C7 Feature Requests

[Vuldacon]

Turn duration can also be set in Weeks or Months - Or am I missing something here?

Yes it can and that was done in EFZI2 Elite using the Original Civ3ConquestsEdit.exe. the Time-Scale and Terrain-Size are not a problem to alter as they can be changed with entries in the Civilopedia and the Biq to a reasonable extent. It is how the programming was done for Unit Movements such as loading into boats from land, using the boat to move the units to land then unloading and using the Units the same turn. That requires three turns and that affects Time-Scale and perhaps Terrain-Size.

How many times have you seen the AI try to have a Unit Unload to land from a Boat or Ship, only to have a Stagnated or Crashed Game?

So it is really more about how to handle the Navigable Rivers that is wanted concerning how Foot/Land Units can cross them and be used in one turn in a plausible manner.

If one loads a Unit into a boat from land, the Unit can cross a river in the boat but cannot unload until the next turn. IF one turn is suppose to be shorter, such as hours, the Unit should be able to load, unload and also be used the same turn it crosses.
If Foot/Land Units are allowed to cross the Navigable Rivers individually, there is the Graphics problem of appearing as "Walking or Standing on Water".

If Navigable Rivers are to be added and I agree they should for better Game Play, either program for "Bridge Building Units" that can build a temporary bridge for Foot/Land Units that can then cross the river and be used the same turn after crossing or program for Foot/Land Units to load from land into river boats that can take Foot/Land Units across the river then the Foot/Land Units can unload and also be used the same turn after crossing.

The problem is Programming concerning loading and unloading into and out of boats as well as also having the ability to do this in one turn as well as also using the Unit after unloading all in the same turn.
Example: A Marine loads into a boat, crosses a river, unloads and shoots an enemy all in one turn.

The simple way to allow this is to a set Foot/Land Units so they can cross the Navigable rivers individually but then there is the Graphics problem of "Walking or Standing on Water".

In the CivIII/Conquets Game, Graphically, Units appear to be standing on Forests or any building they are in but that is understood as the Units are in the Forests or Buildings... if seen on Water or crossing it, what is understood, are the Units in or on the Water? Either way, it is a Graphics problem that needs to be addressed and programming to allow for one turn timing with plausible graphics as stated above.

 

[Takhisis]

The New Game should have the ability to play any MOD that has been made with the CIV III/Conquests Game. That being said, it is indeed desirable to have the ability to change the time-scale/terrain-size and have units move according to a faster time-scale/terrain-size.
For example, what is now EFZI2 Elite is a much faster time -scale/ terrain-size compared to the Original Civ III/Conquests Game. The City Blocks in EFZI2 Elite are no where near the distance of tiles in CivIII/Conquests. Same for the Hours in a Move.

The Point is to have the ability to not only play what has been created with the Original CivIII/Conquests Game but to also have the ability to make changes to the Time-Scale/Terrain_Sizes with the ability to accommodate Unit Graphics such as Foot Units crossing a River in a plausible, timely manner.

The ability to bring more "realism" to the Game, especially considering changes to the Time-Scale/Terrain-Sizes, would be Good for making different Games.

The posted desires to have navigable rivers for boats, and I agree, posed the graphics problem of foot units standing or walking on water... My post about having "Bridge Builder Units" was simply to suggest a way to have the navigable rivers as well as allow foot units to cross them with plausible Graphics. I will add that if or when used, it would offer a more realistic approach to game strategies of foot units crossing the navigable rivers... and have graphics that are realistic as well.

I know that you want to make an extended EFZI version where you can take the fight to the sewers under the city and I fully support it.

Regarding units standing in water, in Wesnoth it's solved by having the unit appear to be standing slightly lower than they would. A swimming unit's feet or tail, i.e. the lowest few pixels in the image, are overlayed with a semi-transparent water graphic. Shallow water e.g. fords covers a smaller part (starting from the bottom up) of the unit's graphics than deeper water. Some units that don't breathe air e.g. skeletons can just be covered up by the water entirely.
That is, if it's a foot unit. Flyers such as drakes and faeries just remain floating over the water.

