The years go by - is any idea for a community Civ3-clone utterly dead? :)

[Takhisis]

@Takhisis Unity's big selling point is that you can develop once and deploy natively to almost any platform. I'm working in Linux, but I can make a Windows exe or WebGL app with a few clicks.

So I can test it natively rather than on WINE.

Be careful with Balthasar's proposal, lest we start running a battle.net-like site.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't that how Civ2 worked? Freeciv is basically a Civ2 clone.

Yes. And yes.

In civ2, as noted, SOD dies if the strongest defender (defending first) dies, unless the units are in a fort.
This made it imperative to make 10+ workers to escort with the army, so as to make a fort in 1 turn, in most scenarios.

 

[Takhisis]

Since you lot want to discuss reboots, OT has a new thread about Civ2 with useful links…
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-civ2-renaissance.631568/

 

[Balthasar]

My post yesterday got a lot of response. That's good, even if the idea goes down in flames. But the Sopwith is still flying, so I'll load my guns, and see if I can't get into the dogfight. Many of your points are well taken, but not unanswerable:

Takhisis: Can't both be done concurrently, Balthasar?

Of course both could be done concurrently. I just think that my proposal would do more to inspire the sort of thing that we do around here – modding and designing for Civ III.

WildWeasel: That's a really interesting concept, but if I understand you correctly it seems that would mean just as much effort in the long run if not more than making a new game.

Kyriakos: ...it makes no sense to script for a server instead of scripting for your own game. Also, it is very unlikely to get people interested if you have to use a web server to play even when alone. Last but not least, most people who offered scripting don't seem to be into server scripting.

I'm not sure that you can actually make the case that my idea is tougher to do, given that the clone idea has been kicking around this forum since I first joined it, with zero to show for it. We've gotten a couple of excellent editors, though, and some nifty exe files to play with. Honestly though, this idea has been on my mind for years.

My instinct says that it should be vastly easier to find someone who can competently script a website than someone who can confidently build and script a new game that mirrors Civ III to the point that the files are interchangeable.

Because here's the problem that I've identified, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong: There was supposedly a multi-player function available for Civ III, but it doesn't work. We can't get four or five guys together online to even knock out a vanilla game, much less an epic round of CCM. We need to be able to play our scenarios together, against each other. No, no one wants to play alone, Kyriakos. That's the point of this.

WildWeasel: Are you suggesting that the hosting website would become the medium by which people play, as their local files are loaded into the web application and processed server-side? So at some point the game mechanics would be reimplemented on the web platform instead of running on their local copy of the game?

Maybe, I'm not a web engineer. But I can sure imagine the parameters we'd have to meet, after all these years of thinkin' about it. I think, as I said, that the website would at least have to be able to detect that a player HAS the game installed on his desktop, before being allowed to proceed, lest Fireaxis be able to legitimately claim that their copyright was being infringed on, or sales cut into. I'm actually amazed that they didn't think of this first.

And yes, I also suggested that, fan-created scenarios and mods could be made available to players directly from the website to play in multiplayer mode, the trick there, I imagine, being to get the players' machines to access scenario folders from the website, rather than from off their own machines. Again, no copyright infringement necessary, if it's done right. Also, no need to crack the source code, rewrite the game engine, recreate graphics files, etc, etc. etc.

Done right, this would amount to a multiplayer utility for Civ III with a web-based platform. That's all. I know that it wouldn't be easy to do, but the payoff would be immediate and automatic.

Takhisis: Be careful with Balthasar's proposal, lest we start running a battle.net-like site.

The difference being that battle.net is owned and operated by the company that developed the games that are played there. This would be a fansite, dedicated only to Civ III, and featuring our own creations. Wouldn't you like to play one of your mods in multiplayer mode with folks from across the globe?

 

[WildWeazel]

Technical Information
TOTPP consists of a launcher and a DLL. The launcher has a GUI that allows the user to select which patches to apply (see screenshot). After patch selection, it launches TOT and injects the DLL into the process. The DLL then proceeds to patch TOT in memory.

holy balls.

 

[Nathiri]

Because here's the problem that I've identified, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong: There was supposedly a multi-player function available for Civ III, but it doesn't work. We can't get four or five guys together online to even knock out a vanilla game, much less an epic round of CCM. We need to be able to play our scenarios together, against each other. No, no one wants to play alone, Kyriakos. That's the point of this.

