Justinian III
Emperor
I did not specify i was reffering to PBEM,
in fact, PBEM is the ONLY secure way to play the game. 1.15 
Civ III: Conquests Patch Fix Request
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
I did not specify i was reffering to PBEM,
in fact, PBEM is the ONLY secure way to play the game. 1.15
Justinian III
Emperor
Originally posted by anarres
Justinian III, commercial *does* decrease corruption!
I did some quick math, and CANNOT find that Commercial LOWERS Corruption.
Justinian III
Emperor
deleteme
Grille
panel insect
Originally posted by Justinian III
I did some quick math, and CANNOT find that Commercial LOWERS Corruption.
I think your 'quick math' has a bug...
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Corruption trait increases the OCN and therefore decreases corruption....
And there *is* a terrible bug in PBEM mode in all PTW and C3C up to version 1.15, and it is not secure.
And there *is* a terrible bug in PBEM mode in all PTW and C3C up to version 1.15, and it is not secure.
Justinian III
Emperor
*****Defencive Bonus*****
when u right click the Terrain and it gives u the details, it should also list the Current Defencive Bonus availble. A Mountain would say, +100%, but a Mountain with a Fort on it would say, + 150%
That would be Cool
when u right click the Terrain and it gives u the details, it should also list the Current Defencive Bonus availble. A Mountain would say, +100%, but a Mountain with a Fort on it would say, + 150%
That would be Cool
Justinian III
Emperor
Originally posted by Grille
I think your 'quick math' has a bug...
Can u or ANYONE, give me the percentage of the Corruption for a commercial civ, and the Corruption percentage of a NON-Commercial civ???
Roland Johansen
Deity
The Commercial trait increases the Optimal City Number (OCN) by 25%. This means that you can create approximately 25% more cities before corruption becomes rampant (all cities created after this optimal number of cities will be almost totally corrupt).
You will notice this most when your empire becomes "large", although there are also some effect before your empire becomes "large".
This article by Alexman gave a very good description of the corruption calculations in PTW and is probably still largely correct for the effects of the commercial ability on corruption.
You will notice this most when your empire becomes "large", although there are also some effect before your empire becomes "large".
This article by Alexman gave a very good description of the corruption calculations in PTW and is probably still largely correct for the effects of the commercial ability on corruption.
Grille
panel insect
or, just refer to alexman's latest great corruption article which applies to C3C:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=76619&pagenumber=1
Commercial get a higher 'Nopt' (sort of a "modified" or "effective" OCN) , so, like Roland said, they could have more cities (read: ranks) before stronger rank-related corruption kicks in.
But note that commercial even get less rank-corruption if the actual city's rank is well under the 'rampant limit'. So comparing a commercial and non-commercial city under the same circumstances (same rank, diff level, map size, both have courthouses etc etc), even with a low rank, should yield to a better result for the commercial civ. That's because rank corruption is a function of Nopt^(-1) [and rank]. So the higher Nopt, the lower that corruption part.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=76619&pagenumber=1
Commercial get a higher 'Nopt' (sort of a "modified" or "effective" OCN) , so, like Roland said, they could have more cities (read: ranks) before stronger rank-related corruption kicks in.
But note that commercial even get less rank-corruption if the actual city's rank is well under the 'rampant limit'. So comparing a commercial and non-commercial city under the same circumstances (same rank, diff level, map size, both have courthouses etc etc), even with a low rank, should yield to a better result for the commercial civ. That's because rank corruption is a function of Nopt^(-1) [and rank]. So the higher Nopt, the lower that corruption part.
Roland Johansen
Deity
Hey, I didn't see that article yet. Thank you Grille.
Grille
panel insect
No prob, but it's alexman et al who really deserve the honor for yet another great article about corruption.
In fact, it should go into the War Academy ASAP.
In fact, it should go into the War Academy ASAP.
Roland Johansen
Deity
You're correct. Alexman et al again wrote a great article. I'm reading it right now. I read they even got some inside information. Very nice!
And you're right, it should go into the War Academy, although not everybody will like the athematical formulas
And you're right, it should go into the War Academy, although not everybody will like the athematical formulas
Justinian III
Emperor
ok then, I guess that answers that.
Justinian III
Emperor
***** Good Idea *****
when i push the desktop icon while playing civ3 and open another window, could u make it so Civ3 does not automaticly popup when i close the other window. That would be nice for when at work.
when i push the desktop icon while playing civ3 and open another window, could u make it so Civ3 does not automaticly popup when i close the other window. That would be nice for when at work.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Umm. You can't change that in an application like Civ3.
The application is always active if it is the only one, and this is not changable unless it becomes windowed, which (for technical reasons) it won't.
The application is always active if it is the only one, and this is not changable unless it becomes windowed, which (for technical reasons) it won't.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,287
Definitively the only improvments i would want to see past 1.15 are:
- Stack Bombard/Auto-Bombard new command.
- Unload All new command. (when the transport have not enough move so that we must unload one by one) Plus it would be VERY usefull in multiplayer. Or make it possible to stack-move from a transport. What about to add a non-move bonus movement point to all transport units only when they reach their destination as a coast for example?
- Return of the former quick battle in single player. (otherwise it is a "dont show battles" option)
- Stack Bombard/Auto-Bombard new command.
