Editor wish-list

[Meisier]

I'd like to have the ability to list for each civ other cives that it cannot attack - even with MPs.

This could creat interesting scenerious like -
1. A scenerio where the human can NEVER initiate war (due to some resason or another
2. Make a scenerio of WWII wear nutrieall cannot be attacked, and allies can never go to war with each other ... (although they could make peace with the enemy and do trade sanctions...)
3. A scenerio where this really "weak civ" has all or most the great resources/luxerious and so they must be traded for since that cive will never start war or can be attaced by anyone else - also if they grab more land somehow... better hope for a cultural conversion... (if allowed). (Justification might be that the "weak civ" are representatives from a VERY powerfull country or exterstrial planet... and cannot be attacked at all costs...)

 

[Bane Star]

The Real Need to have TECHS of Era 1 as a Requirement for Techs of Era 2.

 

[yoshi]

What the Civ3/PTW Editor needs is as follows:

- Graphics Editor; i.e. Unit animations.
[There seems little point in having such an elaborate Editor if you can't create your own units --especially when building unique scenarios.]

- Events scripting; eg. If x trigger then x action. As well as new events like TRIGGERLOCATION which would work with UNITKILLED and CREATEUNIT; when x Unit dest. then x unit created on/next to that tile, and BUILDIMPROVEMENT, and so on).
[Without Events, Civ3 losses its edge over Civ2, especially when it comes to scenarios whose maps cover only a part of a larger conflict, eg. WW2 Europe scenario, i.e. on European map.]

- New unit bonus flags, e.g. 2vsFoot (MG), 2vs Wheeled (AntiTank), 2vs Mounted (this already existed in the original Civ3 for Pikemen but was removed because it didn't do anything...as oppposed to fixing the problem (I'm sure there's a logical reason for that, it's just faulty logic).

- More AI settings (C3C might address this one but no bets though).

- Diplomacy Settings (unbelievable that they left this one out!).
[EVERYONE WANTS THIS YET NO RESPONSE, GEEZ.]

- Individual Unit Maintenance Cost.
[Is it logical that it cost the same gold to maintain an Infantry unit as it does to maintain a Battleship? Perhaps this logic escapes the programmers at Firaxis/Infograms/Atari?

***How many of you agree with me on that last one? Is ind. unit maintenance really that important?

 

[Grille]

by yoshi:
***How many of you agree with me on that last one? Is ind. unit maintenance really that important?

I thought about this once, too. In the end, I'm fine the way it is now. If maintenance was unit dependent, I may have two cheap, weaker units instead of one expensive unit. Depends on the costs and ADM values then, though.
Now, I pay the same maintenance for every unit, but the shield (upgrade) cost is the "investment" to get a better unit.

IIRC in CTP, maintenance was different for units. That concept wasn't worked out very well, modern troops were too expensive (compared to the benefits) IMHO.

 

[yoshi]

If maintenance was unit dependent, I may have two cheap, weaker units instead of one expensive unit.

I see your point, the reason for andding this into the Editor is really to distinguish between different types/sized units as follows:

Foot units = 1 gold
Mounted units = 2 gold (man and horse)
Frigate = 3 gold
Tank = 4 gold (Tanks EAT money)
Fighter = 3 gold
Destroyer = 6 gold
Submarine = 5 gold
Battleship = 10 gold
Carrier = 12 gold
Partizan = 0 gold (lives of the land)[Technically Civ3 already does this.]

If this were the case, richer civs would always have an advantage (as rich countries do in reality). As things are, there is nothing stopping a civ from manning all its cities with Tanks, given enough time --why use Infantry when you can use Tanks?. If the change were made, such a tactic would be very expensive and ultimately unsustainable.
People who preferred the other way could just set all the units to 1 gold.

 

[Grille]

People who preferred the other way could just set all the units to 1 gold.

Oh, I almost forgot that this is about the possibility to change the rules... and not about a rules change in general.
Then, sure, this is a good idea. Also, I like the unit type based cost concept that could be realized by such an implemented function.

But still, the question remains, if the ai could handle such cost differences (some ai "adjustment" in the program code might be needed).

But apart from that - it'd be even worth it for at least fine MP scenarios.

 

[Bane Star]

In this day and age of Console, The Real point to PC games is the MULTI-PLAYER and KEYBOARD/MOUSE advantage... Making games that dont utilise this..... dont get me started...

CIV should be designed as a multi-player FIRST and single player second, and after the brilliant but semi-restrictive nature of civ2, they should have just improved on it... MOSTLY they did, but some of the new concepts and restrictions are breaking out beloved game... I allways love a new feature, BUT you have to allow for the old features to still work....

