Workers of the World!

[Plotinus]

TY So a "slave" would indeed have to go into this slot. It reminds me of the original Civ where only one tech tree slot allowed +2 techs. Why the blazes don't these people code more flexibly? (At this point, the question has simply become one of professional astonishment.)

-Oz

And that's all that can be said!

 

[Ozymandias]

And that's all that can be said!

Good one.

-Oz

 

[ShiroKobbure]

What I do is make the workers turn into slaves when they are captured, so slaves are the 2nd unit on the list. So civs can trade slaves. It is also more historically accurate I think. The only problem is you can only have one type slave unit(that can be traded)....

 

[Spacer One]

I have different workers for several civs, and they are all tradeable...just like BlueMofia suggested...unit A --> Unit B --> Unit C...and they are all tradeable...

I know this because my favorite "glitch" in my current mod, is playing as Tibet, Capturing African Workers, and then upgrading them into "Asian Worker(Maori)"...then trade it back...

(P.S. I dont know why this happens in my Mod...Im trying to find somewhere to host it as we type)

 

[AncientOne]

Not really. What you can do is to change which units you start with, but that change will be for all civilizations. You change the starting units in the C3C editor:

But no.. you can have different starting units for every civ.. just in rules/general you take starting units away.. and instead you add starting units in scenario properties/players.. then offcourse players/civs have to be defined

 

[Ozymandias]

But no.. you can have different starting units for every civ.. just in rules/general you take starting units away.. and instead you add starting units in scenario properties/players.. then offcourse players/civs have to be defined

What's the difference between "Players" and "Civs" (I don't play this game H2H). If the answer is "none", does that mean that pre-assigning techs in the Scenario's properties is the same as assigning starting techs elsewhere in the editor?

Thanks,

Oz

 

[Bluemofia]

"Civs" are the actual civilizations that you can choose from. "Players" are the current civs in the game.

And yes, you can. But those civs will be guaranteed to appear in the game.

 

[Plotinus]

To put it another way, civs are types and players are tokens, although it's hard to tell the difference because you can't have more than one type of any given token (two players can't each be the Romans, for example). Rather like Thomist angels (every individual is a unique species).

This is what happens when I'm left alone all day, putting together fifteen flics for a single unit (!) gets dull, and my mind wanders.

 

[Wolfhart]

... fifteen flics for a single unit (!) ...

So much to look forward to...

 

[Blue Monkey]

To put it another way, civs are types and players are tokens, although it's hard to tell the difference because you can't have more than one type of any given token (two players can't each be the Romans, for example). Rather like Thomist angels (every individual is a unique species).

OT: But wouldn't "Thomist angels" itself be a type, and therefore there could only be one instantiation (token)? [insert too much set theory, not enough theology smiley]

I'm finding this discussion of unique/flavored/civ-specific units very instructive. Keep it up, everyone.

 

[Stormrage]

I don`t get what are we discussing in the first place?

 

[kairob]

How to best impliment; a) Flavour units in genoral, and b) Flavour Workers in particular. I think...

 

[Stormrage]

But.. don`t we know all that? Just open a .biq from any better mod..

 

[BadKharma]

This is what happens when I'm left alone all day, putting together fifteen flics for a single unit (!) gets dull, and my mind wanders.

I look forward to seeing the results.

 

[Ozymandias]

@Bluemofia & Plotinus - So there's a 1:1 correlation between Players and Civs, meaning that the "free starting techs" option is available via two different options, in two very different places, in the editor. Of course. After all, why should any of this make sense?

Thanks To All,

Oz

 

[Bluemofia]

Not necessarily. Players <= Civs. You can have 31 civs, but only 8 players in a standard map in Civ III Conquests for example.

Well, the free starting techs given in the civ section in the rules gives them up to 4 techs that they start with. But the civ doesn't necessarily have to appear in the game.

If the techs are given in the scenario properties, the civ must appear in game, though you can potentially give them all of the techs in game, not just the 4 they start with in the rules. (plus you can further customize it by removing the ones they start with, leaving them with no techs, or some of their starting techs.)

 

[Ozymandias]

Not necessarily. Players <= Civs. You can have 31 civs, but only 8 players in a standard map in Civ III Conquests for example.

Well, the free starting techs given in the civ section in the rules gives them up to 4 techs that they start with. But the civ doesn't necessarily have to appear in the game.

If the techs are given in the scenario properties, the civ must appear in game, though you can potentially give them all of the techs in game, not just the 4 they start with in the rules. (plus you can further customize it by removing the ones they start with, leaving them with no techs, or some of their starting techs.)

Thanks for the clarification.

-Oz

 

[Azmorg]

Plotinus:
It seems redundant to add one more piggy back onto all the others, but I'm going to anyway.

This is one of the most fantastic pieces of work that have been released in these forum's. I am incredibly impressed. I think that this group of units is perhaps the most supurlative ever, with perhaps only the knight pack made by BeBro being their equal. I had replied to a different thread a while ago indicating that I believed leaderheads to be the consumate work. I am having to re-evaluate that opinion. Thank you.

 

[Azmorg]

Prospector's a lefty!

 

[Stormrage]

Wha?