Civilization III v1.16f Additions/Changes/Fixes
- Thread starter Jeffrey Morris
- Start date
KALIROB2k2
God of War
This is an online forum not a dictatorship Endureth, people are bound to make normal post now and then. You cant stop that, not to mention it is a free country, if you dont like these post then just dont read them its that simple.
Civilizator
Chieftain
Is there anything in the patch about upgrading units in armies?
thx
thx
Endureth's right. If you haven't anything productive to offer ... don't. Important points, and important suggestions are getting lost in the midst of all this nonsense. Who's gonna wade through pages of crap in the hope of picking out the good points.
He means it can only be under construction at one city at a time within a civiliztion, like each wonder can only be under construction at one such at a time.
Quboid
Chieftain
Originally posted by KALIROB2k2
This is an online forum not a dictatorship Endureth, people are bound to make normal post now and then. You cant stop that, not to mention it is a free country, if you dont like these post then just dont read them its that simple.
What country is a free country? The board should be a dictatorship. I read this thread looking for info about the patch and after two pages I couldn't find much apart from flames. Mods are there to keep the peace and to keep it on topic. There is an off topic forum for people to flame and talk about whatever they want.
Anyway, they're both right and wrong IMHO. Mike C is making too much of it, but he's right that just because other games are worse doesn't mean this one's OK. But who cares.
I like that stock exchange idea, although it might be hard to implement. Also, a trade screen would be a great help!
FM_Freyland
Vote with your wallets!
After careful review, I am unclear why you (Jeff Morris) chose to quote me for your "Screw you if you're abusive" post. I see no "threats, slander or personal attacks" in my posting. Would you be kind enough to clarify?
Nomad-Wanderer, I think it was you pages back that compared this game to others released with more bugs... no offence, but so what. I paid for a game that should have been tested more thoroughly. Yes, playable. Yes, better than some games released. So what. I would like a buck back for each bug that affects gameplay, and should have been found in Q/A.
Iron Chef, nice post.
Constantovas (forgive me if I blew the name, not intentional slight), I feel your comparisons are more an attempt to justify why it is okay for people to produce shoddy work. Besides, you should have taken back the McDonalds sandwich.
Guys, I am a doctor. People pay me real money to make them better, save their lives and generally prevent disease. I have an obligation to them to keep up to date, to treat them properly, and essentially give them their money's worth. I know you would want/expect the same from your doctor. Why can't I expect that from my game makers? So please, leave alone Mike C and anyone else that wants the products they paid good money for to work when they make a complaint. Yes, personal attacks bad. Criticism, however, is both valid and a right.
Jonathan Windeler, M.D.
Iron Chef
Contrary by Nature
True enough, we did waste about a page on Mike C (but he deserved it). Of course, if Endureth was referring to my "keen writing skills" (he probably wasn't), I'll take the compliment. Oh, and thanks for the compliment, doc. By the way, it hurts my arm when I do this... Ba-dum-bump...ching!
On topic
One thing that might be patch-worthy as an addition: would it be possible to make the "active" trading screen display, for example, not only that my 30gold per turn in exchange for furs will run out in 17 turns, but that it will run out in 1953 AD? I think that's something that would be pretty helpful with a second patch. I wouldn't mind that for production as well. Hey, I can do the math, but I'd rather not. Maybe that could be a preference that you could turn on or off.
On topic
One thing that might be patch-worthy as an addition: would it be possible to make the "active" trading screen display, for example, not only that my 30gold per turn in exchange for furs will run out in 17 turns, but that it will run out in 1953 AD? I think that's something that would be pretty helpful with a second patch. I wouldn't mind that for production as well. Hey, I can do the math, but I'd rather not. Maybe that could be a preference that you could turn on or off.
Iron Chef
Contrary by Nature
Not sure if this is a bug or a feature. I noticed, for example, that one can't upgrade to unique units, i.e., all civilizations with horsemen can upgrade to knights except for the Japanese, Indians and the Chinese, who have to build their unique units (Samurai, War Elephant and Rider) from scratch. Does anyone know if it was designed this way (for game balance) or is it a bug? I think I may have posted this before, but never got an answer.
