Civ III: Conquests Patch Fix Request
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
Gojira54
The folly of Man
It's already out, man. And instead of fixing existing bugs they brought on a slew of new ones, Stick with 1.15 beta.
Its already been mentioned on this thread several times before, but I feel the need to second (or tenth or whatever its up to now) the motion:
Please fix the sub bug Firaxis. That should be way up on the list of priorities. I think everyone can agree that this is a bug that has NO place in the game, whereas there is a lot of disagreement over taking out Radio. Fix the important stuff FIRST, then come back and make stupid tweaks to the tech tree if you want.
Please fix the sub bug Firaxis. That should be way up on the list of priorities. I think everyone can agree that this is a bug that has NO place in the game, whereas there is a lot of disagreement over taking out Radio. Fix the important stuff FIRST, then come back and make stupid tweaks to the tech tree if you want.
I agree: fixes come first (especially that one.)
This is a VERY reasonable request! Ive read many a post that has the AI continuously razing cities for no apparent reason (although Im sure there is one). So in a sense, this is also a bug. In the vanilla game, this is somewhat less noticeable but in a scenario, AI razing can literally break the game. One way of avoiding this is to uncheck the Pillage flag for most unitspillaging is apparently directly connected to razingbut that removes a crucial strategy from the game and should not be necessary when just adding Raze to the list of unit flags is a more preferable alternative, and is probably among the easiest additions you can make when limited to a downloadable patch. I can assure you that modders, at least, would be very grateful.
As for my personal request (I know I've requested extravagant things in the past, but I think this should be acceptable):
Presently, units with Outpost, Radar Tower and/or Airbase build order flags checked are automatically lost upon completion of the respective tile improvement.
I request that this feature (unit lost) be optional by allowing players to toggle it on or off.
This implies a Unit Lost flag in the Worker Jobs screen of the Editor that, when checked for the selected Worker Job, will cause the unit to be lost. If the flag is un-checked, the selected job will not trigger the units disappearance.
Additionally, I would like to request that Colony be added to the list of Worker Jobs.
FYI: previously opened a thread/poll about this here (note that the poll itself may be misleading).
This is a VERY reasonable request! Ive read many a post that has the AI continuously razing cities for no apparent reason (although Im sure there is one). So in a sense, this is also a bug. In the vanilla game, this is somewhat less noticeable but in a scenario, AI razing can literally break the game. One way of avoiding this is to uncheck the Pillage flag for most unitspillaging is apparently directly connected to razingbut that removes a crucial strategy from the game and should not be necessary when just adding Raze to the list of unit flags is a more preferable alternative, and is probably among the easiest additions you can make when limited to a downloadable patch. I can assure you that modders, at least, would be very grateful.
As for my personal request (I know I've requested extravagant things in the past, but I think this should be acceptable):
Presently, units with Outpost, Radar Tower and/or Airbase build order flags checked are automatically lost upon completion of the respective tile improvement.
I request that this feature (unit lost) be optional by allowing players to toggle it on or off.
This implies a Unit Lost flag in the Worker Jobs screen of the Editor that, when checked for the selected Worker Job, will cause the unit to be lost. If the flag is un-checked, the selected job will not trigger the units disappearance.
Additionally, I would like to request that Colony be added to the list of Worker Jobs.
FYI: previously opened a thread/poll about this here (note that the poll itself may be misleading).
microbe
Cascaded Mansion
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,596
It's a reasonable request on its own, but not when there are must-fix pending.
Please, people, refrain from raising new requests and confusing poor Firaxis even more. They don't have proper product and feature management. If you give them 100 items to do, they will pick up the least needed and do it wrong.
Let's just give them the most important ones which are the true bugs.
1. submarine
2. scientific age
and not even mention other things until these bugs are sorted out.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I agree with microbe. Let them fix the two bugs mentioned by him and push them to sell the rights of the game to another company.
You are forgeting that this is a request and bug fix thread. As Tavis stated in the third post:
Therefore Yoshi and others can post requests if they what to.
Editor changes do not effect the main game for most players so IMHO are reasonable. Only Firaxis know if they are easy or difficult to implement.
Myself - although I am not a mod creater I think editor options are always better than hardcoding. Therefore I agree with Yoshi.
microbe
Cascaded Mansion
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,596
I hate to have said this too many times, but haven't people learned from the reality yet?
What Tavis said does not matter. Whether the proposed "fix" / "enhancement" should affect the main game does not matter. What matters is the final quality of the patch. The keywords are priority and limited resources.
Poeple have said "removing Radio from the tech tree should improve gameplay and not mess up" but they did. People have said "this/that little improvement should be trivial" but the end result is the real bugs haven't been resolved.
If Firaxsis had demonstrated their alibity to fix bugs in a timely fashion I'd be all for enhancements. But this has been shown many times not true. We've been waiting patiently and now it's 1.22 the submarine bug and scientific age bug are still there.
