CIV Gold!

[Vortilex]

no kidding I heard it alot too. i think its on the fence whether its offensive or not.

In Peru, it's a derogatory term for someone of dark-color skin who isn't black, but native. It's about the same as n****r. However, some people don't mind being called "cholito" or "cholita" but saying "oye, cholo que te pasa?" is baaad.

 

[Wyz_sub10]

Not a lot of traffic on this thread anymorem but I do feel the need to offer an apology.

Not much has changed in terms of my time availability...much has changed otherwise - new house, new contracts, boys getting older, etc.

Essentially, I need to close the book on CIV Gold for 4.0. Hopefully there will be an opportunity for CIV Gold 5.0...hopefully.

I know I made a commitment to updating and adding leader add to 4.0. I did that, to a small degree, but never released the edited version. And there is too much left to do that I simply cannot get to.

I've had overwhelming support from the community and I do leave the door open for anyone wanting to finish the leader art project for Gold 4.0. It now stands at 120 added civs and, really, I'm thrilled that it made it to where it has.

Again, I'd love to jump in for CIV Gold 5.0, but it'll depend on tools, time and talent. And, of course, community support.

My apologies for work unfinished, but my thanks to everyone who contributed and supported the project over the past several years.

Cheers,
Duane

 

[Patricknoddy]

Will CIV Gold for BtS continue after CiV is released?

 

[RPG]

Thanks for the work you did for civ gold. It was always one of my favorite mods!

 

[AbsintheRed]

Will CIV Gold for BtS continue after CiV is released?

In Wyz's last post Civ Gold 4.0 means: Civ Gold 5.2 for Civ 4 BtS
Civ Gold 5.0 means: Civ Gold for Civ V

So there won't be new or updated version of Gold for BtS
And honestly I don't think there will be a new one for Civ V either.
No leader traits means Firaxis wants to keep their one leader per civ rule.
The concept of leaders in Civ IV is/was much better for the community, I always loved how we can have all the great leaders in Civilization...
Not to mention the fan-made LHs are much better than the original Firaxis ones in many cases. I'm afraid this won't be possible in Civ V

 

[TheLopez]

Not to mention the fan-made LHs are much better than the original Firaxis ones in many cases. I'm afraid this won't be possible in Civ V

Not until we get the C++ part of the SDK that is

 

[IgorS]

Not until we get the C++ part of the SDK that is

If you read the posts from 2006/2007 you'll see how people thought there is no way to make LHs for Civ IV, so I believe a way to create Civ V leaders will be found. Maybe even with Firaxis's help...

 

[Vortilex]

Someone did make a Celtic Civ, and to do that they added Boudica to CV. What I don't like is how the leaderheads feel less sophisticated. It looks like they're just images, not actual people. I am actually quite disappointed with CV. I had anticipated CV being better than CIV and had anticipated there would be redeeming qualities that compensated for things such as the "no-stack" rule, or the lack of religion. I feel that even Civilization Revolution could be a better game than CV, which has fewer civs than CIV vanilla has.

 

[AbsintheRed]

It was Kael, he uploaded it on the day Civ V was released

Anyway, my point was that for Civ IV we have about 70-80 quality civs with at least 2-3 top quality leaderheads for each
I don't see how something similar will be possible for Civ V (especially for leaders), thus there is no point of Civ Gold IMO
One leader per civ just doesn't work for me...
Actually I want all the best LHs in my games, and at the same quality the vanilla LHs are. So I won't even consider buying Civ V

 

[IgorS]

Someone did make a Celtic Civ, and to do that they added Boudica to CV. What I don't like is how the leaderheads feel less sophisticated. It looks like they're just images, not actual people. I am actually quite disappointed with CV. I had anticipated CV being better than CIV and had anticipated there would be redeeming qualities that compensated for things such as the "no-stack" rule, or the lack of religion. I feel that even Civilization Revolution could be a better game than CV, which has fewer civs than CIV vanilla has.

Civ IV vanilla and Civ V vanilla have 18 civs each, so your statement is wrong. And I don't see how leaders in Civ V are less sophisticated than the ones in Civ IV. In Civ IV you just saw an animated head with hands, in Civ V they look more serious and the environment is living, unlike the background posters we had in Civ IV. I do like Civ V more that Civ IV so far. No-stacks is great, no religions is great (I hated the religion concept in Civ IV as I thought it didn't add anything to the game), and one leader per civ is excellent!
I think having more then one leader per civ was a mistake. First of all, look how it affected the community: we got carried away and have created too many LHs, some of them are absolutely useless.
But speaking of the game itself, it was wrong to have multiple leaders with different traits. I mean, in Civ IV you didn't play as America, you played as Washington, but the game is called CIVILIZATION after all. I think each Civ should get traits (like the UAs in Civ V or the civ traits in Civ III) and the leader should just be there as a representative without a personality.

