1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

civ advance based resource

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Creation & Customization' started by Karl der Grosse, Jan 30, 2014.

  1. Karl der Grosse

    Karl der Grosse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Warren, MI United States of America
    Any ideas on how to implement a strategic resource based on a civ advance dependent process?

    For example, bronze, requires copper & tin resources and the kiln smelting civ advance. I should then be able to trade bronze as a strategic resource with other civs and bronze should be the required resource.

    Also, an either / or resource dependency would be desireable also. For example, units requiring iron can be build if either iron ore or bog iron is available. Can I create another resource having the identical name, i.e., 'iron', and if either (or both) sources of 'iron' are available I can build units that require iron?

    That'd be great if that works in that both resources could be dependent upon different civ advances, be located in different terrain types and have differing disappearance probability values.
     
  2. Takhisis

    Takhisis Jinping, wer fragt uns?

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    51,221
    Location:
    up yours!
    No, there aren't any 'compound' resources, or any alternate resources. Civ III is an obvious Beta.
     
  3. Karl der Grosse

    Karl der Grosse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Warren, MI United States of America
    :sad:

    Any of the other titled releases more un-beta?
     
  4. Takhisis

    Takhisis Jinping, wer fragt uns?

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    51,221
    Location:
    up yours!
    Why would you want to play any other civ? There's still plenty of things that can be done. The game's unfinished status left quite a bit of room for people to… improvise. It's like N 1.4, the bugs actually came in handy for level-makers.
     
  5. WildWeazel

    WildWeazel Yeah, well... Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    6,901
    Location:
    %CIV3%\Conquests\Scenarios\
    You can do that part, with a little duplication of work. You can make things appear to have the same name by adding spaces to the end. Remember to make one of the equivalent units upgrade to the other so you don't have to maintain separate upgrade lines.
     
  6. Takhisis

    Takhisis Jinping, wer fragt uns?

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    51,221
    Location:
    up yours!
    Check the Civ-utilities (especially Civ3 Multi-tool), there are programs to edit resources and units and have them all have the same name (which you can't do with the regular civ editor).
     
  7. WildWeazel

    WildWeazel Yeah, well... Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    6,901
    Location:
    %CIV3%\Conquests\Scenarios\
    you kids and your tech

    :old:
     
  8. Takhisis

    Takhisis Jinping, wer fragt uns?

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    51,221
    Location:
    up yours!
    How Darest Þou Call ME A Kid? I Have Þrice As Much Postcount as Þou Hast. I Am Like A Divinity Unto Þee.
     
  9. Karl der Grosse

    Karl der Grosse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Warren, MI United States of America
    I've been using Steph's tool and it seemed not to balk when I added a duplicate 'iron' I'm unclear if the game utilizes the resource name, or if it goes by index. As long as it sees index 1 and 47 as being the same resource from a unit requirement perspective - if the name is identical - I can use that.

    I'd prefer to have one unit that can use different 'source-type' resource, rather than duplicate all the units that can use the different resource 'source-types'. Aside from the iron source and civ advance dependent processing issue, this allows implementation of meteoritic iron resource

    The issue pertinent to alloys makes me very sad though. Not just for bronze, as I had hopes to implement Wootz steel. :cry:

    The other thing that makes sad is if I build a kiln smelter requiring tin & copper to build, well, it just keeps pumping out the production, culture or bronze dependent units even after either tin or copper aren't available. :sad:
     
  10. Wolfshade

    Wolfshade Little Winger

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Minsk, Belarus
    Karl, your idea came from Civ4 - I really like this idea and already thought on how it can be implemented in the Civ3. So, my vision:
    1) it's necessary to make copper & tin to be strategic/luxury resources (bonus resources not used in any editor to be required to build anything).
    2) it's necessary to add the building, which requires copper AND tin to be built. This building should require the Palace as pre-requisite building (in the editor, pre-req buildings number = 1).
    3) it's necessary to add the unit (say, "bronze"), which will be auto-produced by the building (2). The unit icon should be in the position 1 (worker in the initial units_32.pcx) of the unit_32.pcx file;
    4) the unit "bronze" may be upgraded to some specific units, which can't be built normally (have the "King" flag, but NOT the "King" purpose).

    So, the result:
    5) player and AI can trade (since the building is in the capital) the unit "bronze" and units depended on this "resource".

    Sure, you can build the "bronze" auto-producing buildings in other cities too, but AI won't move the "bronze" to its capital.



    1) create 2 identical units (using the Steph's editor it's allowed to use the same name) and available through the same tech;
    2) make one of units requiring "iron", and the second one "bog iron".

    Result:
    3) you have 2 identical units which require different resources.



    This can be done using the editor, read "Help" section for more info.
     
  11. Moosezilla

    Moosezilla Grognard Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,037
    Location:
    Canton of Roaring Waste
    Are not worker unit(s) the only "trade-able" units?
     
  12. Wolfshade

    Wolfshade Little Winger

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Minsk, Belarus
    Moosezilla, that's the trick. The unit becomes "trade-able" when unit icon has index 1 (counting from 0) in the units_32.pcx file - where's worker initially placed. And that's why I mentioned this in my reply. So, you can have 10 units with icon index = 1 and they all will be "trade-able".
    Also, any captured (Editor: General Settings -> Default Captured Unit) unit is "trade-able", no matter what's the units_32.pcx icon index (tested, I'm sure).

