I'm not using the latest C3C patch. Perhaps they changed this. I just know that when I set Workers on Automate, they will quickly remove Forest (they love doing this) and the resource will be lost--which does makes sence to degree because the resource can only exist on certain terrain (in this case, Forest).
Civ III: Conquests Patch Fix Request
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
yoshi, that has never been true, in any version of civ. 
Dear Firaxis/Atari
Please could you make a link between units and improvements.
Example, If you dont build a "Shipwright" you cant build ships.
Or if you dont build a "Armour factory" you cant build tanks.
We would need the facility to edit this within your editor as well.
I live in hope that one day Civ will be perfect, now its almost perfect.
Regards
An old timer.
Please could you make a link between units and improvements.
Example, If you dont build a "Shipwright" you cant build ships.
Or if you dont build a "Armour factory" you cant build tanks.
We would need the facility to edit this within your editor as well.
I live in hope that one day Civ will be perfect, now its almost perfect.
Regards
An old timer.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Riker13, post that in the Civ4 suggestions forum. You have (exactly) 0% chance of that going in to the final patch. 
You may be right about that anarres although I don't think it's because it would be difficult but rather because...actually, I can't think of a reason except that Firaxis doesn't think it's worth while cluttering up the Editor's Units screen with yet another caption (but then that reasoning would kill most of the requests in this thread and others that have been proposed in the past AND have been added into the game).
'Improvements and Wonders' scenario properties screen has an 'Improvement/Wonder' caption in the 'Requires' section. This means that the building cannot be built without the required building having being built first.
So what's so hard about adding the same list to the Units screen?
Note that this would be for modding purposes so there is no need to adapt the AI to using this feature (i.e. getting the AI to build the required building before the unit).
Where modding is concerned, part of the reason for having this is not so much to force the player to have to build the required improvement before building the unit but rather to prevent certain cities from building certain units. It means that you could designate which cities are able to build what, which is something very important where historical scenarios--being the most popular kind, as proven by the conquests that shipped with C3C--are concerend.
(This can presently be done using Strategic Resources by placing them only near the cities where you wan the units built but it means that you can't have the ability to build roads with which to connect the resource to other cities. Unfortunately, unlike buildings, units do not have a 'Required Goods Must Be Within City Radius' flag. The requested feature would definitely simplify things.)
[BTW, why do people say it's more likely to be in Civ4? Simple features like this aren't added in because there are more important things to attend to. Civ4 will have the same problem. The only time you should say that something is appropriate for Civ4 is when ithe feature is simply too complex (i.e. would require changes to the engine) or is just to expensive (i.e. works with the engine but uses up too many resources) to be implemented into the game--especially at this point. Features like this don't fit either description IMO.]
I suggest a compromise: as I said above, the 'Units' scenario propertied screen in the Editor does not have a 'Required Goods Must Be Within City Radius' flag like the 'Improvements and Wonders' screen does. I propose at least applying this same feature to units as an alternative if the former request is not possible.
'Improvements and Wonders' scenario properties screen has an 'Improvement/Wonder' caption in the 'Requires' section. This means that the building cannot be built without the required building having being built first.
So what's so hard about adding the same list to the Units screen?
Note that this would be for modding purposes so there is no need to adapt the AI to using this feature (i.e. getting the AI to build the required building before the unit).
Where modding is concerned, part of the reason for having this is not so much to force the player to have to build the required improvement before building the unit but rather to prevent certain cities from building certain units. It means that you could designate which cities are able to build what, which is something very important where historical scenarios--being the most popular kind, as proven by the conquests that shipped with C3C--are concerend.
(This can presently be done using Strategic Resources by placing them only near the cities where you wan the units built but it means that you can't have the ability to build roads with which to connect the resource to other cities. Unfortunately, unlike buildings, units do not have a 'Required Goods Must Be Within City Radius' flag. The requested feature would definitely simplify things.)
[BTW, why do people say it's more likely to be in Civ4? Simple features like this aren't added in because there are more important things to attend to. Civ4 will have the same problem. The only time you should say that something is appropriate for Civ4 is when ithe feature is simply too complex (i.e. would require changes to the engine) or is just to expensive (i.e. works with the engine but uses up too many resources) to be implemented into the game--especially at this point. Features like this don't fit either description IMO.]
I suggest a compromise: as I said above, the 'Units' scenario propertied screen in the Editor does not have a 'Required Goods Must Be Within City Radius' flag like the 'Improvements and Wonders' screen does. I propose at least applying this same feature to units as an alternative if the former request is not possible.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
It's not a "simple" change as you say, it is significant new functionality that requires a change to the internal data structures.
