anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Post 1.9!!!!
Please please please please please!
Please please please please please!
TETurkhan Test of Time (Map & Mod)
- Thread starter TETurkhan
- Start date
alweverything
Chieftain
I agree. Post 1.9 please. Throw us a crumb we are starving. LOL!
I have no doubt that the full 2.0 will be worth the wait but it will still be worth the wait after 1.9 is posted.
Then again, what ever is easier for you Tet.
Keep on rockin man.
I have no doubt that the full 2.0 will be worth the wait but it will still be worth the wait after 1.9 is posted.
Then again, what ever is easier for you Tet.
Keep on rockin man.
iamliberal
Prince
Tet, please please post 1.9!!!! I haven't been able to play Civ3 since January because my knights are awaiting transport in England!... in the current version remember, horse units can load onto ships 
It's actually been a good break from civ3 for me so I could concentrate on finishing grad school, but still... would be nice to play again
Good luck and thanks for your work!
-Brian
It's actually been a good break from civ3 for me so I could concentrate on finishing grad school, but still... would be nice to play again
Good luck and thanks for your work!
-Brian
iamliberal
Prince
I mean horse units CAN'T load onto ships in the current version... damn typo
Dr Alimentado
Prince
post 1.9!! pretty please with sugar on top!
This is my favourite mod and I would love to see 1.9.
This is my favourite mod
and I would love to see 1.9.SportsNinja
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 30
You know it would take less than 10 seconds to go into the editor and make it so horses could load onto boats
SportsNinja
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 30
double post....sorry
D. Minky
Warlord
I'd say whatever's easiest for you, teturkhan.
But I'd also say I really would love to play with a 1.9 version. That would also give you less of a rush to put out 2.0, and you could relax a bit, and find out about more bugs/fixes/etc before releasing 2.0.
But don't go out of your way, you're doing enough as it is.
But I'd also say I really would love to play with a 1.9 version. That would also give you less of a rush to put out 2.0, and you could relax a bit, and find out about more bugs/fixes/etc before releasing 2.0.
But don't go out of your way, you're doing enough as it is.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
[dance]
Thank you!!!
:worshp: :worshp: :worshp: :worshp: :worshp: :worshp:
Thank you!!!
:worshp: :worshp: :worshp: :worshp: :worshp: :worshp:
Ankenaton
"The Heretic"
Hi Tet, I have not posted a reply in CivFanatics for a long time as I have been playing TAM and posting with the CDG guys (as Ankhenaton). Your mod (it is listed as a scenario at CDG) is my second favorite after TAM. Thanks for the great new work on your mod, and double thanks for the work on the 1.9 update. If multi-player ever really works I would love to see a game between adherents of your mod and the TAM mod. We would just have to agree on which mod and the game rules. Success in all of your endeavors.
D. Minky
Warlord
Hey Tet, I know I've mentioned this before, but is there any way of increasing the percentage of governments collapsing? That was a major part of history, and perioids of Anarchy equate to the "Dark Ages" that all real-life civs went through as opposed to "Golden Ages."
I think especially when you capture an enemy capital, Anarchy should definately ensue. It's not realistic for the next city to just be named capital and the government to continue smoothly. Also, long periods of economic shrinking (i.e. losing gold per turn) should also have some effect. Certainly not as dramatic as losing a capital, but a shrinking economy effects the citizens, even if the government still has plenty of gold. (I don't know if it's possible to implement that, but it's just a thought.)
Also, I know I've mentioned this before too, but I really like the idea of cities being able to revolt and form new civilizations. Obviously this can't happen if every civ is currently existing on the map (they'd have to join an existing civ then), but countries splitting into pieces has long been a part of history, even into contemporary times (look at former Yugoslavia). I have no idea if this is possible, but these things would make the game so much more interesting. Imagine the world power of BC times crumbling into many states, instead of staying the world power for all of time. It would be so much more like real-life.
I think especially when you capture an enemy capital, Anarchy should definately ensue. It's not realistic for the next city to just be named capital and the government to continue smoothly. Also, long periods of economic shrinking (i.e. losing gold per turn) should also have some effect. Certainly not as dramatic as losing a capital, but a shrinking economy effects the citizens, even if the government still has plenty of gold. (I don't know if it's possible to implement that, but it's just a thought.)
Also, I know I've mentioned this before too, but I really like the idea of cities being able to revolt and form new civilizations. Obviously this can't happen if every civ is currently existing on the map (they'd have to join an existing civ then), but countries splitting into pieces has long been a part of history, even into contemporary times (look at former Yugoslavia). I have no idea if this is possible, but these things would make the game so much more interesting. Imagine the world power of BC times crumbling into many states, instead of staying the world power for all of time. It would be so much more like real-life.
D. Minky
Warlord
Oh yea, I remembered another thing!
How about more American civs? It's really good so far that you've added the Incas, but I think to go with the Iroquois Leaque there should be a Souix Nation and a Cherokee Nation. Both of those were very large confederacies and deserve a spot in Civ.
