Civilization III: Worldwide
- Thread starter AnthonyBoscia
- Start date
clamel
Prince
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 528
So you have given up on artillery as artillery with bombard. Now they are offensive units that attacks as tanks. All this for the bug in not having the AI use artillery. Will the AI still use bombard or just throw away artillery units as infantry units ??
I know this, together with the sub bug, is very bad. However as a human one can of course still bombard the hell out of a defensive position before sending in the troops. However, the AI will perhaps not.
I know it´s a trade-off since powerful artillery are a must.
My idea on the sub-bug, like many others, are not having the post-WW2 subs being "hidden". Now they are the most powerful attack units on the high sea, so they have replaced the old battleship. To be honest with today tech most of the subs in the deep are known and tracked, aren´t they ? So no need keeping them hidden. They could be the highest attack units on the sea. That´s the SSN attack-sub, since the SSBN is not that powerful in my game but are the one carrying the nukes.
Kind of carrier of death and destruction. SSBN have powerful defense and SSN powerful offense and acts as normal sea-units. Testing out if the SSBN should perhaps have very long-range bombard to go along with the nukes it could carry. That will represent Tomahawk cruise-missiles and we all know that AI will bombard from the sea. I will believe that other sea-units, cruisers and destroyers are more protections for carriers and troop carriers, so they will have much better defense than offense and of course strong anti-air.
To attack on the sea with power it´s the SSN that will engage.
The old sea-battle died with Jutland, and perhaps some smaller stuff in WW2. OR ?
I know this, together with the sub bug, is very bad. However as a human one can of course still bombard the hell out of a defensive position before sending in the troops. However, the AI will perhaps not.
I know it´s a trade-off since powerful artillery are a must.
My idea on the sub-bug, like many others, are not having the post-WW2 subs being "hidden". Now they are the most powerful attack units on the high sea, so they have replaced the old battleship. To be honest with today tech most of the subs in the deep are known and tracked, aren´t they ? So no need keeping them hidden. They could be the highest attack units on the sea. That´s the SSN attack-sub, since the SSBN is not that powerful in my game but are the one carrying the nukes.
Kind of carrier of death and destruction. SSBN have powerful defense and SSN powerful offense and acts as normal sea-units. Testing out if the SSBN should perhaps have very long-range bombard to go along with the nukes it could carry. That will represent Tomahawk cruise-missiles and we all know that AI will bombard from the sea. I will believe that other sea-units, cruisers and destroyers are more protections for carriers and troop carriers, so they will have much better defense than offense and of course strong anti-air.
To attack on the sea with power it´s the SSN that will engage.
The old sea-battle died with Jutland, and perhaps some smaller stuff in WW2. OR ?
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
Artillery will still have the bombard ability. Currently they have a low attack and high bombard, which greatly favors the player. In the updated version, they will have a higher attack and a medium bombard. The blitz ability will be removed. So the computer will use artillery directly, while the player can still bombard or attack directly.
Subs right now have a high movement rate, a good attack, and the blitz ability. Their movement will be dropping a little, but they will get stealth attack against everything except transports. Naval stats are changing a lot in the new version, especially in modern times. As of now, I'm not planning on having separate SSN and SSBN classes. I've learned a lot on modern ship setups and the AI from the WW3 game so that will filter back to this game, too.
Subs right now have a high movement rate, a good attack, and the blitz ability. Their movement will be dropping a little, but they will get stealth attack against everything except transports. Naval stats are changing a lot in the new version, especially in modern times. As of now, I'm not planning on having separate SSN and SSBN classes. I've learned a lot on modern ship setups and the AI from the WW3 game so that will filter back to this game, too.
clamel
Prince
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 528
Don´t you think the separate sub-classes will work for the AI ??
Still concerned that the AI will use artillery on strict attack duties and not bombard. Have you checked that. If the AI is not using the bombard having then this attack value will be for no value I think. Since you just take one problem and turn it into another. The AI was using artillery with blitz and chances to get them out of danger. I think that is the key for the AI using artillery correctly. Still making the AI create artillery is another issue.
It would truly have been great to tamper a tiny bit with the source-code. Wouldn´t it ??
So many itching small issue that just would lift this game even higher.
Stealth for the subs are truly good. Now they can pick of damaged ships "limping" home even if they got escort. However perhaps one type of ships should like the transport make the stealth issue worthless. Isn´t it like this that if one unit in a stack is not marked as stealth attack vulnerable then the attacking unit can not use the stealth attack and pick any specific units.