    1 more mandatory requirement for units trade - unit must be in the capital.
     
  13. Karl der Grosse

    Karl der Grosse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Warren, MI United States of America
    WRT alternate resources, I'm more fond of duplicating the resource and constraining its discovery based on a civ advance.

    That's a great idea with respect to tradeable units, 'ceptin' the kiln smelter will continue to churn out bronze resource-type units even if either copper or tin become unavailable (per the disappearance factor).

    Sure you are constrained on initial construction of the building dependent on resource(s) and pertinent civ advance(s), but after its built and the contingent resource(s) disappear? it continues to churn out whatever production its been designed for.

    However, a work-around would be great in that it will differentiate iron ore, e.g., hematite, from pig iron. Although both can be traded, iron ore can't be used out of the mine (it has to be smelted in at least a bloomery). This also allows the differentiation between placer deposits for various metals, e.g., gold and copper. Copper ore OTOH requires kiln smelting technology.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_ore

    Prior to the divination of smelting technology, gold and copper were the only metals used by man and cold worked from placer deposits; these should have a high probability of disappearance. ALL other metals are obtained from ore and should require some type of technology for extraction. Tin & lead were the first metals that were smelted (copper shortly thereafter). Tin is relatively rare and was mined wherever and whenever it was found. Gold has a very high melting point, but was extracted with mercury technology - mercury existing in a natural state - as early as 1000 BC. But until then mining gold was a worthless endeavor. Moreover, silver doesn't exist in placer form, so it requires smelting also.

    The driving force for advancement into the Iron Age was lack of either copper, tin or arsenic to produce bronze. Once it was discovered how to smelt iron ore, iron became cheaper to produce than bronze and is orders of magnitude higher quality than bronze. Thus endeth the Bronze Age.

    Steel can be produced in a bloomery but production costs are higher than bronze production but its worth the expense if one is trying to keep up with the Hittite Jone's. Higher quality steel reqiered blast furnace technology. Wootz steel was the epitomy of ancient iron technology - some profoundly exquisite material - and some serious trade occured pertinent to it. The art of its production was lost and its equivalent wasn't rediscovered until the 18th century.
     
  14. Takhisis

    Takhisis Jinping, wer fragt uns?

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    51,221
    Location:
    up yours!
    And how would you translate that into game terms?
    So, there can be more than one tradeable unit?
     
  15. Karl der Grosse

    Karl der Grosse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Warren, MI United States of America
    I'm guessing that is directed to me concerning my last post? There's no really easy answer to that. Hence my OP.

    First off, I've removed any prerequisite knowledge for mining. If you like your mines, you get to keep them. Period. People have been digging in the ground for stuff for 45,000 years. The ancient early-neolithic era flint mines that have been discovered are absoutely breathtaking. The fundamental premise will be that all civ advances are cumulative with respect to mining ability; the more you know the better you can mine. Mining is just a given; based on archeological evidence I just can't see any good reason to constrain it in any way.

    This becomes a problem though, in that the benefits of mining are obtained by terraforming the terrain itself and not the resource. So placer gold can generate shields and commerce according to the attributes of the gold and the terrain its found in, i.e., basic or landmark. Placer gold should have a high probability of disappearnce. But what about ore bound gold?

    With Steph's Tool, I can create an additional resource representing ore-gold and having the same name, i.e., 'gold'. I can constrain its appearance dependent upon smelting and 'knowing mercury' civ advance. According to theory, hypothetical gold-ore should only generate shields and commerce when its mined; implying the ore is extracted by deep vein mining. A kludge to accomplish this is by assigning ZERO bonus to ore-gold and by restricting its placement in only landmark terrain and specifiying no benefits for the terrain except for the terraforming.

    The problem with that is that there's no intrinsic benefit to the ore in and of itself; but mining the particular landmark terrain.

    Iron can be dealt with in similiar fashion. However, iron ore discovery requires bloomery civ advance (continingient upon the kiln smelting advance). The latter being necessary civ advance for bronze requisite units. Kiln smelting buildings would confer some culture. Kiln smelt building become obsolete with the discovery of bloomery (conferring its own measure of culture). Either type of smelting buildings will cost to build and require mainenance.

    With respect to steel, iron dependent units can be built if iron is available and bloomery smelting advance is available. Such units should be somewhat more expensive than their bronze age equivalents. Units that are going to take advantage of advanced steel production techniques would have to be duplicated and each be dependent upon the wolf-furnace civ advance (an improvement to bloomery smelting technique). Just make 'em cheaper than the bronze age equivalent (unit specs would be the same as the bloomery smelting technology dependent iron resource requiring units).

    From the Wiki:

    Wolf-furnace technology appears about 1200AD and wasn't superceded until the advent of the coke furnace in the 17th century. The advantage is the improved quality of steel in addition to economy of labor saving, i.e., you don't have to cut trees down and convert them to charcoal. Units dependent on such would also require foundary and finery-forge civ advances. Obviously construction of the pertinent buildings should yield appropriate culture - previous culture generating building should become obsolete - until their successors themselves become obsolete.

