SCENARIO: Age of Imperialism; 1895-1924, Deluxe Version

hmm...not sure really. the only thing i can think of is that it is acting funny like that b/c you deleted the original biq file (no?) and then plugged another in and tried to run the save from the new one...but the biq files (old one and newly DLed one) are identical. so i'm not certain. just fire up a new game i s'pose :p
 
? The game works fine its just that my older save files won't work.

It might be that your older save files were under a different version number of Civ 3 Conquests (1.20 instead of 1.22)... That's the only thing I can think of.... I.e. did you have the old version of Civ III conquests and then reinstall with Civ III complete?
 
8 march update

fri and sat nights have become my most productive :D finished (i think) are the sea units...exhausting as they were. i put in a handful of classes (5 or 6 iirc) for the Lowlands. i also surveyed other midling civs who may be up for some mid-era-to-late era additions; of course, this type assessment (i.e., determining whether specific classes warrant addition) has been done a few times over the years. but there's always the chance we may have overlooked certain minor classes of ships for these midling civs.

i had a few sticking points for these extra naval additions. by this i mean i had to sort of weigh the effectiveness of any proposed class to add against the pre-existing generic sea units. for example, should i have left A-H to the simplistic and generic torpedo boat-->early destroyer line or do i add in the handful of actual classes of vessels they actually built? more specifically, what differences, if any, do these proposed classes have compared to the generic line? displacement, gun sizes, armor thickness, speed, gun sizes, fire control skill, sea worthiness (blue water?), crew competence, and actual numbers of ships either planned (capital ships only) or built were most of the considerations i had on the table...i mean, in comparison to the generic lines. so the new dd's and cl's that, for example, A-H and Lowlands rec'd all have better stats than their generic counterparts (very slight but still better). it wouldn't even be worth adding if this was not the case :)

capital ships recieved a more alt history course as i used a pile of 'what if' ships. but the treaty is really what wiped these designs out. so w/ the 'no treaty' aspect of v4.0, all's fair :D

i have 3 little pet experiments i want to observe during beta testing. the first is the introduction (re-intro from v1.0!) of coastal arty (2 generations).

Coastal Battery: generic "sea" unit, req's iron & Ind II tech, 1A/28D, immobile, 28 Bombard, 1 range, 2 rof, lethal sea bombardment, zone of control, 0 HP bonus (4 hp's as reg, 5 as vet)

Improved Coastal Battery: generic "sea" unit, req's iron & Ind IV, 1A/36D, immobile, 36 Bombard, 1 range, 3 rof, lethal sea bombardment, zone of control, 2 HP bonus (6 hp's as reg, 7 as vet)

both units' costs will be on par w/ BBs and BCs. my fear would be that the AI or even a human would be compelled to build these things in droves. that i would not want...although what i do want would be to have them provide some counter to massing gigantic fleets at the doorsteps of certain coastal cities turn after turn after turn...

these coastal arty units would be destroyed - or engaged in combat - w/ other sea units. so the high D value assigned to them will be against arty shots (ships in port getting hit etc). 28-36 seems about right to me (in connection w/ the same sizes on the BBs and BCs of the era).

now, as a disclaimer of sorts :D i should post that the effectiveness of these units will have to be tested in beta. so no guarantee they make the "cut" :) it'll boil down to how well (or poorly) they integrate into the exisiting gameplay framework.

below is a shot of the 1st gen coastal arty unit - and of the "Convoy" unit seen off the coast some :)



this convoy unit has been subbed in for the original "Adv Transport" unit that is in v3.0. it's a 3rd (last) era tech, +2 mvmt over the Steam Transport. now, i want to strip away those extra movement points some b/c almost all transports from this era were sloooowww. and the 6 mvmt they have as it now stands is a stretch (it is fudged a little w/ our 'knots per mvmt pts' chart). so an 8 mvmt for these units was just too much for me to digest. therefore, convoys are a viable alternative imho. they're similar in speed and were historically accurate for the time period, too.

here are some specs on it:

2A/4D, +1 HP (TR is -3), 6 mvmt (same as reg TR), 200 cost (10 for TR), capacity same as TR (4), req's iron & coal, and req's Ind III tech

the gist will be to have a costlier yet similar (capacity-wise) transport system. again, it'll need to be tested some.