I was always thinking on getting Destroyers something specific to protect against subs. And not only the detect invisible but not being marked as being able to be picked in a stealth attack.
Guess the AI still will mix things up with too many options. Escort duties works fine, but the AI always picks the strongest defensive ship it got.
Well that code again ....
Still concerned that the AI will use artillery on strict attack duties and not bombard. Have you checked that. If the AI is not using the bombard having then this attack value will be for no value I think. Since you just take one problem and turn it into another. The AI was using artillery with blitz and chances to get them out of danger. I think that is the key for the AI using artillery correctly. Still making the AI create artillery is another issue.
It would truly have been great to tamper a tiny bit with the source-code. Wouldn´t it ??
So many itching small issue that just would lift this game even higher.
Stealth for the subs are truly good. Now they can pick of damaged ships "limping" home even if they got escort. However perhaps one type of ships should like the transport make the stealth issue worthless. Isn´t it like this that if one unit in a stack is not marked as stealth attack vulnerable then the attacking unit can not use the stealth attack and pick any specific units.
I was always thinking on getting Destroyers something specific to protect against subs. And not only the detect invisible but not being marked as being able to be picked in a stealth attack.
Guess the AI still will mix things up with too many options. Escort duties works fine, but the AI always picks the strongest defensive ship it got.
Well that code again ....
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
Tank_Guy, I only follow this thread on an on and off basis so I'm likely missing something. But could it be that you just have to be more patient when you load your game? I've often had to wait a few minutes before it loads a big save.
Unlikely, I'm usually multitasking.
Also found this:
Spoiler :
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
This is one that has been patched already. Are you using the most recent main download? Or did you have a previous download with the patch from Post #1? If it's still wrong in one of those two, I'll have to replace one or both. I won't have access to my home computer until this weekend to look.
Also noticed the unit is incorrectly listed as 'F-117A'. This mod needs a lot of work.
ZergMazter
Prince
Amazing bro I had spent this last month adding units to my own scenario and modifying rules because i dont like the AI not using artillery how they are supposed to, then i find this map with over 1400 units?!?!?! I was trying to do similar thing but i had added so far 60 units lol. Im downloading this for sure. THX!
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
KJohn, if you downloaded the latest version of the game from Atomic Gamer, then you won't need the update as it is already included. If you wanted to load it anyway, just drop the update folder into your Conqests/Scenarios folder. It will ask you if you want to merge it with the existing Worldwide folder and replace any duplicates. Click yes and it will replace those files.
ZergMazter, I hope the game worked out for you. As you've probably seen, the AI cannot use artillery like humans but it can use them in a more direct fashion.
ZergMazter, I hope the game worked out for you. As you've probably seen, the AI cannot use artillery like humans but it can use them in a more direct fashion.
Breadwinner
Chieftain
This is the most in depth mod i've ever seen. Recently played Civ 3 and said to myself "This is way better than Civ 4" I'm happy to have found this mod and praise you for your work. 
lethaltoto
Chieftain
I discovered this mod a few time ago, and it's ... amazing!
As previously said many times in this post, the attribute concept is excellent. One of the main bad point in civ3, building everything everywhere, is now partialy over. We have to make some choices, and that's great!
Here is a list of bugs or missing things I noticed for now:
- frankish spearman is called frankish speaman (missing r)
- in pedia, horse ressource should be tagged "don't click" as the other ones creating the hyperlink bug
- in pedia, mercenaries entry is empty
- in pedia, nothing about treasury requirements (gold + markets)
- in editor I saw that mercenary barracks have an incidence on pollution (both by production or population). Any reason for that?
- in city screen, icone for cotton is still a pipe
And now a question:
Did somebody tried the feudalism government? I did, and I'm very disappointed with it.
I studdied the tech tree, and planed switching to it from the beginning.
In this way I only built free maintenance buildings (except walls to be able to have castles, and attributes) to have low costs; luckly I was able to build treasure so I have free markets to boost my economy, and free caravanserails too.
Having a large army (mainly horsemen thanks to call to arms), I was around 0 gpt under chiefdom but with a descent science (around 50%).
When I switched to feudalism my income fall to -90 gpt! Only way to survive economicaly was to apply the lone scientist method...
