CCM2 Epic Mod

[Arexander]

Huh, it seems the English Wikipedia's main article about the class refers to it as 'Skory', yet the ship the class got the name from is referred to as 'Skoryy' in its page before the transfer to the Polish Navy. Most other sites also use 'Skoryy', though.

 

[Civinator]

taty095 and Arexander, thank you both very much for your reports and your continuing interest in CCM.

I am aware of that problem since a report in the RARR thread.

I named the class Skory, as this was the name in my Weyers Flottentaschenbuch - but I think that our Russian civers know best about the real name of that class of destroyers. Therefore the name of that class of destroyers in the next version of CCM is changed to Skoryy Class since a longer time.

 

[Belofon]

I named the class Skory, as this was the name in my Weyers Flottentaschenbuch - but I think that our Russian civers know best about the real name of that class of destroyers.

Actually, the real name for this class of ships is Project 30-bis destroyers
Both variants are sort of correct - Skoryy is closer to Russian spelling (Скорый), but most English sources, including Wikipedia, refer to it as Skory.

 

[Civinator]

Belofon, thank you very much for your additional input. The official naming "Project 30-bis destroyer" is much too long to use it as an unit name in a Civ game (and for me this name sounds somewhat boring, too). But now our knowledge about the Skoryy/Skory/Project 30-bis destroyer is even more complete.

 

[jlvfr]

Civinator, I'm not sure if this has been reported, but the "Victorian Era" wonder is putting dockyards in every city, even non-coastal ones...

 

[Civinator]

Civinator, I'm not sure if this has been reported, but the "Victorian Era" wonder is putting dockyards in every city, even non-coastal ones...

jlvfr, thank you very much for your report about the "Victorian Era" wonder in CCM 2.50.

That benefit of this wonder is intended, as there exists no other option than to give a building to all cities of a civ on the world map or on a continent. An option to give buildings only to coastal cities is not existing. As the main benefit of dockyards in CCM 2.50 is to provide an additional shield to every coastal-, sea- and ocean tile, it has no influence to cities, which are completely surrounded by land tiles.

In the next version of CCM, this GW is replaced by the new GW Westminster Palace and the benefits are different, as the dockyards with their production boost in all coastal-, sea- and ocean tiles of a city were too strong.

 

[jlvfr]

jlvfr, thank you very much for your report about the "Victorian Era" wonder in CCM 2.50.

That benefit of this wonder is intended, as there exists no other option than to give a building to all cities of a civ on the world map or on a continent. An option to give buildings only to coastal cities is not existing. As the main benefit of dockyards in CCM 2.50 is to provide an additional shield to every coastal-, sea- and ocean tile, it has no influence to cities, which are completely surrounded by land tiles.

In the next version of CCM, this GW is replaced by the new GW Westminster Palace and the benefits are different, as the dockyards with their production boost in all coastal-, sea- and ocean tiles of a city were too strong.

Ahhhh, ok got it

 

[Civinator]

Please don´t forget:

Today is Elvis Alarm !

 

[jlvfr]

Ah.. thank you very much. /hipswing

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Hey, Civinator, I was curious if you were, with your knowledge of Civ3's abilities and limitations, contributing anything (even if just ideas), to the C7 project?

 

[Civinator]

Hey, Civinator, I was curious if you were, with your knowledge of Civ3's abilities and limitations, contributing anything (even if just ideas), to the C7 project?

B-29_Bomber, this has happened a longer time ago, per example here.

 

[Vuldacon]

B-29_Bomber... Yes indeed... there are a plethora of "contributions" concerning C7 from many Members from the start and that Absolutely includes Civinator especially

Most of us are on hold waiting to see what is completed and organized to move forward.

It seems to be basically the Programmers working through programming aspects of C7 and at a pace they can handle individually at this time in Life.

I will add that with the Seriously Bad last couple of years that has crippled progress for most people Worldwide, it has hindered faster development of C7 as well.

More interest would no doubt help energize the individuals who are currently working on C7 now.

Extreme Endeavors that are worthy can suffer from lack of energy, support and interest.

Like most people now, a "Regrouping" is in order to not only continue on but to flourish with inspiration and interest to succeed and prosper.

I seriously hope we can all get out from under the"Dark Cloud" of Despair, and lack of Motivation due to the past years of conditioning.

Not Only our Forum but our very Lives Depend on it.

"Rock On"

 

[B-29_Bomber]

So... At what point does the spawn of settlers stop and the building of them begin?

 

[jlvfr]

So... At what point does the spawn of settlers stop and the building of them begin?

In this version, some of the spawn never stops, depends on the wonder and capital. Building them depends on "Atomic Theory".

 

[B-29_Bomber]

In this version, some of the spawn never stops, depends on the wonder and capital. Building them depends on "Atomic Theory".