I have to admit the community has all the rights to request anything, and it's the game company's responsibility to filter and decide what is the priority. However with so many patches out and no sign of fixing a couple of true bugs but fiddling with arguable "tweaks" instead, I think they failed to do so and the community should learn to refrain from pushing them further in that direction to help them regain the focus.
Justinian III
Emperor
deleteme
Justinian III
Emperor
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
We know that last patch will porbably be in June.
That means one extra patch at most (or two if we are very lucky).
So, it there is a time to post a suggestion it's NOW.
Otherwise it's too late.
EDIT:
My suggestion to reduce worker slowdown in late game:
Add Stacked Worker Actions options in preference many.
When it's turned on, when any worker starts some action, all other idle workers at same tile would start it too.
I think it's easy to code.
That means one extra patch at most (or two if we are very lucky).
So, it there is a time to post a suggestion it's NOW.
Otherwise it's too late.
EDIT:
My suggestion to reduce worker slowdown in late game:
Add Stacked Worker Actions options in preference many.
When it's turned on, when any worker starts some action, all other idle workers at same tile would start it too.
I think it's easy to code.
And I thought I was pessimistic! 
Seriously, I agree entirely with microbes comment concerning bugs: they must be addressed before anything else I would think it to be a matter of maintaining product quality if for not just for the sake of better play and player satisfaction. I really cant think why some of these bugs havent been addressed except that perhaps the sci fix, for instance, involves more work than we are aware of (doesnt seem likely though). Either, way these issues should take precedence over anything else. After all, thats what free downloadable patches are primarily developed for any extra goodies come second.
That said, I stick with my request and hope to see it in some future patch or XP (a guy can dream cant he?) because as Harrier said, editor options are better than hard-coding --which is absolutely the right way to go about it IMO and for the most part, does not seem to exceed the parameters of simple modifications.
Really? When was this said? (Because its almost June nowtwo months are nothingand even the simplest bugs take time to fix, let alone additions that require more extensive programming, testing, etc.)
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Somewere in the forums.
try search
That was stated before in time of 1.12 beta that final (last) patch will be in June.
try search
That was stated before in time of 1.12 beta that final (last) patch will be in June.
madman1981
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 78
If that is true, I'm very disappointed. No programmer with some credibility will stop while his work is unfinished and flawed. I love Civ3 and C3C but there are still issues.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
By the way, as far as I know, both vanilla and PtW had 9 months patch support time.
And compared to other games, we could be considered extremly lucky.
Some other games have even just 2-3 months of patch support time.
And compared to other games, we could be considered extremly lucky.
Some other games have even just 2-3 months of patch support time.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
And as far as I know Civ3 is not flawed.
Just sub and SGL bugs are more serious.
And several minor ones (like civilopedia errors).
Just sub and SGL bugs are more serious.
And several minor ones (like civilopedia errors).
madman1981
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 78
Well at least you finish the job. Even if it takes 3-4 years.
Well, I don't see why those bugs shouldn't be addressed before the deadline (?). If not, it could be worse.
In the meantime, I'd like to add another patch request
:
Strategic and Luxury Resources 'Depletion' Field (Determines the maximum number of turns of use before resource disappears. This excludes the existing Disappearance Probability field --they are mutually exclusive so you can only use one for the selected resource.)
This implies the addition of an optional field in the Natural Resources screen of the Editor. The value is the # of turns before the resource disappears.
I mention this because it seems simple enough (although I haven't thought it out as much as the previous request, so it may have some exploits). Simple because there's already the random seed field that causes the resource to disappear, so the program would probably be using a similar amount of CPU time. The only difference is that the new field uses a fixed integer. Being able to calculate disappearance is quite a useful tool to have when designing scenarios --you don't want too many wildcards (unpredictable results) in certain games, especially where something as strategic as a required resource is concerned.
In the vanilla game: if it has to be included, designers could apply this to a new resource and if it's not worth the balancing of a new resource well, they aren't above getting players to contribute to small features like that. The simplest application would obviously be a Luxury Resource instead of a Strategic Resource.
The only possible exploit I can think of is the human player taking advantage of timing and calculating when the AI's resource(s) would run out when planning an attack --something that the AI would not do.
I know this sounds odd coming from someone who is always complaining about slow turn rate--new features like this would just cost more CPU time--but I figure it's worth the extra 5 seconds while the program calculates turns to resource depletion while scrolling though each tile.
[I dunno, even one more field may be a bit much for just a free patch --especially considering that work is probably being focused on bugs (or so one assumes). But then, Firaxis has included substantial new features in previous patches while also dealing with bugs and these releases are making quite a Sid-load of cash, so some new features are to be expected. It's really just a question of which one's are actually needed for the game to play well IMO. Hence, my requests will quite probably be overlooked because the vanilla game ALWAYS comes first.]