Andre_Bolkonsky
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 7
One major question in this vein:
Will the patch make ANY provisions for accelleration the potential for leader promotion? It's very aggrivating to not be able to field armies to try some things because it's sometimes almost impossible to get the guys promoted!!!!!!!!
Thanks.
Will the patch make ANY provisions for accelleration the potential for leader promotion? It's very aggrivating to not be able to field armies to try some things because it's sometimes almost impossible to get the guys promoted!!!!!!!!
Thanks.
WarandPeace
Warlord
this thread is on fire
Morten Blaabjerg
Settler
What on earth does this mean? Sounds really strange to me. Does this mean that planting and deforesting is no longer viable? That's a pity. The way it worked was pretty ok, if you ask me.
Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
Firaxian
This is intentional.
Dan
Shyly sticking his oar into the water and thus risking a flaming death, he asks-
There has been a lot of commentary in the General Discussions formum about "weak" ancient units wasting "vastly more powerful" units an apparantly improbable amount of time- the old "swordsmans vs. tanks" issue. (For me, it's been more like warriors vs. Riflemem, but the issue is the same.) I agree with many of the posters that there SHOULD be some chance of these older units "winning" (for no other reason then game balance and a tiny fighting chance for the underdog) but I also agree with most others that this should be a VERY SMALL chance ... and maybe WINNING for a warrior is getting a hit point or two of damage to a more modern unit. Yea, maybe occassionally (VERY ocasionally) a tank will get caught in a defile or something, but hey, when swordsmen advance across even a small open area (or even in congested terrain), they are gonna DIE when the machine guns start going off. This was learned at Ypres, the Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele etc. (Can we say World War ONE?). (Yea, I agree, artillery really HELPED the machine guns, but that too supports the case- the swordsmen don't have any!) Anyway to stay OT, whats Firaxis's position about this in the patch? I didn't see anything that seemed to be in this arena. To avoid the deaths of 2 or 3 or 4 advanced units IN A ROW are we still looking at
(A) Giving everybody 4X hit points over their current level or
(B) Boosting the Attack/Defense factors of "newer" units (say 1.5X for Middle ages, 2.0X for Industrial and 2.5X for Modern era?
I leave unasked things like Naval warfare (a BB having only 50% more attack strength then a DD, and a DD being equal to an AEGIS CA??!!), and the REAL insanity of aircraft being unable to sink ships.
Beyond that, I must say I appreciate Firaxis working on fixing the problems they have addressed according to the post by Jeff at the start of this thread. (I wish it had ben a little faster, but what the hey ... we ARE getting the patch!) They have made a game that was missing a little potential, into something that lives up to it's heritage a bit better. However, I challenge Firaxis to go the next step and make this game, which is very very good, into one which is VERY VERY GREAT!
Lets face it, Civ "X" rules, compared to most computer games, but Civ 3 CAN BE SO MUCH MORE.
NOW, anyone got any input on my question about the patch and improbable combat outcomes??
And we Thank you for your attention ...
There has been a lot of commentary in the General Discussions formum about "weak" ancient units wasting "vastly more powerful" units an apparantly improbable amount of time- the old "swordsmans vs. tanks" issue. (For me, it's been more like warriors vs. Riflemem, but the issue is the same.) I agree with many of the posters that there SHOULD be some chance of these older units "winning" (for no other reason then game balance and a tiny fighting chance for the underdog) but I also agree with most others that this should be a VERY SMALL chance ... and maybe WINNING for a warrior is getting a hit point or two of damage to a more modern unit. Yea, maybe occassionally (VERY ocasionally) a tank will get caught in a defile or something, but hey, when swordsmen advance across even a small open area (or even in congested terrain), they are gonna DIE when the machine guns start going off. This was learned at Ypres, the Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele etc. (Can we say World War ONE?). (Yea, I agree, artillery really HELPED the machine guns, but that too supports the case- the swordsmen don't have any!) Anyway to stay OT, whats Firaxis's position about this in the patch? I didn't see anything that seemed to be in this arena. To avoid the deaths of 2 or 3 or 4 advanced units IN A ROW are we still looking at
(A) Giving everybody 4X hit points over their current level or
(B) Boosting the Attack/Defense factors of "newer" units (say 1.5X for Middle ages, 2.0X for Industrial and 2.5X for Modern era?