The point is, IMO, that feudalism has two major bad points: corruption and level 1 cities only. Those points are normal, and are creating economical problems. On the other side, we could historicaly expect that this government should be good (or at least not bad) on a military point of view. But the 2 gpt cost / unit create a third economical problem. So finaly we have a government economicaly (and so scientificly too) so poor that we can't even support a big army.
All governments have stenght and weakness, but with this one I only see weakness and no interest.
Maybe I missed something?
As previously said many times in this post, the attribute concept is excellent. One of the main bad point in civ3, building everything everywhere, is now partialy over. We have to make some choices, and that's great!
Here is a list of bugs or missing things I noticed for now:
- frankish spearman is called frankish speaman (missing r)
- in pedia, horse ressource should be tagged "don't click" as the other ones creating the hyperlink bug
- in pedia, mercenaries entry is empty
- in pedia, nothing about treasury requirements (gold + markets)
- in editor I saw that mercenary barracks have an incidence on pollution (both by production or population). Any reason for that?
- in city screen, icone for cotton is still a pipe
And now a question:
Did somebody tried the feudalism government? I did, and I'm very disappointed with it.
I studdied the tech tree, and planed switching to it from the beginning.
In this way I only built free maintenance buildings (except walls to be able to have castles, and attributes) to have low costs; luckly I was able to build treasure so I have free markets to boost my economy, and free caravanserails too.
Having a large army (mainly horsemen thanks to call to arms), I was around 0 gpt under chiefdom but with a descent science (around 50%).
When I switched to feudalism my income fall to -90 gpt! Only way to survive economicaly was to apply the lone scientist method...
The point is, IMO, that feudalism has two major bad points: corruption and level 1 cities only. Those points are normal, and are creating economical problems. On the other side, we could historicaly expect that this government should be good (or at least not bad) on a military point of view. But the 2 gpt cost / unit create a third economical problem. So finaly we have a government economicaly (and so scientificly too) so poor that we can't even support a big army.
All governments have stenght and weakness, but with this one I only see weakness and no interest.
Maybe I missed something?
clamel
Prince
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 528
Hows the progress on any new versions ??
I can´t help getting back to the artillery "problem". Have you experimented with the fact on strengthen the defense on cannons/artillery ?
The "standard" reason for the AI to retreat and even keep artillery inside cities could very well depend on the same issue as with workers. If they are left hanging around they are easily captured or destroyed.
How would the AI handle artillery with just a small offensive figure, much higher defense (of course not as high as normal defense units of the period). Together with this a much higher bombard value to make it a powerful unit by itself. As I can see you also have a defensive value, but lower than the offensive value.
I made some test on MEM scenario by increasing the bombard value by some 25-30% and then some defensive smaller value. To my surprised stacks of units included spearmen and some catapult started to invade my country, and lay siege to my cities.
Obviously some values on artillery in comparison do make the AI to really use bombard units as it should. Question of course if this tiny test is enough.
I always had a strict opion against adding artillery just as another offensive unit.
Of course the issue with Stephs Editor to tick of bombard units as both offensive and artillery units must help the AI, but then perhaps make the same problem as standard units having both offense and defense ticked. In that case the AI surely make up it´s mind when the unit is created, offense or defense.
In you earlier version you had success (of some sort) with stacks of artillery going on offensive, hadn´t you. Are you more comfortable with this newer adjustment ?
Please when will we see how this turns out. Any ETA on a beta.
I can´t help getting back to the artillery "problem". Have you experimented with the fact on strengthen the defense on cannons/artillery ?
The "standard" reason for the AI to retreat and even keep artillery inside cities could very well depend on the same issue as with workers. If they are left hanging around they are easily captured or destroyed.
How would the AI handle artillery with just a small offensive figure, much higher defense (of course not as high as normal defense units of the period). Together with this a much higher bombard value to make it a powerful unit by itself. As I can see you also have a defensive value, but lower than the offensive value.
I made some test on MEM scenario by increasing the bombard value by some 25-30% and then some defensive smaller value. To my surprised stacks of units included spearmen and some catapult started to invade my country, and lay siege to my cities.
Obviously some values on artillery in comparison do make the AI to really use bombard units as it should. Question of course if this tiny test is enough.
I always had a strict opion against adding artillery just as another offensive unit.
Of course the issue with Stephs Editor to tick of bombard units as both offensive and artillery units must help the AI, but then perhaps make the same problem as standard units having both offense and defense ticked. In that case the AI surely make up it´s mind when the unit is created, offense or defense.
