interest in the gameplay design aspect. I also have some interest in documentation (I improved the documentation on GitHub a bit last week). But I'm not going to do any large-scale software architecture work, and I'd rather not be pinged about it, especially frequently. My approach is more iterative, I've been on projects that were burned (and canceled) due to too much focus on upfront architecture and too little actual results. I've been among the top three developers for "actual results", and would rather keep that up. So while I recognize there is value in it, to me it feels like a waste of time to work on it personally, especially when WildWeazel has indicated an interest in it and has probably thought through it more.
Actually, I was thinking of both, as that seems to be the approach Youse Guys (oh dear: another "
" reference ...) were essentially taking anyway ... ? I certainly don't want you all to go crazy with refactoring; hence (again) my notion of an API.Quint - gents - I know that everything I knew about IT, from terminology to methodology , is out of date. Yet I seem to be the only person who can at least "straddle" the coder/non-coder world. And I am distressed that - whether by ignorance or not knowing where to look - this is the first time I've seen @WildWeazel's truly fine document ... But that's also part of my point: my brain glazes over, just skimming through pure coders' posts - I'm lost - When/where is the last place/post (and, yes, I''m happy to potentially embarrass myself here) that non-coders have been meaningfully involved, except in the "Feature Request" thread, which seems to be heuristically useless (not organized into categories of Functions, which can be:
- Discussed
- Prioritized
- Organized into software "modules" (OK: please help me with terminology!!) - My very first IT job was at an engineering firm, and the motto there, across the board, was, "Form follows function."
And if I'm not making sense, you all are (and I mean this most sincerely) plainly doing excellent work ... Am I "old-fashioned" in thinking that a simple "overlay" of discretely defined game play functions - and with everything I've been trying to express, all along - used as a "map" for architectural design et. al. would be helpful, in combining game play goals with (hopefully painlessly) coding goals?
Put another way (and, admittedly, I've not read WW's document) - If I can't follow what's going on, especially viz. game play within architecture ... who will? (And, if I've really missed something here, for my entire adult life, I've never once minded being shown that I'm wrong - so please just tell/show me. I have no ego invested here, at all: just playfulness and dedication.)
...
...-
z
WildWeazel
Going Dutch
I'd really like to have some kind of vassal/client/protectorate relationship, especially that can be extended into city-states or other unplayable factions with special limitations.
A matter of curiosity for both @WildWeazel & @Takhisis - Would you like to go as far as modelling something as complex as the Holy Roman Empire?
An also the for-now hypothetical nomad/barbarian states. Imagine if the nomads could just extract tribute from you or you could bribe them to attack other nations. Full diplomatic recognition for them!
I'd attempt it for the challenge if I had the hypothetical free time to do it. I'd rather not undergo another two-year lockdown if you don't mind.
I was just looking at a picture in nick0515's 0AD terrain and was wondering: what if you could build a city on a mountain tile but the mountain would still block ships?
Or what if, in general, instead of just settling a city, you had to build or dredge a harbour?
Waterways as a subject might deserve their own thread, but still.
Or what if, in general, instead of just settling a city, you had to build or dredge a harbour?
Waterways as a subject might deserve their own thread, but still.
WildWeazel
Going Dutch
This is great idea, and something we should intentionally do during development. It occurred to me at some point that besides the default "C3C mod" we should also create a more advanced mod in parallel to demonstrate what else can be done, and verify that it all works. I may have suggested it in the proposal but didn't really call it out as a goal.
Will address the rest in Crowdsourcing I guess, as we're coming back around to project management.
From reading other threads here on CFC, and gaming chats and what-not, 3 ideas:
1) Dark Ages: what if an event could trigger a dark age of diminished production?
2) Precision bombing and bombing in general need a going-over. There's a point in the late game at which you can just stack 50 bombers and 10 SAMs and you just destroy any defences.
A counter to the AI attempting this type of thing is stacking AA units and building barricades around the city to stop enemy armoured units from rushing you (and planting forests as needed), but the AI just doesn't know how to do that. It's just sad to see a stack of modern armour rush ahead of the mechanised infantry and get reduced to scrap metal by artillery/battleships/bombers, then try to retreat while the mechanised infantry advances, then the TOWs belatedly arrive on their own to also be massacred.
3) this quote:
Also, can we fix transferable units? Civ3 has it hardcoded that the tradeable unit is the second one in the unit list, but why is this so? It's one more of those things that, as WildWeazel stated, should be made variable.