So lets say I want to remove the spawning of settlers until at least the Age of Discovery. Would removing the ability of the Palace to spawn settlers do the trick?

Also, an unrelated question: Let's say I wanted to delete all the vanilla unit entries in my scenario via the scenario editor. Would there be any adverse effects?

 

[Civinator]

So lets say I want to remove the spawning of settlers until at least the Age of Discovery. Would removing the ability of the Palace to spawn settlers do the trick?

No this would not "do the trick". In CCM 2.5 (and the upcoming CCM 2.6) Great Wonders (GWs), which are available to be built by all civs, can autoproduce additional settlers. This setting strengthens the AI which likes to build early GWs and in my eyes is a much better way to implant settlers in the civ series as to connect them to the "normal" production of cities.

In my eyes connecting the "production" of settlers to the direct production in cities, as it is done by Firaxis, is one of the biggest general errors in the complete civ series, triggering a lot of following problems for a civ game. In history in nearly all cases settlers were never directly produced by cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler :

The reasons for the emigration of settlers vary, but often they include the following factors and incentives: the desire to start a new and better life in a foreign land, personal financial hardship, social, cultural, ethnic, or religious persecution, penal deportation (e.g. of convicted criminals from England to Australia) political oppression, and government incentive policies aimed at encouraging foreign settlement.

Also, an unrelated question: Let's say I wanted to delete all the vanilla unit entries in my scenario via the scenario editor. Would there be any adverse effects?

I never delete a unit in biqs with lots of units (as it is the CCM biq). Long ago in the past with the SOE scenario, such deleting of units triggered massive distortions in the settings of many other units in the biq. This could be especially problematic with the CCM 2.50 biq with its thousands of units and tons of different stealth attack settings. So when I want to get rid of a unit in CCM, I overwrite that unit with a new one. Per example the CCM 2.50 biq holds lots of different spearmen that were planned for a CCM world map. As the concept for that innovative new world map had to be abolished when I discovered the limit of 256 different resources in Civ 3, these no longer needed additional spearmen now are overwritten by new units of CCM 2.6.

On the other side, if you delete some of those units, "simply" watch the settings and behavior of the other thousands of units in CCM and if all is running well, it has worked. If you face problems you should continue with a reserve biq of CCM. The question is, if this is worth the effort.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

In my eyes connecting the "production" of settlers to the direct production in cities, as it is done by Firaxis, is one of the biggest general errors in the complete civ series, triggering a lot of following problems for a civ game. In history in nearly all cases settlers were never directly produced by cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler :

The reasons for the emigration of settlers vary, but often they include the following factors and incentives: the desire to start a new and better life in a foreign land, personal financial hardship, social, cultural, ethnic, or religious persecution, penal deportation (e.g. of convicted criminals from England to Australia) political oppression, and government incentive policies aimed at encouraging foreign settlement.

Oh, you needn't give a justification for the design choice, Civinator! I have no problem with it in general! In fact, I quite like it! It's just that in a scenario I'm working on I'm trying to make it so that civs won't have access to settlers until later in the Age of Discovery.

I never delete a unit in biqs with lots of units (as it is the CCM biq). Long ago in the past with the SOE scenario, such deleting of units triggered massive distortions in the settings of many other units in the biq. This could be especially problematic with the CCM 2.50 biq with its thousands of units and tons of different stealth attack settings. So when I want to get rid of a unit in CCM, I overwrite that unit with a new one. Per example the CCM 2.50 biq holds lots of different spearmen that were planned for a CCM world map. As the concept for that innovative new world map had to be abolished when I discovered the limit of 256 different resources in Civ 3, these no longer needed additional spearmen now are overwritten by new units of CCM 2.6.

On the other side, if you delete some of those units, "simply" watch the settings and behavior of the other thousands of units in CCM and if all is running well, it has worked. If you face problems you should continue with a reserve biq of CCM.

Thanks for the heads up!

The question is, if this is worth the effort.

Yeah... it's definitely not worth it. Thanks for the warning!

 

[Theov]

I selected the Vikings and in the opening screen it said I was Militaristic, Seafaring and Christian. When clicking on Christian, the game crashed.
Is this a known bug?

 

[Civinator]

I selected the Vikings and in the opening screen it said I was Militaristic, Seafaring and Christian. When clicking on Christian, the game crashed.
Is this a known bug?

Theov, thank you very much for that report. Such a bug until now is not known yet.

At present I have no longer CCM 2.5 installed on my pc, but the next version in work, called CCM 2.6. When clicking on Christianity in that version all is working fine and there is no crash.

Can anybody, who still has the CCM 2.5 files installed on the pc, please have a look on the Scandinavia entry and click there on the entry for Christianity, if this triggers a crash, too ?

 

[jlvfr]

Nothing happened here, everything ok...