In you earlier version you had success (of some sort) with stacks of artillery going on offensive, hadn´t you. Are you more comfortable with this newer adjustment ?
Please when will we see how this turns out. Any ETA on a beta.
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
Hey guys, thanks for the comments. Twice I wrote replies this week but the computer froze, so we'll try to keep this brief.
lethaltoto: Most of the errors you reported I noticed earlier, but was trying to avoid another update. It looks like another update will be the way to go, though, especially to add needed info in the civilopedia.
I tend to agree with you on Feudalism and it's always the goal to strike that balance between overpowered and useless. It should be more friendly to a larger army without being a free ride for warmongers. It also should be a better option for a civ with many small cities vs. one based around a core of large size 2 cities. Any specific recommendations are welcome. I'm also interested in any input on Dictatorship and whether it's too strong for warmakers or not worth the heavy corruption.
clamel: Artillery has been tested and messed with by myself and just about everyone else many times. The AI will rarely make artillery of its own accord, and when the modder gives artillery to the AI it will rarely use it. There are a few times that they will bring a 1 or 2 artillery units out to bombard, but the vast majority of the time they will retreat to the nearest friendly city, especially if an enemy is within two squares. Giving a unit high offense and defense values has no effect on the unit's fright factor as long as it is tagged as bombard AI strategy. Changing the AI strategy to offense will result in the unit to be used offensively. Only extreme changes, such as huge bombard ranges or high movement points, will cause the AI to bombard with land units with any regularity. In this case, they act similiar to bombarding naval units. In my mind, this is by far the biggest F up by the developers in Civ 3, since the programming clearly exists and they had years of patches and expansions to get it right.
I'm not crazy about artillery as another offensive unit, but there aren't many choices. I like bombarding artillery when I play civ. So either the computer can get stuck with a severe disadvantage, or the unit can be dual purpose to help the computer be more competitive.
The multiple AI strategies are exclusive, and this is a subject I was planning to post on in the main forum at some point. The artillery can either be offense or bombard, but not both. In debug, you'll see the unit listed once for each strategy in the city build box. They are, in effect, considered separate units. In preplaced scenarios, the strategy can be set by the modder or left as random. So at this point, I'm still convinced that the best way to keep bombarding artillery for the player and effective artillery for the computer is high attack/medium bombard.
As for ETAs...
realistically, I'd be happy to have the other game done by summer 2014 and the new worldwide by the end of 2015. There are some other big changes that may be added but would take huge time commitments. Hopefully, people are still playing civ 3 by then.
So much for keeping it brief. Thanks for the input!
lethaltoto: Most of the errors you reported I noticed earlier, but was trying to avoid another update. It looks like another update will be the way to go, though, especially to add needed info in the civilopedia.
I tend to agree with you on Feudalism and it's always the goal to strike that balance between overpowered and useless. It should be more friendly to a larger army without being a free ride for warmongers. It also should be a better option for a civ with many small cities vs. one based around a core of large size 2 cities. Any specific recommendations are welcome. I'm also interested in any input on Dictatorship and whether it's too strong for warmakers or not worth the heavy corruption.
clamel: Artillery has been tested and messed with by myself and just about everyone else many times. The AI will rarely make artillery of its own accord, and when the modder gives artillery to the AI it will rarely use it. There are a few times that they will bring a 1 or 2 artillery units out to bombard, but the vast majority of the time they will retreat to the nearest friendly city, especially if an enemy is within two squares. Giving a unit high offense and defense values has no effect on the unit's fright factor as long as it is tagged as bombard AI strategy. Changing the AI strategy to offense will result in the unit to be used offensively. Only extreme changes, such as huge bombard ranges or high movement points, will cause the AI to bombard with land units with any regularity. In this case, they act similiar to bombarding naval units. In my mind, this is by far the biggest F up by the developers in Civ 3, since the programming clearly exists and they had years of patches and expansions to get it right.
I'm not crazy about artillery as another offensive unit, but there aren't many choices. I like bombarding artillery when I play civ. So either the computer can get stuck with a severe disadvantage, or the unit can be dual purpose to help the computer be more competitive.
The multiple AI strategies are exclusive, and this is a subject I was planning to post on in the main forum at some point. The artillery can either be offense or bombard, but not both. In debug, you'll see the unit listed once for each strategy in the city build box. They are, in effect, considered separate units. In preplaced scenarios, the strategy can be set by the modder or left as random. So at this point, I'm still convinced that the best way to keep bombarding artillery for the player and effective artillery for the computer is high attack/medium bombard.