For either C3C, (which I doubt) but most appropriately for a future civ4, The Game should be an Engine + Graphics & Rules, The engine should have no game rules, any given game value should be changable, via the rules, and the 'EDITOR' should have its own CD all together, Release CIV4... and CIV4 the editor, each on its own DVD (something like morrowind) The editor should be a combination of Multi-tool, Paintshop pro, 3D studio's max and FLICster... maybe even a possible import for civ2&3 game/graphics...

 

[BomberEscort]

I'd like to see nukes do Rate-of-Fire damage... set a tactical nuke to 4 ROF and see 4 mushroom clouds, reduce the population by 15/16 :devil2:

 

[the100thballoon]

Can ANY of u help me?!?!?! Whenever i use the Civ3xedit or Civ3edit programs i can use every button except for the buttons to place units or cities on the map. I REALLY REALLY REALLY need to find out why and if its fixable. I would appreciate ANY help at all! Thanks!

 

[yoshi]

Whenever i use the Civ3xedit or Civ3edit programs i can use every button except for the buttons to place units or cities on the map

You have to select a player (default is Barbarians I think) so that the program knows who the owner of the unit/city is. Its a seperate button (looks like a shield I think). This opens a window that lets you select the player (select the civ). All units, cities and improvements you place will be owned by that civ.

BTW, once placed, you can also change the owner of a unit/city/improvement by Right-clicking on it and selecting "Properties."

There's a good addition for the Editor: more detailed information in the Help menu!

 

[yoshi]

But still, the question remains, if the ai could handle such cost differences (some ai "adjustment" in the program code might be needed).

Yes, whether programmers could get the AI to handle this is a problem --the AI already has problems keeping its treasury full. As things are, it is doubtful whether the default 1 gold could be changed by players without the AI running out of money after building too many heavy units. The human player which is better at managing his/her economy could afford heavier units, the AI would try to adapt and bankrupt itself in the process (kind of like US foreign policy towards "rogue states").


BTW, shouldn't Events be included into Civ3's Editor, considering how popular the scripting language was in Civ2 scenarios --any comments?

 

[puglover]

Sorry. Wrong thread.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

probably the ability to add units into transports, and ability to way-point individual AI units to create a real D-Day Scen.

 

[Ekmek]

Is Super Mutant still updating this thing?

 

[Tholish]

Seasons and climate change.

 

[yoshi]

How could climate change be implemented without the use of Events?

How would climate change be implemented into the Editor?

Selecting one value (months?) that activates winter terrain, and one that sets it back to normal (summer) terrain?

 

[Flamegrape]

The ability to export maps in all three formats. Without resources, if needed.

 

[Flamegrape]

I could really use a "forest/jungle eraser". I don't want to change the terrain beneath it.

 

[BeBro]

I don´t have read all posts, but I would die for cut/copy/paste support in the map editor.

It would be a huge help if we could cut off unneeded parts of a map, add new squares in x or y direction or copy parts into the clipboard and re-import them as new map from there.

 

[BeBro]

Some other ideas without checking if they were posted before (sorry this thread is simply too long)

1. option to pre-load transport ships in the editor - this is essential for many scns

2. option to hinder the AI to raze cities or to turn this off completely

3. option to build naval bases similar to airfields, a naval base would heal sea units faster, and would offer better protection
(maybe later also combined air/naval bases)

4. more unit abilities, eg.

-transport units could have different "slots" for different types of transported units - let´s say a destroyer could carry cruise missiles and one helicopter (since most modern warships have helis) or an assault ship could carry ten helis and infantry units (with the helis usable to tranport this infantry units)

-aircraft carriers should at least also be able to carry paratroopers, which should be able to make paradrops from the carrier

-ranged attack for aircraft: similar to the ari´s bombard capacity, the difference to the normal air bombardment would be that the plane doesn´t enter the enemy air defense zone (for missile equipped planes)

-flags to let a unit only bombard either ONLY land or ONLY naval targets (additional to the available flags for lethal/non lethal bombardment)

-escort feature for fighters, just as air-superiority, fighters could be given the order to escort bomber´s on their mission, improving the bombers chance to make a bombing run despite enemy interceptors

-"real" air superiority order for fighters: instead of sitting only in the home base waiting for attacking planes, one could send fighters over enemy cities/airfields to hunt their fighters actively, the current air superiority should rather called "intercept" order

- something esp. for pre-industrial ari (from catapult to cannon): there should be an order to bombard and destroy exclusively city walls


Maybe I´ll post more later. I just hope Firaxis still reads this and intents to implement improvements in the editor....