Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod Expanded
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
- Status
Blasphemous
Graulich
Umm... Rhye... Why the heck would you have to make Monarchy non-tradable?
I think having the early gov't I suggested could go a long way in powering up religious civs. Add on to that the special specialist and some special improvement and that's enough.
EDIT: I just had an idea of how to implement special Cathedrals/Mosques/etc! You just have them require the special Temple, and then the religious civs would build the special buildings and the non-religious civs would build the regular ones. It would only require the use of one single bonustech!
I think having the early gov't I suggested could go a long way in powering up religious civs. Add on to that the special specialist and some special improvement and that's enough.
EDIT: I just had an idea of how to implement special Cathedrals/Mosques/etc! You just have them require the special Temple, and then the religious civs would build the special buildings and the non-religious civs would build the regular ones. It would only require the use of one single bonustech!
Blasphemous said:
Because if I add an alternative government I need an alternative Monarchy, and it shouldn't be traded to mantain religious-only.
For this reason I'm not willing to add a new government. Instead an improvement, even if it requires that government, would be better.
Asclepius said:Well, I dunno.... sounds kinda familiar to me....and about 6,730 other people.
6730? why?
Blasphemous
Graulich
No, the special religious-only gov't would require a bonustech that requires Monarchy plus teh ERA_NONE tech given to religious civs. Monarchy would allow the regular gov't, the bonustech would allow the special one. Religious civs would quickly research the bonustech and use that gov't instead of the regular one because it's simply better.Rhye said:
But I really think it's better to make the special gov't come in earlier than regular Theocratic Monarchy as some civs, like Egypt, were already theocratic in some respects at around 4000BC when the game starts.
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
I am personally for making all early governments non-tradeable, simply to slow down the transfer of them.
As to obelisks, some other mod uses them too, so the term is pretty familiar. I think DyP used it, but its been a really really long time since I last looked at that. I guess he just made the number up ;p
Don't give too many bonuses to religious civs, because they didnt have that amazing of a bonus before anyway! Just chearper temples and faster gov switching.
A specalist and a cheaper (or stronger) temple path than the rest of the world would seem like a very good bonus! I fear giving them too many bonuses will result in an overpowered group of civs that have no right to be overpowered.
As to obelisks, some other mod uses them too, so the term is pretty familiar. I think DyP used it, but its been a really really long time since I last looked at that. I guess he just made the number up ;p
Don't give too many bonuses to religious civs, because they didnt have that amazing of a bonus before anyway! Just chearper temples and faster gov switching.
A specalist and a cheaper (or stronger) temple path than the rest of the world would seem like a very good bonus! I fear giving them too many bonuses will result in an overpowered group of civs that have no right to be overpowered.
Blasphemous
Graulich
Oh, and Rhye, why are current religion techs untradable? A Muslim civ wouldn't be able to get Christianity anyway because the Muslim civ doesn't have the ERA_NONE required tech. o_O
Blasphemous said:
mmm, so it would be tradeable only between civs with the same religion? I'll test this.
Aeon221 said:
right, that's true.
Well I only said obelisk because I can take the graphics from Age of Mythology, (it could be a pyramid, a statue or something else)
and I said 1 culture per turn because the specialist will already give happy faces and gold.
I don't think this can be considered copying. Well, to be picky, DyP has the no cities on desert and tundra flags since I suggested Kal-El to do that
Blasphemous
Graulich
Of course! You can't trade Literature to a civ without Writing, right? It's the same with an ERA_NONE requirement only with those some civs can NEVER get some techs.Rhye said:
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
I doubt they can copyright the term obelisk ;p
That would be like copyrighting the term infantry haha
Besides, I doubt there is much overlap between users of the mods, so it cannot matter much.
I have a question!
Are we creating a new trait here?
Or are we simply attempting to copy the old one and give it a single new bonus to make up for the loss of the old one?
It would seem like this would make a very big difference!
That would be like copyrighting the term infantry haha
Besides, I doubt there is much overlap between users of the mods, so it cannot matter much.
I have a question!
Are we creating a new trait here?
Or are we simply attempting to copy the old one and give it a single new bonus to make up for the loss of the old one?
It would seem like this would make a very big difference!
flavour units biq & pediaicons structure is complete.
Civilopedia will be done later.
Now I'll put up this "religious" thing and send you the 0.7 if it works
Civilopedia will be done later.
Now I'll put up this "religious" thing and send you the 0.7 if it works
Aonghus
Rainwood
WowO this is a really really long blog. Hey that trading idea is really cool blasphemus, gj!
Add this line in the pediaicons, together with the other ANIMNAME entries
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Grenzer
Flintlock Infantry
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Grenzer
Flintlock Infantry
Blasphemous
Graulich
Umm.... what trading idea?Aonghus said:
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
#ICON_PRTO_Grenzer
art\civilopedia\icons\units\FlintlockInfantry_lg.pcx
art\civilopedia\icons\units\FlintlockInfantry_sm.pcx
So it should look like that right?
What are you talking abt with trade ideas, Aonghus? I mean, there are quite a few entries here and it has certainly been a while since we looked at most of them ;p
So enlighten us how bout? ;p
art\civilopedia\icons\units\FlintlockInfantry_lg.pcx
art\civilopedia\icons\units\FlintlockInfantry_sm.pcx
So it should look like that right?
What are you talking abt with trade ideas, Aonghus? I mean, there are quite a few entries here and it has certainly been a while since we looked at most of them ;p
So enlighten us how bout? ;p
Talking of missing entries, the T-34 is missing. (Has anybody actually played until the end? 
)
I've played quite a few tests and had never noticed the missing Grenzer - this maybe because the Austrians never develop more than one city and are permanently stuck in the dark ages.
)I've played quite a few tests and had never noticed the missing Grenzer - this maybe because the Austrians never develop more than one city and are permanently stuck in the dark ages.
yes,
remove
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_T-34
T-34
and add:
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_T-34
Tank
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Heavy_Bomber
Bomber
Having to convert the pediaicons to show civ3 default animations and not to forget anything is a real pain
remove
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_T-34
T-34
and add:
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_T-34
Tank
#ANIMNAME_PRTO_Heavy_Bomber
Bomber
Having to convert the pediaicons to show civ3 default animations and not to forget anything is a real pain
- Status