Are you saying something else? Multiplayer has always worked, even mods and scenarios. The Conquests themselves have MP versions. Four or Five guys is in the realm of playable already. The Disc copies now rely on Direct IP which is easily connected by Virtual IPs, or Port-forwarding; but Steam has their MP server that anyone can host as before with GameSpy, in fact almost easier.

The real problem that comes in is, duration of the game. PBEMs take a long time to play, and not everyone wants to play simultaneously, as that adds some other gameplay factors. Turn Based Internet is tedious too, so most do not play MP civ that way. This duration problem has always plagued Civ, and is why some people either dont make the change to MP, or just stay with SP and deal with the stupidity of AI, or they find a way to finish the game in a certain way; whether by shortening the game, or agreeing to play it over a week.

Now sure the MP is lacking in some areas, and there are some bugs, but it is usually playable, although some mods can give a few weird bugs (some game-breaking). In terms of lacking, if someone wins as you have determined, it doesnt take everybody into an endgame screen; all just have to leave; and for coalition alliances it doesnt take the victors into the endgame screen (only one member gets kicked to endgame screen). Then, there is the limit of 8 players, and the volatility of an 8 player game (I think the netcode is poor). I have mostly played 2 player LAN for mods (Anno Domini I, II, Tides of Crimson etc), but I have played 2 player Internet for Anno Domini, and CCM. Alliances are also not configurable within the game, but have to be edited in a BIQ; which is a bit tedious as you have to pass the BIQ around.

 

[Takhisis]

Of course both could be done concurrently. I just think that my proposal would do more to inspire the sort of thing that we do around here – modding and designing for Civ III.

The difference being that battle.net is owned and operated by the company that developed the games that are played there. This would be a fansite, dedicated only to Civ III, and featuring our own creations. Wouldn't you like to play one of your mods in multiplayer mode with folks from across the globe?

I know that they technically can be done concurrently. What I was really asking was whether the resources and manpower for all that are available.

holy balls.

You might be interested in how Dink Smallwood implements mods. The basic game is awful, awful, awful, but it's very moddable and it's essentially as good as the modder(s). It's an RPG so there's not much to learn from them except for their launcher system.

 

[Balthasar]

Nathiri [107]: The Disc copies now rely on Direct IP which is easily connected by Virtual IPs, or Port-forwarding; but Steam has their MP server that anyone can host as before with GameSpy, in fact almost easier.

Not at all easy for folks like me who have no idea of what any of that means, nor how it is accomplished. Nor do I subscribe to Steam (and have been warned away from it, since it uses a different format than standard Civ III conquest games).

I'm suggesting a simple website with simple menus and easy sign up, not a science project. If that's been done before in a different context, all the better: we have a template for for a more user-friendly version.

 

[Takhisis]

^Edited in missing answer (post #108).

 

[Balthasar]

I know that they technically can be done concurrently. What I was really asking was whether the resources and manpower for all that are available.

Hard to say. I imagine that website programmers are likely more numerous than game programmers, but that's just a guess. It's a logistics problem, so it's not as insurmountable as, say, designing playworthy AI routines might be.

 

[Kyriakos]

@WildWeazel , any update on your own work?

 

[Balthasar]

Re-reading my posts in this thread over the last couple of days gives me the feeling that I might be making the wrong impression here.

I'm really a big supporter of the effort to make a working clone of the game, the more flexible, I think, the better.

And I've said before, I'm available to contribute graphics to any developer, as well as my own insights into the inner workings of certain file sets, like the interface, which I've worked with alot.

In the meantime, anyone who'd like to join me in an effort to recruit a web developer to establish a multiplayer web-site for Civ III users is welcome to PM me on the subject, and if I get enough of a team assembled, I'll start a new thread for it.

I wish everyone here good luck and godspeed in their development effort, and stand ready to assist. I think that the Civ II breakthrough someone mentioned might be worth exploring.

 

[Takhisis]

Hard to say. I imagine that website programmers are likely more numerous than game programmers, but that's just a guess.

I was speaking in terms of CFCers willing and able to run one or both projects.

It's a logistics problem, so it's not as insurmountable as, say, designing playworthy AI routines might be.

I'm sorry - do you want this to be a CIv3 clone or not?

 

[Balthasar]

I was speaking in terms of CFCers willing and able to run one or both projects. I'm sorry - do you want this to be a CIv3 clone or not?

I thought both questions were answered in my latest post, above. Perhaps you didn't see it before you posted this.

 

[nick0515]

Yes. And yes.

