Rise and Rule for Civ3:Conquests

[Pfeffersack]

Welcome to CFCs!

Now, there are several mirrors to download RaR (there should be links in the first post).I'm not sure which support download managers, but I know there are some, because I had used DAP with success.What sites have you already tried?

 

[boyamilucky]

I tried the 3ddownloads page and it does not support resume.
FilePlanet had a 26 minute wait, I did not have time to try that.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I have checked it, I had used fileplanet for the download.There seem to be no other sites which host the file...maybe it helps to try at fileplanet later, than waiting time might be shorter.Good luck!

 

[boyamilucky]

Thanks, I will try it later. I think I'll check my PC Gamer or Computer Gaming World CDs first though. This mod might be on one of those.

 

[YNCS]

I have only one objection to RaR. It concerns the noise that Troubadors and all types of helicopters make. All other units are quiet unless I tell them to do something, i.e., when engineers are told to mine, they haul out their jackhammers and there's a little burst of noise. Otherwise, the engineers are quiet. However, whenever troubadors and any helicopters are visible on the screen, they're noisy. The troubador always plays the same bar on the lute over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... Helicopters make their noise continually.

I know I can shut all the noises off, but I don't want to. I want almost all of the units to make their noises. I just want the troubadors and especially the helicopters to stop being continually noisy.

 

[gargoyle137]

Is Rise to Rule compatible with Conquest v 1.22?

 

[gargoyle137]

what i mean is that when i started the game after i installed the mod, when i tried to start a new game, a window popped up saying that text in the pediaicon file was missing for the stock exchange icon. i have the latest version of conquests but it still fails to work correctly. can someone help me?

 

[gargoyle137]

nvm guys, i figured it out!

 

[gargoyle137]

i found a small problem. whenever i try to build a longbow apache, an error window pops up saying the apache ini can't be found. any suggestions?

 

[Pfeffersack]

Yes a known problem, which will be fixed with the next patch.However, there is an easy way to solve it manually, described here (#616):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100144&page=16&pp=40

And be sure to download RaR 1.01 (which you can find in this post, too), if you haven't done yet; it fixes some some bugs and improves many aspects of RaR! However any fixes (with the exception of the apache longbow fix) will only affect games started with the patched .biq, not savegames started with RaR 1.00!

 

[gargoyle137]

another problem even with the patch, i have noticed that the destroyer and cruiser have greater bombard ranges than the battleship, isn't that just a little backwards in the great scheme of things?

 

[Pfeffersack]

The bombard ranges of normal Destroyers and Cruisers are 1, which is less than the 2 of the Battleship.I assume you mean the Missile Destroyer and the AEGIS Cruiser, which have both 6 - this is intended and should represent their attack with missiles, which have a greater range than ship guns.

 

[gargoyle137]

What i am trying to get at hear is that the point of having a battleship with a smaller bombardment range than the missile destroyer and Aegis Cruiser is a moot one. Why not give it some sort of an upgrade towards the end of the modern era? Why not just make a battlecarrier out of it with an upgrade? Give it some kind of weapon with a range greater than that of the missile destroyer and the aegis cruiser?

 

[rhialto]

Giving a battleship a range equal to an aegis cruiser or missile cruiser would in effect be giving a ship reknowned for its large bore cannon a missile armament. But having a battleship armed with missiles as opposed to cannon would be non-historical. Because putting enough armour on a ship to stop a missile was impossible, the battleship concept no longer made sense in the naval arena.

 

[Camber]

Or in other words, Donald Rumsfeld was right. Remember in 2000, when he stepped on a lot of toes by proposing changes for the 21st century to the US military. His vision was a leaner, more mobile strike force, able to engage in multiple conflicts simultaneously. He also characterized the tanks and carriers of late 20th century warfare as soon-to-be obsolete, calling them death traps. What I'm hearing is that we can no longer give our "armored" units enough armor to withstand attacks from the weapon of choice of modern armies. Thank goodness we have -- so far -- only needed to use our forces against technologically inferior nations. I would hate to see a real war where Carriers and Missile Cruisers were available on both sides.

 

[gargoyle137]

Ok then why not do this then, ever since WWII some of the battleships have become great tourist attractions. How about when you get to a certain point in the modern era, a wonder becomes available, the USS Arizona memorial. At the modern era do away with the battleship completely, and make them tourist attractions. But yes you guys are right.

 

[gargoyle137]

Basically, the only way to build it would be that you would have to control a certain number of battleships and when the memorial is built, the battleships and the memorial are tourist attractions.

 

[gargoyle137]

On another note, why not just upgrade the apache longbow to the new commanche that exists now?

 

[Kal-el]

the Commanche isn't in mass production yet.

 

[XenoOGear]

Hey, just some suggestions:

is it possible to change the unit costs, like for example if a normal soldier costs 1 gold for upkeep, a tank should cost 4 golds because in real life it employs 4 ppl. i know it might be engine related but if you can figure out how to differentiate unit upkeep costs, it will add a little touch of realism.