I spent an awful lot of time with Civ1 at a very impressionable age. My games always ended with becoming a world-spanning democracy and simply buying every other civilisation, because in the original a democracy had *no corruption at all* and was therefore wildly overpowered in the late game. Though you still had to capture opponents' capitals by conventional means, which meant going into anarchy for a few turns because democracies were unable to declare war. All in all, a reflection of a much more innocent time, really - what Iain Banks called "that golden age which nobody noticed was happening at the time; I mean the long decade between the fall of the Wall and the fall of the Towers".

I recently said in another discussion with CFCers that the '90s ended in September 2001. Happy days - no Internet at home, or, often, even computers.

 

[Takhisis]

It's comparatively a sidenote but I do remember the time when I was playtesting Hegemon and accidentally discovered that you can apply basic formatting to city names following the same rules as in the civilopedia. I just remembered that.

 

[Vuldacon]

I know that you want to make an extended EFZI version where you can take the fight to the sewers under the city and I fully support it

Not at all

Regarding units standing in water, in Wesnoth it's solved by having the unit appear to be standing slightly lower than they would. A swimming unit's feet or tail, i.e. the lowest few pixels in the image, are overlayed with a semi-transparent water graphic. Shallow water e.g. fords covers a smaller part (starting from the bottom up) of the unit's graphics than deeper water. Some units that don't breathe air e.g. skeletons can just be covered up by the water entirely.
That is, if it's a foot unit. Flyers such as drakes and faeries just remain floating over the water.

I think you are off on a tangent and missing the straight forward point for all "Normal" Game Units in a Game. Foot and Land Units do Not need to be seen crossing rives individually because Not All rivers are shallow and if they were, river boats could not Navigate unless they were all shallow floating rafts. Try loading a Tank into a Raft
We are talking about All Foot/Land Units and All Rivers in the Game... Not Drakes and Faeries or All Shallow Rivers.

If Navigable rivers are to be added, we must take into consideration that not all River Boats can Navigate All Rivers and Not All Rivers are Shallow. The One thing you can count on is that Bridge Building and or the ability to load and unload units as well as be able to also use them the same turn is the Way to proceed with the Game programming concerning all issues regarding Navigable Rivers and Foot/Land Units having the ability to cross all of them

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, we might be talking past each other a bit, but since this is brainstorming this isn't necessarily bad.
Since these are the type of things that are not included in the epic game but instead things that modders might use (how can I tempt you to do a multi-level EFZI, btw? ), the broader the possibilities the better, right?

I.e. some of these things could be things already enabled in the base game but not actually in use in it. Just click the editor, add some pontoon or amphibious units, and go!

Try loading a Tank into a Raft

Well, yes, this is why maybe dedicated ‘Pontoon’ units could be used.
Also, isn't it weird that a main battle tank bigger than a house takes up just as much space as a warrior in a loincloth?

 

[Vuldacon]

I would like to hear from the Programmers concerning this issue of adding Navigable Rivers concerning Foot/Land Units ability to Cross the Rivers, which is Very Important in Game Play.
I realize it is all quite a problem if Graphics are also taken into consideration.

I do believe Navigable Rivers would be a Great addition... but how do you think they can be added and have plausible Graphics for Units to cross them in all game?

 

[Ozymandias]

I spent an awful lot of time with Civ1 at a very impressionable age. My games always ended with becoming a world-spanning democracy and simply buying every other civilisation, because in the original a democracy had *no corruption at all* and was therefore wildly overpowered in the late game. Though you still had to capture opponents' capitals by conventional means, which meant going into anarchy for a few turns because democracies were unable to declare war. All in all, a reflection of a much more innocent time, really - what Iain Banks called "that golden age which nobody noticed was happening at the time; I mean the long decade between the fall of the Wall and the fall of the Towers".

... And I just recalled how frustrating it was to have my "RNG Senate" overrule my decrees ... ... Oh! Right ... democracies aren't meant to have decrees -

- Quickly shifting topics from "2016-2020 PTSD Flashbacks" -

It almost certainly drowned in a thread somewhere, but I did mention - @Quintillus @WildWeazel @Flintlock @Puppeteer - that, while we're creating a "meta Civ3," that we should all take a look at your extraordinary world building effort, as I'd like a "randomly generated world" to, at least, have some "tectonic rationale" to it.

