SCENARIO: Age of Imperialism; 1895-1924, Deluxe Version 2016-10-05

[Stazro]

Hey guys, long time no see (or sea, get it? Get it?).

I was wondering if there was a decent mod/scenario in the spirit of AoI for any of the newer titles. I haven't bothered buying 5 or 6 yet, so I don't really know what has been made there and I thought I might get a faster answer this way instead of trying to find my way around those boards. Anybody know something?

 

[Civinator]

Hey guys, long time no see (or sea, get it? Get it?).

I was wondering if there was a decent mod/scenario in the spirit of AoI for any of the newer titles. I haven't bothered buying 5 or 6 yet, so I don't really know what has been made there and I thought I might get a faster answer this way instead of trying to find my way around those boards. Anybody know something?

I´m not astonished, that there wasn´t named any appropriate scenario. To say it with the words of a poster in a thread if Civ VI is the best version of the Civ series:

Civ 3 is and always will be the pinnacle of Civ. Back when the devs understood what gamers really wanted out of the series. ... This was of course before they were bought out by the Illuminati who don't want us to have nice things.

Civ IV - VI are lacking the units to do such a scenario and of course they are not having such a genius as it is El Justo and Vuldacon.

 

[Stazro]

I´m not astonished, that there wasn´t named any appropriate scenario. To say it with the words of a poster in a thread if Civ VI is the best version of the Civ series:

Civ 3 is and always will be the pinnacle of Civ. Back when the devs understood what gamers really wanted out of the series. ... This was of course before they were bought out by the Illuminati who don't want us to have nice things.

Civ IV - VI are lacking the units to do such a scenario and of course they are not having such a genius as it is El Justo and Vuldacon.

That's too bad, but thanks for answering.

Though I have to admit, personally I have been converted to Civ 4. I didn't like it at first, but it just has so many possibilities. Modders have done some really amazing stuff expanding the gameplay.

 

[Civinator]

That's too bad, but thanks for answering.

Though I have to admit, personally I have been converted to Civ 4. I didn't like it at first, but it just has so many possibilities. Modders have done some really amazing stuff expanding the gameplay.

Stazro, if I did understand you correct, you attest as a civer, who has converted to Civ 4, that Civ 4 doesn´t have a scenario adequate to AoI, as otherwise you wouldn´t have asked your question.

May be it is a good idea to ask your question in the Civ 6 thread I have linked above, as here all the self-named experts of Civ 4-6 are discussing what is the best version of the Civ series (mostly knowing nothing about Civ 2 and Civ 3). These "experts" should know best, what Civ 5 and 6 scenarios will come closest to AoI. I would watch the answers on your question as I´m also very interested in the suggestions these civers will do. From some discussions in the German Civ forum I know, that at present the AI in Civ 6 seems to be incredible bad in naval battles (the worst AI of all versions of the Civ series).

 

[Stazro]

Stazro, if I did understand you correct, you attest as a civer, who has converted to Civ 4, that Civ 4 doesn´t have a scenario adequate to AoI, as otherwise you wouldn´t have asked your question.

There's no scenario in the timeframe, at least not that I know of.

May be it is a good idea to ask your question in the Civ 6 thread I have linked above, as here all the self-named experts of Civ 4-6 are discussing what is the best version of the Civ series (mostly knowing nothing about Civ 2 and Civ 3). These "experts" should know best, what Civ 5 and 6 scenarios will come closest to AoI.

I'll have a look at it.

 

[pat4]

I had the same problem. As Civinator said a while back, it's caused by the update for the steam version adding a line into the labels.txt. To make everything right, you need to open the labels.txt in the text folder of the AoI folder, and add 'Unknown' on its own line between PING and Host on line 86. This sorted it out for me. I'll upload the fixed labels.txt as well. You just rename the old labels.txt in the AoI folder to whatever, then put in this one.

So I am having a weird one with this issue. I have added the unknown like to labels.text in \AoI\text and this works if I use the original exe. However if I use any of the no raze exes this issue will resurface. It also changes the background screen of the main menu
I'm running the steam version of civ3.

Any advice? Playing without no raze is not much fun.

 

[Nathiri]

So I am having a weird one with this issue. I have added the unknown like to labels.text in \AoI\text and this works if I use the original exe. However if I use any of the no raze exes this issue will resurface. It also changes the background screen of the main menu
I'm running the steam version of civ3.

Any advice? Playing without no raze is not much fun.

NoRaze patch returns to the disc labels.txt. Only the steam exe works with the Unknown label.

 

[pat4]

NoRaze patch returns to the disc labels.txt. Only the steam exe works with the Unknown label.

Thanks for the reply. So is there a workaround or is it a choice between weird text and no razes?

 

[Nathiri]

Thanks for the reply. So is there a workaround or is it a choice between weird text and no razes?