On a similar note, I've seen some really neat animated leaderheads. The Apolyton forum has an Inuit leaderhead that you could use if you plan on adding them. In fact, there's a ton of them (I'm sure you know about them already, though).
I don't know how into making graphics you are, but I'm sure these people wouldn't mind sharing their already-made leaderheads with you. Especially to get rid of some of those doubles out there. (Poor Abyssina always manages to become a major world power in all my games, yet doesn't even get its own face!
)
How about more American civs? It's really good so far that you've added the Incas, but I think to go with the Iroquois Leaque there should be a Souix Nation and a Cherokee Nation. Both of those were very large confederacies and deserve a spot in Civ.
On a similar note, I've seen some really neat animated leaderheads. The Apolyton forum has an Inuit leaderhead that you could use if you plan on adding them. In fact, there's a ton of them (I'm sure you know about them already, though).
I don't know how into making graphics you are, but I'm sure these people wouldn't mind sharing their already-made leaderheads with you. Especially to get rid of some of those doubles out there. (Poor Abyssina always manages to become a major world power in all my games, yet doesn't even get its own face!
)D. Minky
Warlord
(Ideas are coming up as I'm playing...)
If you're planning on raising the value of Contacts (which I really hope so) you might also consider raising the value of maps. Maps are sooo soo valuable, and the AI throws them around like water. Maps can really influence the decision to go to war, and the AI trades so many maps that within a few turns of mapmaking everyone has the entire world map. I don't think the AI was programmed with maps as a strategic defense in mind... if nobody knows your territory, its much harder to wage an effective war.
If you're planning on raising the value of Contacts (which I really hope so
) you might also consider raising the value of maps. Maps are sooo soo valuable, and the AI throws them around like water. Maps can really influence the decision to go to war, and the AI trades so many maps that within a few turns of mapmaking everyone has the entire world map. I don't think the AI was programmed with maps as a strategic defense in mind... if nobody knows your territory, its much harder to wage an effective war.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
D. Minky,
The AI knows the full map from the start. It even knows the location of resources yet to appear (because the tech has not been researched yet).
The AI knows the full map from the start. It even knows the location of resources yet to appear (because the tech has not been researched yet).
iamliberal
Prince
I agree that I wish the AI values maps more, but Anarres is correct that the AI knows the whole map already. I wish they didn't.
I suggest a couple of things for TET if there's any way to include these:
1. I don't know how exactly, but we need an improved Foreign Advisor/ Info screen, especially with 34 civs! It is sooo tedious to open dialogue with 30 civs every turn to find out how much gold they have and if they've developed a new technology, etc. We need like a big chart that shows all the Civs: 1. amount of gold, 2. gov't type, 3. recent techs obtrained/ or what's being developed. Acutally, I think Civ 1 and 2 had a screen sort of like this, I think when you went to negotiatie withthe civs, a screen popped up that showed their gov't type and amount of gold... and civ 2 would say what they think of you and your reputation. Am I remembering this correctly? Can Civ3 be tweaked to incorporate these things? It's also difficult to see who is trading what with whom.
2. Every 1,000 years or so, some philospher like Winky or somethign will show you rankings of 1-10 for like most powerful, wealthiest, most advanced, etc. I think this info should be available at any time. Also, the screen that shows your civ's popluation, military size, disease, popluation, etc., it only says your own rank. Didn't old versions of Civ always say who was in 1st if you weren't? I think it should show at least the top 10 for each of those categories, if not for all 34 civs. Any possibilities to make this happen, or are these actually Civ 3 edits out of the scope of modiifications???
These changes would help me sooo much and make the game a bit less tedious!! I don't mind micromanaging my workers and troops, but I hate how tedious negotiationgs. It makes me lose out on great trades just because I don't want to waste time negotiating with EACH civ EACH turn just to see what's available. The AI on the other hand, knows instantly who's got what. What does everyone else think?
I suggest a couple of things for TET if there's any way to include these:
1. I don't know how exactly, but we need an improved Foreign Advisor/ Info screen, especially with 34 civs! It is sooo tedious to open dialogue with 30 civs every turn to find out how much gold they have and if they've developed a new technology, etc. We need like a big chart that shows all the Civs: 1. amount of gold, 2. gov't type, 3. recent techs obtrained/ or what's being developed. Acutally, I think Civ 1 and 2 had a screen sort of like this, I think when you went to negotiatie withthe civs, a screen popped up that showed their gov't type and amount of gold... and civ 2 would say what they think of you and your reputation. Am I remembering this correctly? Can Civ3 be tweaked to incorporate these things? It's also difficult to see who is trading what with whom.
2. Every 1,000 years or so, some philospher like Winky or somethign will show you rankings of 1-10 for like most powerful, wealthiest, most advanced, etc. I think this info should be available at any time. Also, the screen that shows your civ's popluation, military size, disease, popluation, etc., it only says your own rank. Didn't old versions of Civ always say who was in 1st if you weren't? I think it should show at least the top 10 for each of those categories, if not for all 34 civs. Any possibilities to make this happen, or are these actually Civ 3 edits out of the scope of modiifications???