- Unload All new command. (when the transport have not enough move so that we must unload one by one) Plus it would be VERY usefull in multiplayer. Or make it possible to stack-move from a transport. What about to add a non-move bonus movement point to all transport units only when they reach their destination as a coast for example?
- Return of the former quick battle in single player. (otherwise it is a "dont show battles" option)
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I would like the idea of 'projectile' units being enhanced in the following way:
Imagine, you own or have conquered a town, in which now the invading army and some of your artillery units are garrisoned (artillery = bowmen, catapults, .... artillery, and so on).
Now, if the enemy attacks, just one of all those 'projectile' units fires upon it. Very often, it misses. So, the defensive bombardment is of little benefit.
My idea would be, to have all 'projectile' units fire at the attacker, until it reaches 1 HP. Additionally, the attacker after that would have lost all mp's (to hinder it just from running away again).
Of course, for the next attacker there would be no more or less 'projectile' units to fire upon, but this would simulate the attack waves...
The benefit of my proposal would be found in the following case:
You just took a town with two of your attacking units left. Since your artillery would be left undefended in the open field, you move it into that town again (let's say, five artilleries). At the next turn, the enemy counter-attacks with an army of three fast-moving units. One of your artilleries fires upon it, then your gunners go to lunch, while the enemy army chops down your two 'normal' units, taking the town back and getting the five artilleries as a bonus.
If all five would have had fired, there would be a good chance that the army wouldn't have succeeded, thus you would have hold that town, and all units would have participated at the fight, as it would be expected.
Furthermore, since the enemy army was subject to heavy bombardment, it's attack broke down and it's rests have dug into the ground, just in front of your troops.
At the next turn it is your decision whether you will give them the final blow (could result in weakening the city defenses) or if you spare your troops for further defense (then, of course, the army could retreat and recover in their own territory).
If the enemy would have attacked with one cavalry, that one would have been redlined as well. Maybe even a second cavalry would have suffered the same fate, but for the third army there would have been no artillery left.
Anyway, it would have become very costly to attack artillery-protected areas.
Imagine, you own or have conquered a town, in which now the invading army and some of your artillery units are garrisoned (artillery = bowmen, catapults, .... artillery, and so on).
Now, if the enemy attacks, just one of all those 'projectile' units fires upon it. Very often, it misses. So, the defensive bombardment is of little benefit.
My idea would be, to have all 'projectile' units fire at the attacker, until it reaches 1 HP. Additionally, the attacker after that would have lost all mp's (to hinder it just from running away again).
Of course, for the next attacker there would be no more or less 'projectile' units to fire upon, but this would simulate the attack waves...
The benefit of my proposal would be found in the following case:
You just took a town with two of your attacking units left. Since your artillery would be left undefended in the open field, you move it into that town again (let's say, five artilleries). At the next turn, the enemy counter-attacks with an army of three fast-moving units. One of your artilleries fires upon it, then your gunners go to lunch, while the enemy army chops down your two 'normal' units, taking the town back and getting the five artilleries as a bonus.
If all five would have had fired, there would be a good chance that the army wouldn't have succeeded, thus you would have hold that town, and all units would have participated at the fight, as it would be expected.
Furthermore, since the enemy army was subject to heavy bombardment, it's attack broke down and it's rests have dug into the ground, just in front of your troops.
At the next turn it is your decision whether you will give them the final blow (could result in weakening the city defenses) or if you spare your troops for further defense (then, of course, the army could retreat and recover in their own territory).
If the enemy would have attacked with one cavalry, that one would have been redlined as well. Maybe even a second cavalry would have suffered the same fate, but for the third army there would have been no artillery left.
Anyway, it would have become very costly to attack artillery-protected areas.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Arty is already very overpowered. This change would jut tip the balance further.
For me gameplay beats realism anyday - the game requires enough imagination, a little more is no big thing.
For me gameplay beats realism anyday - the game requires enough imagination, a little more is no big thing.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
...hmmm....
Although I agree upon the fact that gameplay (aka: fun) overrides 'realism' I just don't see where my proposal would be less fun
In case of SOD-attacks the outcome would probably the same as for the current system (except for the first unit which would be stopped), whilst it would minimize the effect of 'negative' "streaks" in the battle calculation for single units.
In MP games, it would cause the need to have a well-prepared attack (since you would have to get the fire onto the first [less important] waves). In SP games, it would not affect the AI too much, since it attacks in all kinds of possibilities (sometimes with SOD's, sometimes with single units and with everything in between). For the human player, it would even mean a (very) little disadvantage, since he has to expect that one of the attackers would have to stay outside the town, thus exposing it to any kind of counter attack.
I have to admit, that it would cause code modification, about the impact of that I have no idea - it might be very easy or just almost impossible, who knows?
But afterall, I think it would add a little bit more strategical understanding. Just a bit of it, so that everyone would be able to make the necessary thoughts about how to handle this.
Justinian III
Emperor
****** Auto Recon ******
The only Auto Command I would use is Auto Recon. That would be real nice. So I dont have to recon everyturn!
The only Auto Command I would use is Auto Recon. That would be real nice. So I dont have to recon everyturn!