 

[WildWeazel]

... And I just recalled how frustrating it was to have my "RNG Senate" overrule my decrees ... ... Oh! Right ... democracies aren't meant to have decrees -

Speaking of government, this video lecture was recently posted to the front page and I just passively listened to most of it. It's pretty slow to get going, but kind of an interesting critique from a medievalist about how Civ fundamentally misrepresents governance, specifically medieval monarchy. He analyzes features from different genres of medieval-set games that in some ways better represent the forces in play: Crusader Kings, Reign (new to me), and Mount & Blade. But IMO he failed to address how these mechanics could be incorporated into a 4X.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-breaking-genres-for-better-histories.675763/

I would like to hear from the Programmers concerning this issue of adding Navigable Rivers concerning Foot/Land Units ability to Cross the Rivers, which is Very Important in Game Play.
I realize it is all quite a problem if Graphics are also taken into consideration.

I do believe Navigable Rivers would be a Great addition... but how do you think they can be added and have plausible Graphics for Units to cross them in all game?

I'm sure that we can make it work with something like a tag-matching system, but it seems like however it works there's going to be some awkwardness:
Graphically, either land units will end up standing in the river or one type of unit would have to be drawn offset.
If land units can't cross unbridged rivers, how do you build a bridge? Are workers somehow able to cross unimpeded?
If a bridge is required, can units not follow a river up or down stream?
If both land and sea units can freely enter the tile, there needs to be some special and arbitrary rules to avoid absurd amphibious combat.

 

[Vuldacon]

WildWeazel... Yes, it would be quite a chore to have Navigable Rivers and provide a way for Foot/Land Units to cross them in a plausible manner.

Do you think it possible to program for a "Bridge Building" Unit that can build a Temporary Bridge that allows units to cross a River then vanishes after the turn it is built?

The "Bridge Building" Units would not have to stand in the river, they should be able to stand on the edge of a river and like a settler Animation, make an animated action and the Bridge appears.
Units can then cross the river that turn... and unlike a Settler, Bridge Building Units would bot have to vanish after Building the Bridges.

Only River Boats would be able to be in rivers and follow them up and down stream. The river boats would transport units.
Foot/Land Units would not be able to cross rivers without a bridge. Units that have the long range shooting weapons would be able to shoot across rivers, same for artillery.
If more is wanted, some rivers or areas of rivers could be shallow enough for units to individually cross but if so that should negate typical river boats that can carry many units from navigating them... That would be much more additional work and not as important as simply having a way for Foot/Land Units to cross the rivers.

Yes indeed, concerning Navigation complications of River Boats and the Bridges, that is a problem because if river boats could not travel up/down rivers past a Bridge, either the AI or player could simply build Bridges to preclude river boats from navigating a river... therefore, it would be necessary for river boats to be able to move past a bridge on a river as if it is not there. Not sure if the Graphically depicted Bridges could be programmed to "blink out" while river boats pass through them on the river.

Naturally, the Bridge Graphics would have to accommodate the widths across any river. The Graphics could be very simple or more detailed.
The programming to accommodate the Navigable Rivers, River Boats and provide a way for Foot/Land Units to cross rivers is indeed a challenging task.

Balthasar and I had the same sort of problems concerning Railroads.

Having stated the above, I am not sure how many or how long the Rivers will be on a Game Map but perhaps it would be much easier to simply have enough areas where Foot/Land Units can travel across a Game Map and set only River Boats that can navigate the rivers and nothing can cross them other than air Units Then at least program for the Units inside River Boats to be able to Load and Unload on the same turn. It would be Great to also be able to use the Units that are unloaded the same turn but that is probably too much to easily program.

 

[Plotinus]

It almost certainly drowned in a thread somewhere, but I did mention - @Quintillus @WildWeazel @Flintlock @Puppeteer - that, while we're creating a "meta Civ3," that we should all take a look at your extraordinary world building effort, as I'd like a "randomly generated world" to, at least, have some "tectonic rationale" to it.