I leave unasked things like Naval warfare (a BB having only 50% more attack strength then a DD, and a DD being equal to an AEGIS CA??!!), and the REAL insanity of aircraft being unable to sink ships.
Beyond that, I must say I appreciate Firaxis working on fixing the problems they have addressed according to the post by Jeff at the start of this thread. (I wish it had ben a little faster, but what the hey ... we ARE getting the patch!) They have made a game that was missing a little potential, into something that lives up to it's heritage a bit better. However, I challenge Firaxis to go the next step and make this game, which is very very good, into one which is VERY VERY GREAT!
Lets face it, Civ "X" rules, compared to most computer games, but Civ 3 CAN BE SO MUCH MORE.
NOW, anyone got any input on my question about the patch and improbable combat outcomes??
And we Thank you for your attention ...
argolite
Chieftain
I hear your observation about slow leader promotions. Too often, I stay in wars just to get that damned first leader, only to get not a one and waste tens of elite units, while another civ gets lucky in one battle and starts cranking out them Armies like a sausage factory. Nevertheless, I see no reason to change this. Its part of the game. If it gets too easy, then where's the fun?
Maybe it too can be changed in the editor. Will check that one. But I have noticed that attacks in the open yield more promotions than on cities.
As for the patch, looks like a lot of stuff was fixed, and all and all, its being released a lot sooner than I feared. Apart from all the colorful text being exchanged around, I have to agree that Air Superiority was a serious bug, considering the AI's infatuation with vast bomber fleets. Serious, but still playable. The game's worst bug had to be the System IO bugs, with citiless civs surviving by the skin of their last settler, only to crash my saves when they died.
Since there is a lot of punctuation errors that were fixed, maybe something can be done about the overlapping text in the defense minister's screen?
Maybe it too can be changed in the editor. Will check that one. But I have noticed that attacks in the open yield more promotions than on cities.
As for the patch, looks like a lot of stuff was fixed, and all and all, its being released a lot sooner than I feared. Apart from all the colorful text being exchanged around, I have to agree that Air Superiority was a serious bug, considering the AI's infatuation with vast bomber fleets. Serious, but still playable. The game's worst bug had to be the System IO bugs, with citiless civs surviving by the skin of their last settler, only to crash my saves when they died.
Since there is a lot of punctuation errors that were fixed, maybe something can be done about the overlapping text in the defense minister's screen?
KALIROB2k2
God of War
Does anyone have an idea yet if the battles are more balanced with the update? (meaning that a Phalanx cant beat a Tank anymore, or at least less often as before) Less a flip of a coin and more a role of a dice perhaps? Probably just wishful thinking though. 
I agree with Morten on the deforestation issue. Let's look at the issue...
It's kinda realistic. In today's world this method isn't practiced to the degree it should be, if it was, resources would be more readily available, but it is costly. It's a lot more expensive to plant more trees that it is just to cut existing ones down. It also takes time but there are benefits to doing this however.
The reason they took it out was because it was too easy for players to get shields and it unbalanced the game, but what if multiple workers didn't speed the growth of forest. No matter how many workers you assigned to that task, it still took 4 turns to plant the forest (you could still gang bang cutting them down though).
I think this would please both sides. It would still be an option in the game but wouldn't be overly powerful. It could even be a command you could give to workers which would set them in a cycle. If it was a command, the computer would be able to do it also (which kinda scares me).
It can also be risky, especially when multi-player comes out. I would hate to get my worker army captured doing this.
Let's not just take it out and call it a bug when it could end up being a real "feature"?
Endureth
It's kinda realistic. In today's world this method isn't practiced to the degree it should be, if it was, resources would be more readily available, but it is costly. It's a lot more expensive to plant more trees that it is just to cut existing ones down. It also takes time but there are benefits to doing this however.
The reason they took it out was because it was too easy for players to get shields and it unbalanced the game, but what if multiple workers didn't speed the growth of forest. No matter how many workers you assigned to that task, it still took 4 turns to plant the forest (you could still gang bang cutting them down though).
I think this would please both sides. It would still be an option in the game but wouldn't be overly powerful. It could even be a command you could give to workers which would set them in a cycle. If it was a command, the computer would be able to do it also (which kinda scares me).
It can also be risky, especially when multi-player comes out. I would hate to get my worker army captured doing this.
