Online petition for an updated Civ III editor

[Ozymandias]

I agree with all this and support this petition.

Just a new suggestion :

- separate "hard attack" and "soft attack" for artillery units

"hard attack" means attacks against vehicules -- antitank ability
"soft attack" means attacks against people and/or buildings

Note that an artillery unit can have the "Stealth Attack" Special Action selected for it, along with a list of targets. NB: I haven't tried this, so I don't know for certain that it will work (it was designed and implemented for aircraft use after all), although I feel comfortable guaranteeing you that it won't improve the AI's use of artillery at all.

Best,

Oz

 

[LAW_FREAK]

the easiest way for changes to happen would be if they sold the source code for the editor or the entire game. They would make more money. They wouldn't have to develop anything. I dont know much about coding, but I think the source code of the editor is probably enough to modify most of these issues.

 

[Spacer One]

can we possibly get a quick mention of how much you(the modder) would be willing to pay for this?...I mean alot of people on this list arent active modders, and could make little use of an expanded editor...

I for one, dont want an "expansion"...just an updated editor...Id pay as much as 75$(american) for JUST AN EDITOR if it had decent upgrades...but I would prolly skip an expansion(unless it came with the afore mentioned editor) because I doubt an expansion would be as in depth as (for example) Anno Domini or EFZI...and Im not paying to just get new graphics(that we could have made ourselves)...

Also, alot of these suggestions would require massive rewriting of the source code(for example all AI improvements). so Id like this petition to include an idea of how much you'd spend for said improvements...

 

[Ozymandias]

the easiest way for changes to happen would be if they sold the source code for the editor or the entire game. They would make more money. They wouldn't have to develop anything. I dont know much about coding, but I think the source code of the editor is probably enough to modify most of these issues.

I believe anyone would find the source code extraordinarily difficult to modify for our ends. All my experience (anyone else? ) with the game suggests that the AI engine is constructed to cover extremely limited sets of circumstances.

A couple of examples (my apologies to anyone who has never been a serious programmer):

1. The AI is only able to build units from a very limited source pool. Thankfully someone thought to make Improvements able to spawn units -- but consider that this might have been a programming workaround; if so, consider how extreme that is. So the source code for how the AI chooses to build units is not only extremely limiting, but probably a terrible foundation to try to meaningfully expand. So you wind up gutting the code there and redesigning it from the ground up. What algorithm would you devise to handle the 750 or so different types of units Wyrmshadow's built for SOE?

2. Consider Governments: Communism aside, governments in the vanilla game become available in an order which marches in lockstep with decreased corruption. One can only hope that programming Communism wasn't too taxing for them. So scrap another chunk of the "AI".

My guess is that this reflects a design approach prevalent throughout the code; those are just the first examples that came to mind.

To put some perspective on upgrades -- anybody want to even try to devise the algorithms to make the AI use artillery in anything approaching an intelligent fashion? (I.e., draw out the list of rules the AI should follow concerning all aspects of artillery.)

-- And nearly everything on our wish list, from Civ1-style revolutions to adding event triggers, almost certainly requires as much, or more, work as these.

In short, I can't see a way that a set of major functionality upgrades (and nearly every feature would be) could ever be financially worth anyone's investment. Which means it also wouldn't be worth it for anyone to buy the source code, unless it was some lone and wealthy Civ fanatic willing to underwrite the project.

So all this is why I'd be really, really happy with an editor that worked closer to spec than the current one does, as well as expose the Teleport buttons etc. And even that assumes that the APIs the current editor uses are adequate, or else there goes the budget again.

Not Without Apologies,

Oz

 

[I_batman]

I believe anyone would find the source code extraordinarily difficult to modify for our ends. All my experience (anyone else? ) with the game suggests that the AI engine is constructed to cover extremely limited sets of circumstances.

A couple of examples (my apologies to anyone who has never been a serious programmer):

1. The AI is only able to build units from a very limited source pool. Thankfully someone thought to make Improvements able to spawn units -- but consider that this might have been a programming workaround; if so, consider how extreme that is. So the source code for how the AI chooses to build units is not only extremely limiting, but probably a terrible foundation to try to meaningfully expand. So you wind up gutting the code there and redesigning it from the ground up. What algorithm would you devise to handle the 750 or so different types of units Wyrmshadow's built for SOE?

2. Consider Governments: Communism aside, governments in the vanilla game become available in an order which marches in lockstep with decreased corruption. One can only hope that programming Communism wasn't too taxing for them. So scrap another chunk of the "AI".

My guess is that this reflects a design approach prevalent throughout the code; those are just the first examples that came to mind.

To put some perspective on upgrades -- anybody want to even try to devise the algorithms to make the AI use artillery in anything approaching an intelligent fashion? (I.e., draw out the list of rules the AI should follow concerning all aspects of artillery.)

-- And nearly everything on our wish list, from Civ1-style revolutions to adding event triggers, almost certainly requires as much, or more, work as these.

In short, I can't see a way that a set of major functionality upgrades (and nearly every feature would be) could ever be financially worth anyone's investment. Which means it also wouldn't be worth it for anyone to buy the source code, unless it was some lone and wealthy Civ fanatic willing to underwrite the project.

So all this is why I'd be really, really happy with an editor that worked closer to spec than the current one does, as well as expose the Teleport buttons etc. And even that assumes that the APIs the current editor uses are adequate, or else there goes the budget again.

Not Without Apologies,

Oz

Oz,

Saw your note about the cross-threading.
Would have been nice to merge my poll onto the top of this thread and then shut my thread down.

As for your comments, I agree that it is indeed a huge job to overhaul the code, and whenever I have coded anything, changing one module ALWAYS affects more than you think it will, hence rebuilding the code would be no easy job.