There are bugs that desperately need fixing, those will (and should) get priority.
There are bugs that desperately need fixing, those will (and should) get priority.
By 'simple' I just mean that the mechanics are already there (for the improvement interface). How difficult can it be?
And as I said, if it can't be done then at least give us the damn flag for units. AFAIK that, at least, is but a production switch that just stops the program from reading connected resources (outside the city radius).
And as I said, if it can't be done then at least give us the damn flag for units. AFAIK that, at least, is but a production switch that just stops the program from reading connected resources (outside the city radius).
Sorry yoshi - I disagree with this statement 100%.
A good mod will try to get the AI to build the same things as the human player.
That is why the DyP mod removed lots of good human player features - just because the AI never built them. The fact the AI did not build them unbalanced the game in favour of the human.
There is no fun in playing a game when there is no challenge involved.
Since ptw I've found that the multiplayer is terribly laggy. Just moving a worker takes about 1 second. Considering the game is turn-based and units can only move to select sqaures, the game should be relatively fast over LAN (especially when compared to C&C Generals and UT2K4). I'm not sure what the problem is with the multiplayer code, but you should look at it.
@Harrier:
I understand and agree that all features should be usable by the AI but in this case, the idea is to at least have the option. For modding, this feature would primarily be used to determine which units can be built in which cities (i.e. the improvements are pre-placed).
Example:
Shipyard required to build Carrier.
In a scenario, Shipyards are pre-placed to ensure that only certain cities can build Carriers.
Historical scenarios require that only certain units be built in certain cities.
It also adds a strategy of bombing a the city with the Shipyard in order to prevent the owner civ from building more Carriers. (This is something that cannot be done to Small Wonders AFAIK.
This particular example also has a bonus effect of preventing the AI from wasting time trying to build expensive units in tiny cities, thus forcing the AI to be more efficient by building inexpensive units in smaller cities.
I understand and agree that all features should be usable by the AI but in this case, the idea is to at least have the option. For modding, this feature would primarily be used to determine which units can be built in which cities (i.e. the improvements are pre-placed).
Example:
Shipyard required to build Carrier.
In a scenario, Shipyards are pre-placed to ensure that only certain cities can build Carriers.
Historical scenarios require that only certain units be built in certain cities.
It also adds a strategy of bombing a the city with the Shipyard in order to prevent the owner civ from building more Carriers. (This is something that cannot be done to Small Wonders AFAIK.
This particular example also has a bonus effect of preventing the AI from wasting time trying to build expensive units in tiny cities, thus forcing the AI to be more efficient by building inexpensive units in smaller cities.
Make so the AI attacks Armies even if they stand a very small chance to winning. At the moment you can have an army inside their lands and pillage everything without them attacking your army. This is a severly screwed up bug which needs fixing as soon as possible. As it is now, as soon as you get your first army you can totally obliterate your opponents since you can rush in and pillage all his resources without him attacking your army. Ugh.
Armies:
I'm not sure, but I think if you play at a higher difficulty level, the AI will use units in larger numbers to (i.e. bigger SoD).
I've found that when you're making an assault into enemy territory--with or without an Army--the AI tends to resign its units to cities, thus you're able to go about pillaging everything anyway and inevitably have to resign yourself to sieges using artillery to batter down the dozens of units stacked in the enemy cities...even though the enemy may even have a numerical advantage and could easily engage your units the moment they cross the border (meaning the AI 'knows' you're there).
The biggest problem I find with Armies is that the AI will simply not build them often enough:
I've even given them free Armies and nothing. They just refuse to load any of their units into the Army, even when they have plenty of units with Attack role (assuming the AI were to only load units into Armies where there is a surplus of units proportional to the number of cities).
New request:
Stealth Attack via Bombardment
I know this feature is designed for use by the attack factor but the fact is that air-to-ground combat is really where this best applies; air units attack from above therefore have the luxury of attacking any target on the ground--there is no way of defending weak targets if there are no AA units present.
That's the strategy--everything from Stukas dive-bombing T-34s to modern precison-guided missiles and drop-bombs destroying specific targets in groups on the ground with pin-point accuracy.
In short, air units have to be able to select units in a stack for bombardment. I know this would deviate from the standard interface but it's a popular--and logical--idea and shoudl be considered.
Similar Request:
Air Units can Target Specific City Improvements
Pretty much the same arguement as above, only in this case it's about strategic bombing of infrastructure--preventing the enemy from effectively making war in the first place. Another major strategy.
An interesting plus could be that units without Precision Bombing flag checked, may occasionally hit a different improvement, population, unit or miss altogether.