Okay, I'm done.
In the meantime, I'd like to add another patch request
:Strategic and Luxury Resources 'Depletion' Field (Determines the maximum number of turns of use before resource disappears. This excludes the existing Disappearance Probability field --they are mutually exclusive so you can only use one for the selected resource.)
This implies the addition of an optional field in the Natural Resources screen of the Editor. The value is the # of turns before the resource disappears.
I mention this because it seems simple enough (although I haven't thought it out as much as the previous request, so it may have some exploits). Simple because there's already the random seed field that causes the resource to disappear, so the program would probably be using a similar amount of CPU time. The only difference is that the new field uses a fixed integer. Being able to calculate disappearance is quite a useful tool to have when designing scenarios --you don't want too many wildcards (unpredictable results) in certain games, especially where something as strategic as a required resource is concerned.
In the vanilla game: if it has to be included, designers could apply this to a new resource and if it's not worth the balancing of a new resource well, they aren't above getting players to contribute to small features like that. The simplest application would obviously be a Luxury Resource instead of a Strategic Resource.
The only possible exploit I can think of is the human player taking advantage of timing and calculating when the AI's resource(s) would run out when planning an attack --something that the AI would not do.
I know this sounds odd coming from someone who is always complaining about slow turn rate--new features like this would just cost more CPU time--but I figure it's worth the extra 5 seconds while the program calculates turns to resource depletion while scrolling though each tile.
[I dunno, even one more field may be a bit much for just a free patch --especially considering that work is probably being focused on bugs (or so one assumes). But then, Firaxis has included substantial new features in previous patches while also dealing with bugs and these releases are making quite a Sid-load of cash, so some new features are to be expected. It's really just a question of which one's are actually needed for the game to play well IMO. Hence, my requests will quite probably be overlooked because the vanilla game ALWAYS comes first.]
Okay, I'm done.
unscratchedfoot
War is a good thing.
Gentlemen,
This may have been mentioned already somewhere in the murky depths of the previous countless pages, but it is a game killer.
Negotiating is flawed by reputation problems.
One case is a civ is being overrun by another so I help out the losing civ by providing a strategic resource so it can continue to build units to defend with. After the civ I was helping has been extinguished by the aggressor, my reputation is destroyed because the resource I was donating for free could no longer be sent once the civ was destroyed. It makes no sense that I am penalized with a permanent reputation as a 'cheat and liar'. Should I keep supplying the resource to a museum dedicated to the memory of the civ?
Second case is I pay off a friendly civ to help me in a war against an enemy civ. But on the next turn, one of the members of my locked alliance suddenly makes peace with the enemy civ This destroyed my rep because I had just paid off another civ to help me fight that enemy and I was unknowly removed from the war leaving my supporter to fight alone. I can appreciate this case done on purpose is very dirty, just like suddenly leaving a restaurant forcing my dinner mates to cover my bill but I had no part in the peace making. Why do I get a rep hit? I wanted the war to continue and I cannot know when my allies are about to make peace. After this mishap, I could never make another deal with any civ again.
In conclusion, there needs to be some 'if, then else' clauses written into the code concerning reputation tarnishing to protect the player from cases not his fault.
Thanks for your time.
This may have been mentioned already somewhere in the murky depths of the previous countless pages, but it is a game killer.
Negotiating is flawed by reputation problems.
One case is a civ is being overrun by another so I help out the losing civ by providing a strategic resource so it can continue to build units to defend with. After the civ I was helping has been extinguished by the aggressor, my reputation is destroyed because the resource I was donating for free could no longer be sent once the civ was destroyed. It makes no sense that I am penalized with a permanent reputation as a 'cheat and liar'. Should I keep supplying the resource to a museum dedicated to the memory of the civ?
Second case is I pay off a friendly civ to help me in a war against an enemy civ. But on the next turn, one of the members of my locked alliance suddenly makes peace with the enemy civ This destroyed my rep because I had just paid off another civ to help me fight that enemy and I was unknowly removed from the war leaving my supporter to fight alone. I can appreciate this case done on purpose is very dirty, just like suddenly leaving a restaurant forcing my dinner mates to cover my bill but I had no part in the peace making. Why do I get a rep hit? I wanted the war to continue and I cannot know when my allies are about to make peace. After this mishap, I could never make another deal with any civ again.
In conclusion, there needs to be some 'if, then else' clauses written into the code concerning reputation tarnishing to protect the player from cases not his fault.
Thanks for your time.
blackhalo15
Booby Pie
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 209
I am playing a scenario, well, WAS playing a scenario, when the game just exited. I didn't clikc a thing. The screen just went back to the desktop. The autosave is to big to attach. How can I post it?