 

[Vortilex]

I think both the leader and the civ are equally important. How do you choose the best leader for each civ? What if a leader had two civs? What if you don't want to play as Washington of the Americans, you want to play as Lincoln? I think that having multiple leaders means that you don't know exactly what you're up against. Warlike Asoka vs. peaceful Ghandi (although that's still a bit of a stretch). I think that the best solution is a civ trait and a leader trait, like in Colonization. I don't like how in Civ V when I interact with a leader all I get is a background and a static image. It's even worse than in CivRev. I hate the fact that I needed to be connected to the internet when I installed the game because the majority of the time I'm not online. I also don't like how the graphics card on my computer (or something else) doesn't let me read text in CV, but that's not the actual game, that's my PC.

 

[IgorS]

I think both the leader and the civ are equally important. How do you choose the best leader for each civ? What if a leader had two civs? What if you don't want to play as Washington of the Americans, you want to play as Lincoln? I think that having multiple leaders means that you don't know exactly what you're up against. Warlike Asoka vs. peaceful Ghandi (although that's still a bit of a stretch). I think that the best solution is a civ trait and a leader trait, like in Colonization. I don't like how in Civ V when I interact with a leader all I get is a background and a static image. It's even worse than in CivRev. I hate the fact that I needed to be connected to the internet when I installed the game because the majority of the time I'm not online. I also don't like how the graphics card on my computer (or something else) doesn't let me read text in CV, but that's not the actual game, that's my PC.

If you don't want to play as Washington, but you want to play as Lincoln just name yourself "Lincoln". I actually think that the civ is way more important than the leader. This why I am disappointed that Civ V doesn't have flavoures units (although someone might actually create such a mod). I'd like to see a game where each civ is unique more than it is now. Sort of like in Age of Empires, where civs have multiple unique units and different technology trees. I like how in AOE III the Japanese, for example, are very different from other civs, the French have different villagers and all these stuff. The big problem is, of course, to make such a game balanced.

 

[Vortilex]

I think the worst thing about CV is that the whole Modding component in poorly thought through. One can run two mods at the same time. But is that the best choice? Were all mods made to be compatible with each other? I personally think that the game's creators weren't thinking that through. It feels like they wanted to make it modable, but they took out all the ways in which we would want to mod it. I like seeing an abundance of leaderheads; in CIII you could choose to have many leaderheads and just alternate per Civ (through the scenario editor). I think it'll be hard to make mods like CIV Gold, RFC, and 1939 Mod on CV because the game isn't set up to be made into UXPs like CIV is, it's made to have mini-mods attatched, like extra Civs.

 

[IgorS]

I think the worst thing about CV is that the whole Modding component in poorly thought through. One can run two mods at the same time. But is that the best choice? Were all mods made to be compatible with each other? I personally think that the game's creators weren't thinking that through. It feels like they wanted to make it modable, but they took out all the ways in which we would want to mod it. I like seeing an abundance of leaderheads; in CIII you could choose to have many leaderheads and just alternate per Civ (through the scenario editor). I think it'll be hard to make mods like CIV Gold, RFC, and 1939 Mod on CV because the game isn't set up to be made into UXPs like CIV is, it's made to have mini-mods attatched, like extra Civs.

As much as I can remember, Civ III didn't have an option fur multiple leaders per civ. You had to remove one leader to add another (you can do that in Civ V too). Also I remember that in Civ III you could not add more civs to the game without removing existing civs.

 

[The_J]

unlike the background posters we had in Civ IV.

You can also animate the backgrounds, some even are already (but only minimal).

 

[IgorS]

You can also animate the backgrounds, some even are already (but only minimal).

I know, I also did it with some of my LHs.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think having more then one leader per civ was a mistake. First of all, look how it affected the community: we got carried away and have created too many LHs, some of them are absolutely useless.
But speaking of the game itself, it was wrong to have multiple leaders with different traits. I mean, in Civ IV you didn't play as America, you played as Washington, but the game is called CIVILIZATION after all. I think each Civ should get traits (like the UAs in Civ V or the civ traits in Civ III) and the leader should just be there as a representative without a personality.

Actually it was really awesome that the community got "carried away" this far, I think most players love to play with the many new leaders we got.
Also don't forget about the UUs and UBs. You didn't play as Washington, you still played as America because of those...

Having said that, I agree that the civs should also have some unique flavor in Civ IV, but I would definitely keep the trait system for leaders too. If there are UAs for civs, then the traits should not be this powerful as in Civ IV right now, but still: I want to have all the great leaders of the civilization I play with/against, and they won't be the same gameplay experience if there are some differences in their traits
One leader per civ totally sucks :S

 

[Machete Hank]

I'm having trouble installing this. I have a steam version of the game and I changed the directory appropriately to install it correctly but it doesn't seem to work. I went to load a mod and it didn't show up on the list. I tried playing a regular game and there weren't any new civs on the list.

Can anyone help?

 

[EZPZ]

Ok i realized that the units for this mod are female any way to change them back to male?

Like there are female horse archers any way to make them male horse archers?

 

[Vortilex]

There might be a way, but why would you really want to? Are you suggesting that arbitrarily male archers and horse archers are better than arbitrarily female archers and horse archers?