I figure that this somewhat exceeds 'simple modifications' but I figure I might as well put it on the table.
[Oh and again, do consider the 'Raze' flag mentioned earlier. It's rather important from us modders.
]
I'm not sure, but I think if you play at a higher difficulty level, the AI will use units in larger numbers to (i.e. bigger SoD).
I've found that when you're making an assault into enemy territory--with or without an Army--the AI tends to resign its units to cities, thus you're able to go about pillaging everything anyway and inevitably have to resign yourself to sieges using artillery to batter down the dozens of units stacked in the enemy cities...even though the enemy may even have a numerical advantage and could easily engage your units the moment they cross the border (meaning the AI 'knows' you're there).
The biggest problem I find with Armies is that the AI will simply not build them often enough:
I've even given them free Armies and nothing. They just refuse to load any of their units into the Army, even when they have plenty of units with Attack role (assuming the AI were to only load units into Armies where there is a surplus of units proportional to the number of cities).
New request:
Stealth Attack via Bombardment
I know this feature is designed for use by the attack factor but the fact is that air-to-ground combat is really where this best applies; air units attack from above therefore have the luxury of attacking any target on the ground--there is no way of defending weak targets if there are no AA units present.
That's the strategy--everything from Stukas dive-bombing T-34s to modern precison-guided missiles and drop-bombs destroying specific targets in groups on the ground with pin-point accuracy.
In short, air units have to be able to select units in a stack for bombardment. I know this would deviate from the standard interface but it's a popular--and logical--idea and shoudl be considered.
Similar Request:
Air Units can Target Specific City Improvements
Pretty much the same arguement as above, only in this case it's about strategic bombing of infrastructure--preventing the enemy from effectively making war in the first place. Another major strategy.
An interesting plus could be that units without Precision Bombing flag checked, may occasionally hit a different improvement, population, unit or miss altogether.
I figure that this somewhat exceeds 'simple modifications' but I figure I might as well put it on the table.
[Oh and again, do consider the 'Raze' flag mentioned earlier. It's rather important from us modders.
]
Drift
It's a boy!
For the last patch, please add "cannot capture cities" flag for the units tab in the editor.
It would allow:
- battering rams, siege towers
- air units in almost Civ2 style (land units with all terrain as roads)
- more variety for units, for example making tanks and such unable to capture cities.
This request has a wide support among the modders.
It would allow:
- battering rams, siege towers
- air units in almost Civ2 style (land units with all terrain as roads)
- more variety for units, for example making tanks and such unable to capture cities.
This request has a wide support among the modders.
Guitarkalle
Warlord
- Joined
- May 16, 2004
- Messages
- 104
Better multi-player please! Better net-code! That should be priority one!
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
In PBEM games, there are two problems I would like addressed.
1) First, the map is not visible at the beginning of your turn. When the game is cycling through the cities that have completed a unit (and ask for new build orders), it is difficult for me to remember which cities are which, without a visual of the city's position on the map. For a long time, I simply made my best guess of which cities were asking for build orders, and tried to go back and change them later (when the map came up). But often I was not able to locate all the cities that had received new build orders, and things often got built that weren't needed. My recent solution to this is to go through my cities at the end of my turns, using the Domestic Advisor screen. I'm able to locate all the build queues that have 1 turn remaining, and make informed decisions about what to build next. I'm not happy with this though, because it isn't necessary in any game modes except PBEM.
Perhaps most annoying about this "black map" feature at the beginning of turns, is that I completely miss any events that occur, such as a city's cultural influence expanding, or a WLTKD starting/ending. I hear the sound of the event, and there is a pause that lets me know something has happened, but I have no way of finding out what it was. Most perplexing!
Second, in PBEM games, the only human player who is able to see the moves of other civilizations, or of his own automatic moves, is the last human player in the lineup. In the games I play with my brother, I always give him the second position because it gives him a tactical advantage (and he needs it). Being the first player in the lineup, I never see any of my units' automatic moves at the end of my turn, and I never see the moves of any of my opponents. He has the privilege of seeing all of these. This is not so big of a deal in our games, but I imagine that in a game of two players of equal ability, it would give one a significant advantage.