The only way it is financially viable for Take-Two is to have a small team of fan coders working for free do the job. (Steph suggested this)
I don't have the link, but I read an article this weekend about some devoted fan coders who are developing Starcraft 2 using the Warcraft III 3D engine.
The biggest point, which really should not be that surprising to coders, is that the team has grown to 20 guys worldwide and the project started 3 years ago, and they are talking about a 2007 release.

If Take-Two released Civ III code to such a team (BTW, the only way this would work is if the team is small, and likely working in secret), I would expect the same kind of time frame for some decent code.

 

[wolf_66]

New Unit Options in the Civ3 Editor

1. New bombard flags/check boxes. Land Bombard with Lethal Land Bombard sub-option, Sea Bombard with Lethal Sea Bombard sub-option.

What this would do is if you had sea bombard checked but not land, you could not bombard land units, and vice versa. If both are checked, obviously you could bombard sea and land. This would be nice to limit Anti-Submarine units to sea bombard only.

2. Limited blitz.

This would allow a player to set how many attacks/bombards a unit could do during a turn when flagged with the blitz option. A ship with blitz and 5-7 moves kinda throws off balance. However, flagging ships with blitz is nice way to simulate the large amount of ammo they carry.

3. Adjustable Line of Sight

Pretty self explanatory, you set how many tiles away a unit can see. It would be nice option to give Airborne Early Warning aircraft in scenarios.

4. Unit Type Cap

Puts a cap on the selected type of unit. Allows you to build no more than X amount of that type of unit throughout the span of the game.

I agree on that. Also mobile helicopters - like in CivIV - would be useful.

 

[Ozymandias]

I agree on that. Also mobile helicopters - like in CivIV - would be useful.

I got disgusted with C4 long before I was able to build choppers. How do "mobile helicopters" work in that game?

Thanks,

Oz

 

[Spacer One]

It does seem that this is a pipe dream...its not a matter of IF we would buy an upgrade...its a matter of paying a group of people to sit with the code and rewrite it...I think a better chance might be if several people capable of doing the job were to go to Take-2 and offer to work for free...

 

[I_batman]

It does seem that this is a pipe dream...its not a matter of IF we would buy an upgrade...its a matter of paying a group of people to sit with the code and rewrite it...I think a better chance might be if several people capable of doing the job were to go to Take-2 and offer to work for free...

Read three posts above yours.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I got disgusted with C4 long before I was able to build choppers. How do "mobile helicopters" work in that game?

Thanks,

Oz

From what I remember, they're pretty much just land units with "All Terrain as Roads" and the Amphibious ability.

 

[Ozymandias]

From what I remember, they're pretty much just land units with "All Terrain as Roads" and the Amphibious ability.

Thanks - that's pretty much like I figured. BTW, in Civ3, I also give them the paradrop capability so they can at least cross small bodies of water ... but of course IIRC there's no paradrop capability in Civ4 .

Best,

Oz

 

[Keroro]

Note that an artillery unit can have the "Stealth Attack" Special Action selected for it, along with a list of targets. NB: I haven't tried this, so I don't know for certain that it will work (it was designed and implemented for aircraft use after all), although I feel comfortable guaranteeing you that it won't improve the AI's use of artillery at all.

Best,

Oz

I'm not certain, but I think I read somewhere that giving bombard units stealth attack had no effect. Can anyone else enlighten us on this?

If it could be made to work it would be very useful to me. I had hoped to give stealth attack and bombard to all my cavalry to represent raiding activity.

 

[Roman Legion]

yeah id like it, might make that excitment for the game comeback, and Might finish a few units, which are deep in my computer by now, remember the Amzon Cavalry, almost done, then...nothing, I never finished, she was a beauty. My units might be made inefficiently, but they are still good units are they not? and other various things I was working on as well.

 

[vingrjoe]

Stealth Attack, sadly does not apply to bombard. I've tried it, and after failing, I realized why it's called Stealth Attack.

 

[Keroro]

Stealth Attack, sadly does not apply to bombard. I've tried it, and after failing, I realized why it's called Stealth Attack.

A pity. Thanks for confirming that Vingrloe. Thread highjack now over.

 

[Spacer One]

Read three posts above yours.

Ha I guess Im not the only one with that train of thought...Maybe someone should open a dialouge with them on a more professional level?

If I knew anything about writing the said code, I would volunteer. Maybe there are people on here who are capable and willing?...or perhaps people know people etc. who might do it..?..

I would think that approaching Take-2 with a few people willing to do "Pro Bono" work might be our best bet...

 

[Ozymandias]

Stealth Attack, sadly does not apply to bombard. I've tried it, and after failing, I realized why it's called Stealth Attack.

Interesting (as in the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times"). So Cruise Missiles (which are, technically, land units) cannot have a "Stealth" -- or, let's be more "Real World" and call it "Precision" -- attack capability. Of course. What was I thinking?

 

[Spacer One]

yeah, I have already tried it, and it doesnt work on cruise missles...I wanted to have "cruise" missles, and "Strike" Missles in my MOD, but it dinunt work...

 

[WildWeazel]

If I knew anything about writing the said code, I would volunteer. Maybe there are people on here who are capable and willing?...or perhaps people know people etc. who might do it..?..

I for one would be more than willing, even though it's likely over my head (for now anyway). But frankly I don't think it's ever going to happen. IMO we'd be better off making a clone game of our own- something I would also be more than willing to do.

 

[Steph]

I for one would be more than willing, even though it's likely over my head (for now anyway). But frankly I don't think it's ever going to happen. IMO we'd be better off making a clone game of our own- something I would also be more than willing to do.

I'm doing it. But not a clone. I want to make a good game