These changes would help me sooo much and make the game a bit less tedious!! I don't mind micromanaging my workers and troops, but I hate how tedious negotiationgs. It makes me lose out on great trades just because I don't want to waste time negotiating with EACH civ EACH turn just to see what's available. The AI on the other hand, knows instantly who's got what. What does everyone else think?
iamliberal
Prince
I agree that I wish the AI values maps more, but Anarres is correct that the AI knows the whole map already. I wish they didn't.
I suggest a couple of things for TET if there's any way to include these:
1. I don't know how exactly, but we need an improved Foreign Advisor/ Info screen, especially with 34 civs! It is sooo tedious to open dialogue with 30 civs every turn to find out how much gold they have and if they've developed a new technology, etc. We need like a big chart that shows all the Civs: 1. amount of gold, 2. gov't type, 3. recent techs obtrained/ or what's being developed. Acutally, I think Civ 1 and 2 had a screen sort of like this, I think when you went to negotiatie withthe civs, a screen popped up that showed their gov't type and amount of gold... and civ 2 would say what they think of you and your reputation. Am I remembering this correctly? Can Civ3 be tweaked to incorporate these things? It's also difficult to see who is trading what with whom.
2. Every 1,000 years or so, some philospher like Winky or somethign will show you rankings of 1-10 for like most powerful, wealthiest, most advanced, etc. I think this info should be available at any time. Also, the screen that shows your civ's popluation, military size, disease, popluation, etc., it only says your own rank. Didn't old versions of Civ always say who was in 1st if you weren't? I think it should show at least the top 10 for each of those categories, if not for all 34 civs. Any possibilities to make this happen, or are these actually Civ 3 edits out of the scope of modiifications???
These changes would help me sooo much and make the game a bit less tedious!! I don't mind micromanaging my workers and troops, but I hate how tedious negotiationgs. It makes me lose out on great trades just because I don't want to waste time negotiating with EACH civ EACH turn just to see what's available. The AI on the other hand, knows instantly who's got what. What does everyone else think?
I suggest a couple of things for TET if there's any way to include these:
1. I don't know how exactly, but we need an improved Foreign Advisor/ Info screen, especially with 34 civs! It is sooo tedious to open dialogue with 30 civs every turn to find out how much gold they have and if they've developed a new technology, etc. We need like a big chart that shows all the Civs: 1. amount of gold, 2. gov't type, 3. recent techs obtrained/ or what's being developed. Acutally, I think Civ 1 and 2 had a screen sort of like this, I think when you went to negotiatie withthe civs, a screen popped up that showed their gov't type and amount of gold... and civ 2 would say what they think of you and your reputation. Am I remembering this correctly? Can Civ3 be tweaked to incorporate these things? It's also difficult to see who is trading what with whom.
2. Every 1,000 years or so, some philospher like Winky or somethign will show you rankings of 1-10 for like most powerful, wealthiest, most advanced, etc. I think this info should be available at any time. Also, the screen that shows your civ's popluation, military size, disease, popluation, etc., it only says your own rank. Didn't old versions of Civ always say who was in 1st if you weren't? I think it should show at least the top 10 for each of those categories, if not for all 34 civs. Any possibilities to make this happen, or are these actually Civ 3 edits out of the scope of modiifications???
These changes would help me sooo much and make the game a bit less tedious!! I don't mind micromanaging my workers and troops, but I hate how tedious negotiationgs. It makes me lose out on great trades just because I don't want to waste time negotiating with EACH civ EACH turn just to see what's available. The AI on the other hand, knows instantly who's got what. What does everyone else think?
iamliberal
Prince
sorry for the double post, dont know what happened there.
BobTheTerrible
Just Another Bob
They do, but there's a limit of 31 civs. Teturkan tried to include those most important to the real world.
About civs collapsing and revolts, I would love this idea, in fact I was disappointed when civ3 didn't have it. But it's just not possible with civ3s current programming. It also araises new questions, like how would the leaderhead be like? etc etc. If teturkan has found a way to implement this, then I'd say definitely go aead but I'm afraid its not possible without changing the programming.
D. Minky
Warlord
Is that a limit of 31 civs *total*? Or just 31 civs in a single game? Cause then it could be possible to add civs and just pick which ones get left out each game.
I agree that it's probably impossible to add the revolts and collapses, but just as a note, if it could be done, all that would need to happen is to add a spare civ that wasn't being used in the game. For instance, if Rome split in half on a small map, France could form out of the split. Or Zululand, or anyone. If the map was already using all the civs, then I imagine the splitting cities would join adjacent countries.
But I guess it's just a pipe dream, cause I really doubt it's that programmable.
I agree that it's probably impossible to add the revolts and collapses, but just as a note, if it could be done, all that would need to happen is to add a spare civ that wasn't being used in the game. For instance, if Rome split in half on a small map, France could form out of the split. Or Zululand, or anyone. If the map was already using all the civs, then I imagine the splitting cities would join adjacent countries.
But I guess it's just a pipe dream, cause I really doubt it's that programmable.
Similar threads