1) Dark Ages: what if an event could trigger a dark age of diminished production?
2) Precision bombing and bombing in general need a going-over. There's a point in the late game at which you can just stack 50 bombers and 10 SAMs and you just destroy any defences.
A counter to the AI attempting this type of thing is stacking AA units and building barricades around the city to stop enemy armoured units from rushing you (and planting forests as needed), but the AI just doesn't know how to do that. It's just sad to see a stack of modern armour rush ahead of the mechanised infantry and get reduced to scrap metal by artillery/battleships/bombers, then try to retreat while the mechanised infantry advances, then the TOWs belatedly arrive on their own to also be massacred.
3) this quote:
Not only are there neutral units like the barbarians, but what about hidden-nationality units?
Also, can we fix transferable units? Civ3 has it hardcoded that the tradeable unit is the second one in the unit list, but why is this so? It's one more of those things that, as WildWeazel stated, should be made variable.
I was just thinking something interesting.
Basically any unit with the Air Defence capability (in the vanilla game flaks, SAMs, and modern seagoing warships) just fires up at enemy units directly overflying it but never loses HP unless it's the unit itself bombarded.
Why couldn't anti-air units actually engage in combat with attacking air units?
With the present format, the AI does sometime try to force the issue by stacking a few dozen bomber aircraft and carpet-bombing a city, but if you have a barracks and a few infantry/mech infantry to protect your AA it's only a matter of a few turns before you blow the bombers out of the sky… and artillery can never be destroyed by bombardment anyway.
So a different format could be the SAM or Flak or whatever standing a chance of being damaged itself, like fighters are.
Edit: this could also result in futuristic AA-only defensive stationary units like the towers in Dune 2, the Base Defence weapons in UFO: Enemy Unknown, or the missile turrets from the old -read:first- Starcraft game, which were games that came out not long before Civ3 did. Just thought of it.
Basically any unit with the Air Defence capability (in the vanilla game flaks, SAMs, and modern seagoing warships) just fires up at enemy units directly overflying it but never loses HP unless it's the unit itself bombarded.
Why couldn't anti-air units actually engage in combat with attacking air units?
With the present format, the AI does sometime try to force the issue by stacking a few dozen bomber aircraft and carpet-bombing a city, but if you have a barracks and a few infantry/mech infantry to protect your AA it's only a matter of a few turns before you blow the bombers out of the sky… and artillery can never be destroyed by bombardment anyway.
So a different format could be the SAM or Flak or whatever standing a chance of being damaged itself, like fighters are.
Edit: this could also result in futuristic AA-only defensive stationary units like the towers in Dune 2, the Base Defence weapons in UFO: Enemy Unknown, or the missile turrets from the old -read:first- Starcraft game, which were games that came out not long before Civ3 did. Just thought of it.
Last edited:
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
I was just playing through the last stages of a CivIII game (Std Emp Continents, Flintlock-patched), and ran into another bugbear of mine: whipping-unhappiness in a captured town, from someone else's whip.
When my glorious Republic just liberated your town from your Fascist oppressors, you should be falling on your knees and raining me with flower-petals -- not blaming me for the sins of your former leader (you sorry little ingrates)!
TLDR: Could this whipping-unhappiness-transfer not be included in the new version, please?
When my glorious Republic just liberated your town from your Fascist oppressors, you should be falling on your knees and raining me with flower-petals -- not blaming me for the sins of your former leader (you sorry little ingrates)!
TLDR: Could this whipping-unhappiness-transfer not be included in the new version, please?
Oh, yes. Whenever I attack a city and find some conscripts among the defenders I cringe at the city having even worse a mood -against me- for another government having sent its population to die.
Of course, IRL the invader killing their population would result in local resentment but bombarding the city to reduce its population or destroy its buildings doesn't ever cause unhappiness.
Of course, IRL the invader killing their population would result in local resentment but bombarding the city to reduce its population or destroy its buildings doesn't ever cause unhappiness.
general-jcl
King
Rereading a post about walls around cities following technological eras, I hope c7 will allow for more than 4 eras. This would be very useful for the expansion of some scenarios and would facilitate the readability and creation of research trees
Oh yes, it's already been said many times that there will be as few hardcoded limits as possible. Which reminds me of two things.