That’s kind of you to say. And yes, my code probably could be adapted (and greatly simplified) to make a tiled world like Civ.

(On a related note, I don’t suppose anyone here is familiar with CMake and Visual Studio? I’ve hit an impasse and need help!)

 

[WildWeazel]

(On a related note, I don’t suppose anyone here is familiar with CMake and Visual Studio? I’ve hit an impasse and need help!)

Years ago and only moderately, but I may be able to point you in the right direction.

 

[Plotinus]

My project's in XCode on the Mac, so I want to duplicate it on a Windows computer so I can make a Windows executable version as well as a Mac executable. But I've just realised that I can't even work out how to make a Mac executable either. I was planning to upload all the code to Github anyway so that other people could tinker with it too, so I may just do that and hope that more competent people can build executable versions that I can post for everyone else!

 

[Vuldacon]

Plotinus... Your Work with Land and especially the Textures is indeed remarkable.

It would be Excellent if to use it in the Game. It would be the Best Terrain Graphics Ever!

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed, very impressive terrain.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm on a Roman bent lately, so I've had two thoughts:

1)

Not sure if the Graphically depicted Bridges could be programmed to "blink out" while river boats pass through them on the river.

You could just sail under the bridge, I suppose.

You cannot build a bridge low enough to block ships because any flood that drags boulders or fallen trees will turn them into battering rams unless they are allowed to flow through. I've seen it myself IRL.

It would be interesting to have an engine that would allow one to engage in constructing bridges and fortifications like Cæsar did to cross the Rhine and besiege Avaricum or Alesia, or the Romans against Hannibal at Capua, or even Antony and Cassius against each other at Philippi. Or Alexander against the Tyrians.

and
2)

... And I just recalled how frustrating it was to have my "RNG Senate" overrule my decrees ... ... Oh! Right ... democracies aren't meant to have decrees -

- Quickly shifting topics from "2016-2020 PTSD Flashbacks" -

It almost certainly drowned in a thread somewhere, but I did mention - @Quintillus @WildWeazel @Flintlock @Puppeteer - that, while we're creating a "meta Civ3," that we should all take a look at your extraordinary world building effort, as I'd like a "randomly generated world" to, at least, have some "tectonic rationale" to it.

Wouldn't it be interesting to, instead of being an all-powerful omniscient ruler, have a Senate like the Romans in Total War to order you to attack or desist?


Again, this is really more a ‘what can you do that's new?’ thing than emulating civ3, but the first point should have an impact on all terraforming and the second on unequal treaties or vassalage relations. You are attacked by a country, you lose, then you lose the ability to declare war on your own unless you of course want to also be at war with your previous attacker. It's what happened to Carthage between the Punic Wars.

 

[Takhisis]

Also, I was thinking: does a city have to be directly on the coast to count as having a port? What if it's just close enough, could the port be like a colony?
Athens had the Peiraeus.
Rome had Ostia.
London sits on a navigable river, but it's still not the sea itself.

Just a thought.

 

[Ozymandias]

I
Wouldn't it be interesting to, instead of being an all-powerful omniscient ruler, have a Senate like the Romans in Total War to order you to attack or desist?

"Interesting?"

"More Fun To Play?"

 

[Takhisis]

Well, it's better than simply have cities rebel against you or join other factions without a fight, right?

Or are you one of those boring people who switch off cultural flips and disable barbarians?

 

[WildWeazel]

My project's in XCode on the Mac, so I want to duplicate it on a Windows computer so I can make a Windows executable version as well as a Mac executable. But I've just realised that I can't even work out how to make a Mac executable either. I was planning to upload all the code to Github anyway so that other people could tinker with it too, so I may just do that and hope that more competent people can build executable versions that I can post for everyone else!

You may be able to cross-compile for Windows from your Mac. It's generally easier (possible) to build for Windows from other OSes that vice versa.

 

[Plotinus]

Thank you - I'll try to understand it. I think though that I've set up my project in such an eccentric way that I can't build a standalone executable at all, even for my own system, but maybe I can muddle through it.

Anyway, I'll stop hijacking the thread!