Let's not just take it out and call it a bug when it could end up being a real "feature"?
Endureth
Civ X? Well I was toying with the idea of multiplying by 10 the A/D scores of all units, and see if that will rectify issues somewhat. Why exactly I'm not really sure. It was just a thought, mind you. Also, you know, Civ3 isn't all that realistic. Civ1 wasn't either. Tanks against pharnxs, etc.
But. Did you realize the huge problem of the late industrial age that there are no offensive units save the calvary, until tanks. And Riflemen (6/10 A/D), and Infantry (4/6 A/D ?) make their apperance at this time. So your wars are invariable defensive. How many calvary will it take to take out a Rifleman? So basically you have no choice but to support your calvary with arty fire (lots of it) and swarm the defenses, and expect heavy casulities. Hmm, kinda like WWI when you think of it. Maybe this was intentional.
The other option is to play nice-nice and wait for tanks. Then kick the heck out of everyone since it's such a dominating unit (unless they have the Riflemen). So I think this time period *may* need some more thought. Tanks and their ilk are hugely overmatched for anything less than them. Which is funny considering they are not so powerful against an anti-tank infantry team. But, in all honesty, if we are looking for a good sim of semi-modern warfare, we should look elsewhere.
But. Did you realize the huge problem of the late industrial age that there are no offensive units save the calvary, until tanks. And Riflemen (6/10 A/D), and Infantry (4/6 A/D ?) make their apperance at this time. So your wars are invariable defensive. How many calvary will it take to take out a Rifleman? So basically you have no choice but to support your calvary with arty fire (lots of it) and swarm the defenses, and expect heavy casulities. Hmm, kinda like WWI when you think of it. Maybe this was intentional.
The other option is to play nice-nice and wait for tanks. Then kick the heck out of everyone since it's such a dominating unit (unless they have the Riflemen). So I think this time period *may* need some more thought. Tanks and their ilk are hugely overmatched for anything less than them. Which is funny considering they are not so powerful against an anti-tank infantry team. But, in all honesty, if we are looking for a good sim of semi-modern warfare, we should look elsewhere.
Dan,
It's great to know someone from Firaxis is around this forum and responding to posts. I am confused as to how you choose which questions to answer though. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge to most people by now that the lack of upgrade ability for special units is purposeful. However, I'm fairly sure that for most of us (MP desperados excluded) the burning issue for the next patch is things which speed up the more tedious micromanagement issues of the mid to late game. To that end please an indication at least of whether or not it is possible to address the following issues in a patch:
1) Stackability of units including possible foreman type units for stacking workers
2) Overall Trade Screen (and if possible as a bonus the auction idea mentioned above
3) More explicit automation orders for workers
I'm not asking for you to tell us yes/no on these just whether or not it is possible to program them at all and perhaps an indication of whether firaxis is leaning towards adressing them
Thank you for your time.
P.S. Watch out for coke machines some can be particularly nasty
It's great to know someone from Firaxis is around this forum and responding to posts. I am confused as to how you choose which questions to answer though. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge to most people by now that the lack of upgrade ability for special units is purposeful. However, I'm fairly sure that for most of us (MP desperados excluded) the burning issue for the next patch is things which speed up the more tedious micromanagement issues of the mid to late game. To that end please an indication at least of whether or not it is possible to address the following issues in a patch:
1) Stackability of units including possible foreman type units for stacking workers
2) Overall Trade Screen (and if possible as a bonus the auction idea mentioned above
3) More explicit automation orders for workers
I'm not asking for you to tell us yes/no on these just whether or not it is possible to program them at all and perhaps an indication of whether firaxis is leaning towards adressing them
Thank you for your time.
P.S. Watch out for coke machines some can be particularly nasty
TotalNewbieHead
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2001
- Messages
- 10
Originally posted by KALIROB2k2
This is an online forum not a dictatorship Endureth, people are bound to make normal post now and then. You cant stop that, not to mention it is a free country, if you dont like these post then just dont read them its that simple.
I'm sorry, i just have to comment, by law- this even if based in the united states is not free-land, its a private forum and whomever owns it can do whatever they want on it, at any time, without warning. Although, most people don't go powerhungy when they own things, there is not a darn thing you can do if he wants to *smack* you around.
Similar threads