One, to build on general-jcl's idea: could we have a scroll button for eras? That way eras could be made as large as they need to be instead of compressing everything. There's already sliders in other advisor tabs.
Two, could we have more than one economy? In other strategy games you can simultaneously run more than one faction, each with its own finances, treasury, unit roster, etc. It would be interesting to simulate, for example, the various personal unions in history, with effectively a multi-society faction, and/or suzerainty rather than sovereignty.
A very obvious case is the Habsburg empire which comprised the Holy Roman-German Empire, the various separate kingdoms in Spain, and other viceroys in dukedoms and kingdoms in Italy and the Netherlands, plus overseas possessions in America, Africa and Asia.
Another is the division of the Roman Empire into halves or its tetrarchy system, or the Mongol overlordship over its various Khanates, or Upper and Lower Egypt, or the triple alliance of the Aztec cities around Lake Tetzcoco.
One, to build on general-jcl's idea: could we have a scroll button for eras? That way eras could be made as large as they need to be instead of compressing everything. There's already sliders in other advisor tabs.
Two, could we have more than one economy? In other strategy games you can simultaneously run more than one faction, each with its own finances, treasury, unit roster, etc. It would be interesting to simulate, for example, the various personal unions in history, with effectively a multi-society faction, and/or suzerainty rather than sovereignty.
A very obvious case is the Habsburg empire which comprised the Holy Roman-German Empire, the various separate kingdoms in Spain, and other viceroys in dukedoms and kingdoms in Italy and the Netherlands, plus overseas possessions in America, Africa and Asia.
Another is the division of the Roman Empire into halves or its tetrarchy system, or the Mongol overlordship over its various Khanates, or Upper and Lower Egypt, or the triple alliance of the Aztec cities around Lake Tetzcoco.
Not sure if these two additions have already been mentioned:
1. Program a way to be able to have a Transport that can be used to Load other Units in/on such as a Pack Mule or Helicopter that can transport Resources or Foot Units also Load on a Ship would be a Very Good addition. Basically I am talking about the ability to Load a Transport in/on a Transport. What if I wanted to transport a fully loaded Cargo Truck on a Ship or Boat as is done in Reality.
2. A way to have Water Mines that can be used in water, set as Immobile, Load on Ships and dropped off in Water. As it is, Mines have to be set as Sea Units so they can be in the Water as well as move themselves where wanted and that is programed as a "Ship"... and Ships do Not Load into Ships... Just no programming to allow Water Mines to Load into Ships and be dropped off and work as Immobile Units in Water. Basically I am talking about the ability to Load a Sea Unit, that can be in Water, in/on a Ship to transport it where wanted on Water.
It isn't just a way to get the Mines where wanted on the Water, it is having a way to make the Mines able to be in the Water as well. "Sea Unit" works but program a way to allow a Sea Unit to Load in a Ship. What if I wanted to transport a mini Sub on a Large Ship.
I could Para-drop Immobile Mines for example but they would still have to be flagged as Sea Units ("Ships") to work in/on water...and we cannot Para-drop Ships.
As it is, I had to make the Water Mines in EFZI2 Elite "Cruise Mines" that can propel themselves where wanted and they had to be flagged as Sea Units which are basically Ships and cannot Load into Ships or Para-drop.
There are Players and Modders that would like to be able to Load fully loaded Helicopters that Transport Foot Units in/on Ships for use.
1. Program a way to be able to have a Transport that can be used to Load other Units in/on such as a Pack Mule or Helicopter that can transport Resources or Foot Units also Load on a Ship would be a Very Good addition. Basically I am talking about the ability to Load a Transport in/on a Transport. What if I wanted to transport a fully loaded Cargo Truck on a Ship or Boat as is done in Reality.
2. A way to have Water Mines that can be used in water, set as Immobile, Load on Ships and dropped off in Water. As it is, Mines have to be set as Sea Units so they can be in the Water as well as move themselves where wanted and that is programed as a "Ship"... and Ships do Not Load into Ships... Just no programming to allow Water Mines to Load into Ships and be dropped off and work as Immobile Units in Water. Basically I am talking about the ability to Load a Sea Unit, that can be in Water, in/on a Ship to transport it where wanted on Water.
It isn't just a way to get the Mines where wanted on the Water, it is having a way to make the Mines able to be in the Water as well. "Sea Unit" works but program a way to allow a Sea Unit to Load in a Ship. What if I wanted to transport a mini Sub on a Large Ship.