In civ2, as noted, SOD dies if the strongest defender (defending first) dies, unless the units are in a fort.
This made it imperative to make 10+ workers to escort with the army, so as to make a fort in 1 turn, in most scenarios.

Oh, oops. It's been so long since I played Civ 2 I didn't remember that SODs died like that.

 

[Kyriakos]

Re-reading my posts in this thread over the last couple of days gives me the feeling that I might be making the wrong impression here.

I'm really a big supporter of the effort to make a working clone of the game, the more flexible, I think, the better.

And I've said before, I'm available to contribute graphics to any developer, as well as my own insights into the inner workings of certain file sets, like the interface, which I've worked with alot.

In the meantime, anyone who'd like to join me in an effort to recruit a web developer to establish a multiplayer web-site for Civ III users is welcome to PM me on the subject, and if I get enough of a team assembled, I'll start a new thread for it.

I wish everyone here good luck and godspeed in their development effort, and stand ready to assist. I think that the Civ II breakthrough someone mentioned might be worth exploring.

The good thing is that we still have a number of high-level gfx creators here, so any game will indeed feature great gfx Units, Interface & Terrain gfx.

 

[Nathiri]

Nathiri [107]: The Disc copies now rely on Direct IP which is easily connected by Virtual IPs, or Port-forwarding; but Steam has their MP server that anyone can host as before with GameSpy, in fact almost easier.

Not at all easy for folks like me who have no idea of what any of that means, nor how it is accomplished. Nor do I subscribe to Steam (and have been warned away from it, since it uses a different format than standard Civ III conquest games).

I'm suggesting a simple website with simple menus and easy sign up, not a science project. If that's been done before in a different context, all the better: we have a template for for a more user-friendly version.

Yes Portforwarding can be daunting, and annoying, but virtual ips have been made easy by using Hamachi or Tunngle. Hamachi is the easiest; you just download the program, create the network/lobby that allows you and your friend(s) to join together, then you refresh the server list with lan activated in the civ3 mp screen (as Hamachi creates a sort of Internet type of LAN), and it should show up no problem. I just used Hamachi recently on disc copy, because a guy I was playing with from Romania was constantly having disconnecting issues with the Steam Servers, which interrupted our game every time; which caused us to reload every time it happened.

"Different format" is not really true. Save games are compatible between the two versions. The only difference is that one added label in the labels.txt. The patched exes work fine with steam version. What happens is, the patched exe reverts to the previous old labels.txt, so you have to edit the labels.txt to remove that 'Unknown' line, while before, you add 'Unknown' to make it display in order with the Steam exe.

 

[WildWeazel]

@WildWeazel , any update on your own work?

Nothing tangible recently. I'm trying to find an out-of-the-box solution for wrapping tilemaps, or convince myself that Quill18's is worth doing. You'd think that this would be a pretty standard feature...

In the meantime, anyone who'd like to join me in an effort to recruit a web developer to establish a multiplayer web-site for Civ III users is welcome to PM me on the subject, and if I get enough of a team assembled, I'll start a new thread for it.

TBH I'm still not totally clear on what you're proposing that isn't supported in multiplayer mode.

playworthy AI

I'm sorry - do you want this to be a CIv3 clone or not?

I thought both questions were answered in my latest post, above. Perhaps you didn't see it before you posted this.

I think you missed Tak's implied sarcasm tag

 

[Takhisis]

I was just going to post a non-sarcastic reply and Steam suddenly deciding it wanted to download ~100MB of a Dota2 update got on in the way.

So, decoded: if you want Civ3 you don't want a playworthy AI. The best you can do is mod it so the AI blunders into doing the scenario maker's preferred type of blunder. Notice how the Vikings in Plotinus' Rood and Dragon scenario can be enticed into attacking England, or how Vuldacon manages to make the Zombies actually be a credible enemy in EFZI (and how the human factions not controlled by human players all fail miserably).

Instead, you could actually give it a better AI and make it be the game Civ3 could/should have been.

 

[Civinator]

So, decoded: if you want Civ3 you don't want a playworthy AI...
Instead, you could actually give it a better AI and make it be the game Civ3 could/should have been.

I´m not completely agreeing with this. Please remember, that in Civ 3 the AI was done to give the human player a demanding game - not to win the game. In Civ 4 -6 the AI was done to win the game - and is failing massively (especially in Civ 5 and Civ 6). Viewing the targets, that were set for the AI, Civ 3 hits these targets more closely than any later version of the Civ series. It seems you want to give the AI in Civ 3 other targets, not improving the AI with its setting of the original targets.