    But this is all very kludgey and is fraught with difficulties to implement.
     
  16. Takhisis

    Takhisis Jinping, wer fragt uns?

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    51,221
    Location:
    up yours!
    It reads mostly like bonus resources…
     
  17. Balthasar

    Balthasar Wise Man

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,293
    It sounds very well researched, though. I really respect that. I'll bet your tech tree is interesting.
     
  18. Karl der Grosse

    Karl der Grosse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Warren, MI United States of America
    Its based on RaR v1.04beta

    I've tweaked it by switching alphabet with writing; all civilizations developed some form of writing. The major advance was invention of alphabet. Historically the benefit of alphabet is that it facilitates the diplomatic corps (and everything associated) and encouraged research. A language written with 26 letters is so much easier to learn than crazy Chinese / Japanese writing where there's a character for each word in the language.

    Secondly, I constrained the appearance of various resources based on 'knowing' the resource and other relevent technologies. For example, horses are known by Mongols initially. They're the only civ that see them initially. Once the Mongols develop the other necessary techs, they can build units requiring horses. Once you know horses, they show up and they can be eaten. After a while its discovered there's more to these things than steaks. :eek:

    I've done this with tobacco, corn, potatoes, rice, tea, etc.

    The thing I discovered is that CivIII is extremely weak with regards to production of food related to tech. :cry:

    Corn is discovered by the Euro's in the America's. Potatoes are known initially only by the Inca. The incorporation of either into Euro diet was the predominant reason for the subsequent population explosion; something that otherwise would be absolutely impossible if depending exclusively on existing wheat, barley, mutton, turnips, gruel and sticks and twigs in the lean years. Can you imaging living on nettle soup like these people did? Unbelievable.

    I've replaced saltpeter with sulphur. Saltpeter can be made with countless process. Easy enough after discovery of alchemy (it so easy its pointless to make it a resource constraint). The truly critical resource for gunpowder is sulphur. Technically carbon is also a requirement, but how to make that a resource? That was one of the big driving forces behind the coke furnace, i.e., bituminous fuel; the Britons were running out of trees.

    Oh, yeah, I added oil seeps and placer coal for the ancient era.

    I did away with the Franks and put the Celts into their most plausible original start position. I did away with Carthaginians and created Phoenicians. I added Mayans, Sumeria, Hattusa, Navajo, Abyssiania, Siam, and Sioux. And then sprinkled the globe with historically accurate minor tribes.

    I made alphabet highly unlikely for MesoAmerica to research. Human sacrifice exists for the various historically accurate civs, e.g., Celts.

    Oh, and one minor thing: any unit built reduces population by 1. That definitely was an issue historically, i.e., warriors weren't there to work the fields. If you want an army you better figure out how to feed it. But I ameliorated that with techs that incresae population 50%, e.g., corn, potatoes.

    But ALL terrain causes anywhere from 7% to 25% disease with median of 10% (done away with by Sanitation) + periodic plagues (begin 1650 BC variance 500, duration 1, 80% carnage, grace pd 1, max occurance 100). The jungle does the 25% damage - yellow fever / malaria was some nasty crap for a LONG time - and mountains 7%.

    The other tweaks: game starts 9000 BC w/ zero treasury balance and no techs (except mining and knowing own culture). 700 turns gets one to about 2000 AD and the subsequent 300 turns to about 2100. The resolution unit for turns is 'month'. The final 300 turns are 3 mo. @ eaches. Civ advances should be coming pretty hot & heavy by then.

    Also, the 'knowing' techs can't be researched (but can be traded). That means until any civ has contact with another civ possessing any arbitrary 'knowing' tech, well, then they're just not going to know 'bout any of that will they? :p

    All this played on Teturkhan's 362^2 map with his original resource placement + integration of RaR resources & import of RaR rules into that.

    Other than that its all pretty much basic original CivIII.

    Much to my chagrin, playing CivIII for the last few years has amounted to firing up the editor and tweaking the map, the rules and the units (both required techs and civ unique and upgrading animations where available), leaderheads. Oh, and maintaining the spreadsheet.
     
  19. Wolfshade

    Wolfshade Little Winger

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Minsk, Belarus
    Karl,
    OK, you can auto-produce the unit "ore", which can be upgraded to the "bronze" (trade-able) with 2 required resources only. Just +1 more step.

    Tak,
    Yes. In my scenario I have "Heir" (King auto-produced by the Palace) and "Captured" units, both "trade-able". The only thing - "heir" costs much more than "captured", so such a "gift" makes AI very happy.
     
  20. Karl der Grosse

    Karl der Grosse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Warren, MI United States of America
    Are you implying that if I build a kiln smelter - requires copper & tin - and it produces bronze units, that if either copper or tin disappears, the kiln smelter will not produce bronze?

    That's not my understanding; the kiln smelter - once built - will produce bronze units despite having neither copper nor tin llet alone either / or lacking). :(

    That's a deal breaker.
     

Share This Page