The biggest advantage is in choosing whether to send the file to the next player, once your turn has ended. I'll give an example. Say my brother ends his turn, and then watches a neighboring Civ launch a surprise attack on one of his border cities. He would be stupid to send me that file. He could easily go back, retake his turn, fortify that city, and then save and send the file. I do not have this same advantage, since any attacks made on my troops will not be visible to me--not even at the beginning of my next turn!. I would propose a two-pronged solution to this problem:
A) In PBEM games, do not allow any players to view automatic moves and the moves of opponents after their turn is over, when the file saves. Obviously it would not be possible to allow all players to view the moves of the AI players after them, because there may be other human players separating them from some of the AI players. Removing this advantage from those who have it would be the proper solution. I suggest making the screen go black after "end turn and save" is selected. This would prevent players from deciding whether or not to retake their turn, based on events that occur after their turn is over.
B) It is needed for players to see their units' automatic moves, and the moves of opponents' units within their line of sight, before their turn occurs. I suggest giving a replay of these movements at the beginning of a player's turn, so that they can use this information to inform their gameplay. This would be especially critical for events such as a player declaring war on you--in the current game, the first player in a PBEM game will never get a message informing him that another player has declared war on him! Equal access to knowledge of these and other events for all human players is critical for balanced gameplay.
There is another problem which applies to all multiplayer games.
This is the lack of the "remove your troops or declare war" option from the player-to-player dialog. Currently, human players cannot tell others to leave their territory, and cannot force them to either leave or declare war. This must be remedied.
Thank you for your hard work, and for considering these requests. This is my favorite game and for the most part, everything works superbly.
EDIT: One last thing, and this is a feature request rather than an error report. It would make the game SO interesting if you made it possible for Land units to have a Land Transport flag for AI strategy. Thanks.
1) First, the map is not visible at the beginning of your turn. When the game is cycling through the cities that have completed a unit (and ask for new build orders), it is difficult for me to remember which cities are which, without a visual of the city's position on the map. For a long time, I simply made my best guess of which cities were asking for build orders, and tried to go back and change them later (when the map came up). But often I was not able to locate all the cities that had received new build orders, and things often got built that weren't needed. My recent solution to this is to go through my cities at the end of my turns, using the Domestic Advisor screen. I'm able to locate all the build queues that have 1 turn remaining, and make informed decisions about what to build next. I'm not happy with this though, because it isn't necessary in any game modes except PBEM.
Perhaps most annoying about this "black map" feature at the beginning of turns, is that I completely miss any events that occur, such as a city's cultural influence expanding, or a WLTKD starting/ending. I hear the sound of the event, and there is a pause that lets me know something has happened, but I have no way of finding out what it was. Most perplexing!
Second, in PBEM games, the only human player who is able to see the moves of other civilizations, or of his own automatic moves, is the last human player in the lineup. In the games I play with my brother, I always give him the second position because it gives him a tactical advantage (and he needs it). Being the first player in the lineup, I never see any of my units' automatic moves at the end of my turn, and I never see the moves of any of my opponents. He has the privilege of seeing all of these. This is not so big of a deal in our games, but I imagine that in a game of two players of equal ability, it would give one a significant advantage.
The biggest advantage is in choosing whether to send the file to the next player, once your turn has ended. I'll give an example. Say my brother ends his turn, and then watches a neighboring Civ launch a surprise attack on one of his border cities. He would be stupid to send me that file. He could easily go back, retake his turn, fortify that city, and then save and send the file. I do not have this same advantage, since any attacks made on my troops will not be visible to me--not even at the beginning of my next turn!. I would propose a two-pronged solution to this problem:
A) In PBEM games, do not allow any players to view automatic moves and the moves of opponents after their turn is over, when the file saves. Obviously it would not be possible to allow all players to view the moves of the AI players after them, because there may be other human players separating them from some of the AI players. Removing this advantage from those who have it would be the proper solution. I suggest making the screen go black after "end turn and save" is selected. This would prevent players from deciding whether or not to retake their turn, based on events that occur after their turn is over.
B) It is needed for players to see their units' automatic moves, and the moves of opponents' units within their line of sight, before their turn occurs. I suggest giving a replay of these movements at the beginning of a player's turn, so that they can use this information to inform their gameplay. This would be especially critical for events such as a player declaring war on you--in the current game, the first player in a PBEM game will never get a message informing him that another player has declared war on him! Equal access to knowledge of these and other events for all human players is critical for balanced gameplay.
There is another problem which applies to all multiplayer games.
This is the lack of the "remove your troops or declare war" option from the player-to-player dialog. Currently, human players cannot tell others to leave their territory, and cannot force them to either leave or declare war. This must be remedied.
Thank you for your hard work, and for considering these requests. This is my favorite game and for the most part, everything works superbly.
EDIT: One last thing, and this is a feature request rather than an error report. It would make the game SO interesting if you made it possible for Land units to have a Land Transport flag for AI strategy. Thanks.