I could Para-drop Immobile Mines for example but they would still have to be flagged as Sea Units ("Ships") to work in/on water...and we cannot Para-drop Ships.
As it is, I had to make the Water Mines in EFZI2 Elite "Cruise Mines" that can propel themselves where wanted and they had to be flagged as Sea Units which are basically Ships and cannot Load into Ships or Para-drop.
There are Players and Modders that would like to be able to Load fully loaded Helicopters that Transport Foot Units in/on Ships for use.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
This story has been linked in several posts so far
https://www.pcgamer.com/soren-johns...com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social
... and I wrote a response to the main contentions in it, but didn't actually post it in the Civ3 GD forum, because it seemed like the meat of that response might be best put here instead.
https://www.pcgamer.com/soren-johns...com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social
... and I wrote a response to the main contentions in it, but didn't actually post it in the Civ3 GD forum, because it seemed like the meat of that response might be best put here instead.
tjs282... I totally Agree and the Negotiation Table has been an extreme disappointment since CIVIII/Conquests came out.
It wasn't really so much due to the negotiations but rather the Game Penalties behind the Deals that can and do take place.
I seriously hated that no matter how Friendly, Generous and Helpful you were toward another CIV throughout the Game, they always turned on you in the end with the other Civs when you became more powerful and were Winning.
A Good Reputation in Trade and indeed All World Affairs should be rewarded not penalized with programing the Player cannot control.
I have experimented Many times with Trade and the Negotiation Table and the most neglected programing to me is a Player's Good Reputation is always disregarded by the AI declaring war on them when the Player becomes more powerful than the AI. The AI's smiling faces become disdainful when the Player gains great power and that takes place without the Player doing anything else to cause it.
Having said the above, the Problem with changing the Programing concerning Trade and the Negotiation Table is that the AI Game Play of existing MODs from the CIVIII/Conquests Games would be changed. I doubt that it is possible to program New AI behavior and keep the original programed AI behavior for existing Games as well. The Good Programmers can answer that question better than I can.
Some Feature Requests include the need for programing in areas that would essentially create a New Game that could not play existing MODs the same. Because we want to be able to play existing MODs as they are, additional features that can be added and used by Modders must be programed carefully. The Word "Additional" is the Point... features that can be used, turned on or off in the Editor that allow making New Games with desired Features such as the AI using Land Transports, Navigable Rivers, etc...
My opinion is that due to the Extreme difficulty to duplicate the necessary programing of the CivIII/Conquests games it will probably be decided to create a New Game that cannot play existing MODs... Only time will tell.
It wasn't really so much due to the negotiations but rather the Game Penalties behind the Deals that can and do take place.
I seriously hated that no matter how Friendly, Generous and Helpful you were toward another CIV throughout the Game, they always turned on you in the end with the other Civs when you became more powerful and were Winning.
A Good Reputation in Trade and indeed All World Affairs should be rewarded not penalized with programing the Player cannot control.
I have experimented Many times with Trade and the Negotiation Table and the most neglected programing to me is a Player's Good Reputation is always disregarded by the AI declaring war on them when the Player becomes more powerful than the AI. The AI's smiling faces become disdainful when the Player gains great power and that takes place without the Player doing anything else to cause it.
Having said the above, the Problem with changing the Programing concerning Trade and the Negotiation Table is that the AI Game Play of existing MODs from the CIVIII/Conquests Games would be changed. I doubt that it is possible to program New AI behavior and keep the original programed AI behavior for existing Games as well. The Good Programmers can answer that question better than I can.
Some Feature Requests include the need for programing in areas that would essentially create a New Game that could not play existing MODs the same. Because we want to be able to play existing MODs as they are, additional features that can be added and used by Modders must be programed carefully. The Word "Additional" is the Point... features that can be used, turned on or off in the Editor that allow making New Games with desired Features such as the AI using Land Transports, Navigable Rivers, etc...
My opinion is that due to the Extreme difficulty to duplicate the necessary programing of the CivIII/Conquests games it will probably be decided to create a New Game that cannot play existing MODs... Only time will tell.
This is a problem with all mods, given how they all rely on tricking a remarkably dumb AI into doing the smart thing.
Given how Mr. Weasel has repeatedly stated that variables are not to be hardcoded if possible, then an ‘original Civ3’ ruleset could be included.
Last edited:
Similar threads