As for ETAs...
realistically, I'd be happy to have the other game done by summer 2014 and the new worldwide by the end of 2015. There are some other big changes that may be added but would take huge time commitments. Hopefully, people are still playing civ 3 by then. So much for keeping it brief. Thanks for the input!
lethaltoto
Chieftain
A list of other things I noticed playing the mod:
RULES ERRORS:
- Major problem: Fortress attribute is not an attribute. No * in front of the name, box saying that it replace all other such improvements is not checked. It also doesn't match with pedia description: allow air trade box not checked too, and defense bonus is 50 instead of 75. It's a big problem because AI love to produce those fortress almost everywhere.
- Not really an error, but hospitaller priory rendered obsolete by banking is a problem. Discover of banking arrive not so far after spiritual orders, and having first to build the knights hospitaller wonder as a prereq means that we can't build it, or just in time to see it becoming obsolete. A possible simple solution could be to render it obsolete by mercantilism instead (it keeps the "spirit")
- Bedouin Camel Rider unit: the "upgrade unit" box is not checked, disabling it to upgrade as it should.
PEDIA:
- Frankish skirmisher is said upgrading in french archer. It's french crossbowman instead, and there is no link to the upgrade troop's pedia entry
- Frankish trebuchet entry lead to american trebuchet. Same thing for polish trebuchet. By the way I think there is the same problem with other nation's trebuchet. I suggest to have only one pedia entry called "trebuchet" and all different ones lead on it.
- Manor: pedia doesn't says that it act as a barrack
- Letters of Marque: it says that a privateer is produced every turn (every 8 turns in reality)
- Knights Templar wonder: it doesn't says that a catholic church is prerequisted.
- Knights Hospitaller wonder: same as above
- Tiantan: it doesn't says that a stupa is prerequisted.
- Hospitaller Priory: it doesn't says that it's rendered obsolete by banking
- Madrassa: it doesn't says that a masjid (mosquee) is prerequisted.
- Bedouin Camel Rider unit: entry name is ok, but description is the one of horseman
- Irregular unit: no description, same thing for partisan
RULES ERRORS:
- Major problem: Fortress attribute is not an attribute. No * in front of the name, box saying that it replace all other such improvements is not checked. It also doesn't match with pedia description: allow air trade box not checked too, and defense bonus is 50 instead of 75. It's a big problem because AI love to produce those fortress almost everywhere.
- Not really an error, but hospitaller priory rendered obsolete by banking is a problem. Discover of banking arrive not so far after spiritual orders, and having first to build the knights hospitaller wonder as a prereq means that we can't build it, or just in time to see it becoming obsolete. A possible simple solution could be to render it obsolete by mercantilism instead (it keeps the "spirit")
- Bedouin Camel Rider unit: the "upgrade unit" box is not checked, disabling it to upgrade as it should.
PEDIA:
- Frankish skirmisher is said upgrading in french archer. It's french crossbowman instead, and there is no link to the upgrade troop's pedia entry
- Frankish trebuchet entry lead to american trebuchet. Same thing for polish trebuchet. By the way I think there is the same problem with other nation's trebuchet. I suggest to have only one pedia entry called "trebuchet" and all different ones lead on it.
- Manor: pedia doesn't says that it act as a barrack
- Letters of Marque: it says that a privateer is produced every turn (every 8 turns in reality)
- Knights Templar wonder: it doesn't says that a catholic church is prerequisted.
- Knights Hospitaller wonder: same as above
- Tiantan: it doesn't says that a stupa is prerequisted.
- Hospitaller Priory: it doesn't says that it's rendered obsolete by banking
- Madrassa: it doesn't says that a masjid (mosquee) is prerequisted.
- Bedouin Camel Rider unit: entry name is ok, but description is the one of horseman
- Irregular unit: no description, same thing for partisan
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
Thanks for the corrections. Honestly, the civilopedia is pretty sloppy. Bad entries such as the Fortress are there because they were not updated when the improvements were edited in various editions. I'm compiling these corrections and will release a new patch with the updated civilopedia in a little while.
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
Hegemony requires aluminum and Reserve Currency requires gold, so you'll need those resources.
lethaltoto
Chieftain
Reserve Currency is a "spaceship part", and the small wonder hegemony is the starting point for building parts. So if you have not yet built hegemony that's normal that you can't build reserve currency. Hegemony will unlock it.