If you run the NoRaze from the steam civ3 root and have the default steam labels.txt in the default civ3 root, then the main menu text will show up out of order. You can edit the default labels.txt and take away 'Unknown' from the list between PING and Host to re-allign it if you wish, but you better just load up the mod as once you load the mod to player setup it will take whatever the mod is loading. The main menu backround is tied to whatever the exe loads (which it is loading the Conquests expansion menu backround, not the complete). Once you load the mod to player setup, then back out to the main menu, it will show whatever the mod has as the main menu backround.

 

[pat4]

If you run the NoRaze from the steam civ3 root and have the default steam labels.txt in the default civ3 root, then the main menu text will show up out of order. You can edit the default labels.txt and take away 'Unknown' from the list between PING and Host to re-allign it if you wish, but you better just load up the mod as once you load the mod to player setup it will take whatever the mod is loading. The main menu backround is tied to whatever the exe loads (which it is loading the Conquests expansion menu backround, not the complete). Once you load the mod to player setup, then back out to the main menu, it will show whatever the mod has as the main menu backround.

Thank you again for the reply, it is appreciated.

That doesn't seem to be the case for me. Loading and exiting the mod leaves the menu the same and besides the text in the mod is all wonky as well as the preferences menu.
Screenshots marked 1 are when I use the original exe, screenshots marked 2 are when using the no raze patch.

 

[Nathiri]

Thank you again for the reply, it is appreciated.

That doesn't seem to be the case for me. Loading and exiting the mod leaves the menu the same and besides the text in the mod is all wonky as well as the preferences menu.
Screenshots marked 1 are when I use the original exe, screenshots marked 2 are when using the no raze patch.

When using the NoRaze, make sure you remove the 'Unknown' label from the mod's labels.txt. The Main Menu will appear out of order as well since it is reading the updated steam labels.txt. If you wanted to fix that, then remove Unknown from it as well in the Conquests/Text folder. But if you just bypassed this and accessed the mod from the usual Civ-Content menu, it will re-allign as long as you have the mod's one solved.

The Preferences menu has button names assigned by the labels.txt. The buttons themselves never leave their position. It's purely a rename.

 

[pat4]

When using the NoRaze, make sure you remove the 'Unknown' label from the mod's labels.txt. The Main Menu will appear out of order as well since it is reading the updated steam labels.txt. If you wanted to fix that, then remove Unknown from it as well in the Conquests/Text folder. But if you just bypassed this and accessed the mod from the usual Civ-Content menu, it will re-allign as long as you have the mod's one solved.

The Preferences menu has button names assigned by the labels.txt. The buttons themselves never leave their position. It's purely a rename.

That's done it. Thank you very much.

 

[alex222]

Playing for Siamese I saw the Japanese performed an amphibious attack from the sea on Spanish Manila. The first unit was generic Japanese Infanrty, the second was real Naval Infantry.
How could it be? How could Japanese Infantry attack from the sea? Does that mean that amphibious attack is possible for any ground unit if just one of them is amphibious?

 

[Vuldacon]

It means if a Unit is set to be amphibious in the biq, all of those units are amphibious. If the Japanese Infantry are set to be amphibious, then they are.

 

[r16]

obviously alex222 wasn't expecting regular infantry attacking from the transports . And Vuldacon is also right in pointing out that scenarios , depending on the wishes of their makers , can differ a lot from the epic or standart game .

 

[timerover51]

For the accurate historical record, the Japanese Army had a lot of experience with Amphibious landing prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. There were very few Special Naval Landing Forces, and they were all controlled by the Navy. You have to understand that the Japanese Army and Navy were not exactly friendly to each other. In the Pacific, both the US Army and the Australian Army were trained for Amphibious attacks and made quite a few of them. There were no US Marines involved in the attack on the Philippines. In the Atlantic, there were no Marines at all involved in any of the amphibious landings, and the British did not have a Royal Marine force at all comparable to the US. Marines.

In many respects, the Marine should be the US unique unit, as they were used by the US in military intervention regularly overseas during the period from 1800 on. The Marines made their first amphibious landing in Korea in 1871, but that was not the first use of the Marines in an amphibious role. One possible modification would be having the Marine appear as a unique US unit at the same time as Infantry, while making an amphibious unit available to all of the other civilizations with the Amphibious War advance. The problem would be with controlling production of the units. Possibly a Small Wonder auto-producing amphibious units for the civilizations so that the AI does not go crazy producing them.

 

[r16]

one must always mention that the Japanese Army had submarines and at least one aircraft carrier . ı presume this goes back to 1860s and allied-but-might-oppose-eachother-clans during the toppling of the Shogunate .

 

[Loudspeaker]

I know this is a stupid question, but where are the DL-files?

 

[Meteor Man]

I know this is a stupid question, but where are the DL-files?

Indeed, the download seems to be missing. I can provide a temporary link:

 

[Civinator]

You can find the download links in post 7503 of this thread. In this post El Justo created those dropbox download links and while doing these links, he deleted the old download links.