the last thing i want to experiment with - and it's probably more radical than the other 2 things - is to introduce a colonies-only "commerce raider" w/ hidden nationality via a single wonder (letters of marque?) it'd be equivelent to roughly a light CL but it could pick off unescorted or lightly escorted TR units...and it'd also get every navy on the map in active pursuit (the AI will hunt to the ends of our civ maps for HN units). so not sure how this'll play out in testing. if it shows benefits to gameplay, i'll keep it. but if it proves not worthy, out it'll go :cool:
 
A couple quick Q's:

The Coastal Battery- something like this is a building in v3.0. It may have just been a wall, though. I assume it'll be immobile, of course, and I would hope it would be kind of expensive. Naval units are pretty cheap in this scenario, so even making it the price of, say, and Infantry unit would make it considerably more expensive than the standard ship w/o making it like a small wonder.

The convoy- what purpose would this serve? It is is a downgrade from the transport- I mean sure, it has better A/D and HP, but at the cost of 20x more shields. Why would you purposefully cripple sea transport late in the scenario?
 
Maybe the commerce raider could be given invisible tag in addition to hidden nationality so there will not be massive naval crusades against it?
 
Letters of Marque were obsolete in 1895. In mid 19th century that kind of piracy was banned. And if any nation used auxiliar cruiser in times of peace, it would have been a casus belli. So it should be invisible instead of having a hidden nationality. And then it should be a built by a small wonder but not before ww1 has started. In that war auxiliar cruiser were used for commerce raiding and commerce protection.
Oh, shall I give you data for the planned ships planned by the powers in the time of 1918-1922? I forgot that totally.

Adler
 
yes, letters of marque were considered highly taboo by 1895. but the issue was still being debated in some circles albeit minimaly. i'm still on the fence, really, wrt to this addition. i mean, i can pull if it doesn't produce the results i'm looking for. no sweat on the plans. i've got them all i think :) the other xl sheets were tremendously helpful btw (carrier based stuff in particular!) :D the HN flag makes me a little nervous too as Nordstream points out.we shall see...as they say :)

there is indeed a coastal battery city imp already and i thought of that exact situation (double bombard etc). i really have to see how it plays out before saying that it's a "go'. i mean, i am on the conservative side when it comes to altering gameplay like this.

re the convoy - no, it's not a succession to the regular TR unit. instead, it's more HP which gives it a type of singular (ie one unit w/ no other sea units in its stack) extra protection. basically, it's 4 horsehockey escort-type DDs and a TR. of course, this is also a w-i-p. so we'll have to feel it out.

i forgot to add last night that i also added in the generic seaplane tender and the air units it can carry.

Seaplane Tender: very low A/D value, 2 transport capacity, 4 mvmt, sinks in ocean, req's iron, oil, coal & Adv Naval Warfare tech

Seaplane: 1st gen naval air unit, req's timber & oil, req's Biplane Fighters V (late 3rd era, c. 1/2 dozen techs before the tenders become available), recon only

Torpedo Bomber: 1st gen offensive naval unit, low, low A/D value, req's timber & oil, req's TBs I (early 4th era), slightly less bombard value than the flavor TB units, 1 rof, 4 range

Seaplane Fighter: marginal A/D values (lower than the flavor ones), req's timber & oil, 4 range, req's Biplane Fighters VI (mid 4th era), 1 rof, 28 bombard strength, lethal sea

Improved Torpedo Bomber: slight improvements (bombard and range), req's timber & oil, req's TBs II tech (very last tech in 4th and final era)

the above rounds out the generic sea unit lines...

torpedo boats -- early destroyers
protected cruisers -- armored cruisers -- light cruisers
coastal gunboats -- coastal BBs
coastal SSs
seaplane tenders
 
I love these updates that you're making. No Hikaro, I have been using Civ 3 Complete for 3 years or so. No changes there.
 
Complete came fully patched I believe.
 
While I was playing Austro-Hungary I ended up taking a large swath of colonial territory; I noticed I cannot build Austrian Cavalry, let alone a colonial cavalry unit.

I also wanted to note that in the screenshots, the minimap picture cuts out a good portion of the map itself with rectangular blocks and statue arms.
 
el J:
While waiting for the new version, I've been playing an old saved game of a game I won on points as Britain (in early 1908 @ Commodore level). One thing that I noticed is that ships are too slow, all ships. Even the advanced transport (move 8) takes 2 turns (=6 weeks!) to cross the Atlantic from Brest to Halifax! This is about as slow as a 17th cent sailing ship. To be more realistic all ships' speeds should probably be increased by 2 or 3.

BTW Britain is child's play at any level. Now in mid-1912 I have conquered all but Japan and 5 countries in So. America; my income is 30K+ a turn; and I'm disbanding units to avoid a CTD.

jimmygeo
 
If you add in the coastal battery, would it be possible to shrink it some? I noticed that "unit" in other mods, and it was ugly, as you couldn't see the city. Just a giant pillbox like structure.
 
I would make it that way in regrads to the upgrading of cruisers:

early light cruiser ---> Light cruiser I, II, ...
Protected cruiser ---> armoured cruiser I, II,... ---> Battlecruiser
Coastal Gunboat I, II, ...
Coastal Battleship I, II, ...

There is a difference though in this terminology. A protected cruiser was not neccesarily a light cruiser. The Light protected cruiser SMS Prinzeß Wilhelm was considered as small cruiser in the German Navy. The big protected cruiser of the SMS Victoria Louise class were considered otoh as Big cruiser (which was indeed a seperation by displacement. Every cruiser below 5.000 t was a small cruiser, every bigger a big cruiser. That includes also the armoured cruiser, the protected cruiser as well as the battle cruiser, at least officially. Later the wat with the Cöln (II) class ships the small cruiser became even bigger than 5.000 t but were still considered in that way. There were nevertheless discussions of introducing a more modern system. But that never came into force as the war ended.)

There were also plans of another German kind of battlecruiser I did not introduce (as well as Japanese Tosa class, US Lexington class (as BC) and some other ships planned). Do you have data for them?

Adler
 
noted on the squinched minimap, Leobon. i guess i'd have to have Balthasar comment on that as he made the interface.

jimmy,
yes, the mvmt rate has been a slight contradiction in terms of actual time spent travelling. however, i'm not sure i want to alter the entire mvmt formula. this would mean a wholesale revision of the sea unit mvmt rates. but you are right...about them not having to take 6 weeks. but at this point, i'm not certain i want to start revising :)

i'm no gfx guy. so i can't shrink the flc files. Wyrm would have to do that (or someone else). i do agree though that it could stand to be shrunk down some.

Adler,
agreed on the cruiser terminology :D the armored ones do not upgrade to the light ones. i just put the CL on the same line as the other cruisers. i mean, the generic line of sea units will not be altered at all save for the additions to the back end of the line (seaplane tender & the air units). erstaz yorck is the BC you might be referring to and yes, it is in for the new version (as is the tosa and lexington and the G3 for the tommies -- of which i do indeed have info on, thanks!). these ships were beasts, too. no generic BC though...too much imho...i mean, in terms of marshalling the resources to build such vessels.
 
Sort of depends on how you use the definitions of what is what. In general, the accepted definition for a protected cruiser is that it has deck armor only (no armored belt). This type of ship has a tendency to be smaller than the armored cruiser because it was an older ship type. The first generally acknowledged protected cruiser were the Elswick types of 1880.

Armored cruiser includes a belt of armor on the side of the ship. The first of these ships came into service in 1887, which during this period represents a huge step forward over the 1880 ships in terms of protection, size, capability, etc.

Swiped a lot of this from Wiki as my stuff is still packed away, but the terms "protected" and "armored" have different definitions when it comes to cruiser construction.
 
NOOOO!!! I can't play anymore! :(:(:(

I think it might be patched but I'm not sure.

Glitch:
Spoiler :
 
Reported about every 5 pages.. the fix is earlier in the thread, just thread search for Spanish Cavalry. Alternately I think TankGuy has the link in his signature.
 
Top Bottom