FIRAXIS: A list of EASY fixes for the next C3C patch - Page 10

Cmonkey · November 19, 2003, 16:23

I'm amazed someone hasn't said this already...

I know it's not the easiest thing to add, but we've been asking for this since we first got our hands on the editor... The ability to set diplomatic relations: set contacts, set treaties set reputation & regard, set deals, etc.

Locked Alliances are fine but we want the good stuff, real diplomacy editing, and WE WANT IT NOW!!!

alexman · November 19, 2003, 16:25

Yes, in a patch, sure...

Greg1 · November 19, 2003, 16:31

> Animations are not assosiatec with icons, but with the > Civliopedia Entry...

Right, and you can add an animation for a unit that is already part of that game just by copying and pasting the civilopedia link into the appropriate box in the editor. However, that doesn't work if the animation isn't already a part of the scenario. For instance, if I want to modify the epic game so that it includes the warrior monk, I can't just copy the link from the Sengoku scenario and paste it into the unit writeup in my modified epic game. I get a crash because the civilopedia in question doesn't have the warrior monk animation.

I shouldn't have to leave the editor to get that animation - it should be linked to the icon. It wouldn't be so bad if I knew anything about programming, but I don't. :-(

Greg

alexman · November 19, 2003, 16:35

Greg1, for sure they haven't made scenario creation easy, but as long as there is actually a way to get it done, there are probably more improtant things to fix in a patch right now. Thanks for the suggestion though!

Cmonkey · November 19, 2003, 18:27

How about the ability to add more Eras? Seems like an easy one to me.

joncnunn · November 19, 2003, 22:34

More on the AI sells workers too cheaply and too early.

Maybe for all games, the AI should value a worker at 6 * (max turn number - current turn number.)

It would then be worth aproxxly what a human would value it as throughout the game rather than being absurdly underpriced in early game.

WarpStorm · November 19, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Cmonkey
How about the ability to add more Eras? Seems like an easy one to me.

Actually, when I asked for this during PTW development, Firaxis implied that this would take a major rewrite of the code.

vmxa1 · November 19, 2003, 22:52

They gotta have something for Civ4.

Gramphos · November 20, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg1
I shouldn't have to leave the editor to get that animation - it should be linked to the icon. It wouldn't be so bad if I knew anything about programming, but I don't. :-(

Greg

The problem for Firaxis in doing so is that there is currently no relation of anything between the icons and the animations. (The icons are just an offset in one file whilest the animations are given by a name)

It would be good to move the animname field to the editor thou, that wouldn't require as mush programming from their side, and wqouldn't make it harder to create and add new unitanimations (which obviously your suggestion would do as it has to associate the animation with an icon which probably would be even harder to do than the current system for selecting an animation for a unit)

dexters · November 20, 2003, 04:14

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
More on the AI sells workers too cheaply and too early.

Maybe for all games, the AI should value a worker at 6 * (max turn number - current turn number.)

It would then be worth aproxxly what a human would value it as throughout the game rather than being absurdly underpriced in early game.

That's too general. If an AI is about to be blown to peices, it may want to sell those workers or whatever assets it can sell, to bribe someone to come in on their side.

I'd be happy if AI start offering to sell workers to you when they need cash, instead of merging them into cities and immediately producing a new one in one of their core cities (click on the link in my sig called C3C debug game part 1)
What a waste.

Slax · November 20, 2003, 08:59

I don't have PTW or C3C (yet), so this may already exist, but one simple change I'd like to see is the addition of the civ colour(s) to the diplomacy screen (perhaps in the border around the leader's head, or in a simple band above each item list).

A graphical change is probably too much for a patch, but maybe it could be text colour (for now).

asleepathewheel · November 20, 2003, 11:27

I've noticed, at least in my current game, that the ai is avoiding sanitation like the plague-already early in modern age, three or four techs discovered around the world, but no hospitals to be seen. would greatly help the ai, more pop=better defense.

statusperfect · November 20, 2003, 11:42

Please add this to the list alexman

Small "bug": Keshik graphics represent roman cavalry in the fall of rome scenario.

This makes no sense as they have a perfectly fine ancient cavalry graphic to use with the scenario.

Traelin · November 20, 2003, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Remove the explore command from Leader, Catapult, Trebuchet, Cannon, Hwach'a, Artillery, Radar Artillery, Settler, Worker. These units are not meant for exploring territory, and the change reduces erroneous commands (the E key is right next to the W key!). You can currently fix this using the editor.

OMG someone else that hates this!! I am ALWAYS accidentally hitting the E instead of the W.

DrSpike · November 20, 2003, 13:03

Maybe finger slimming exercises are the answer.

Cmonkey · November 20, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm

Actually, when I asked for this during PTW development, Firaxis implied that this would take a major rewrite of the code.

That makes no sense at all, that this would require a major rewrite.

alexman · November 20, 2003, 13:09

Maybe not, but you can safely interpret it as meaning that it's not an easy fix, and that it won't be in the next patch.

Traelin · November 20, 2003, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Now that I got that out my system, here's a change I would like:

NO LETHAL BOMBARD FOR BOMBERS

Bombers have INCREDIBLE bang-for-the-buck, heck, they usually never even make Stealth Bombers necessary. To top it off, now they have lethal land bombardment?!? I remember a scenario in the beta test where my bombers would simply wait in an offshore city and pick off enemy units one by one as they came into view. I didn't even have any troops in the enemy territory and his army was decimated. How real is that for a WW2-era military unit?

How many WW2 heavy bombers sank enemy ships? How many WW2 heavy bombers destroyed army formations? This is not only unrealistic from a historical point of view, but it makes the bomber unit just TOO powerful. Yeah I b*tched about this one too during the beta...

(btw, I understand that in the WW2 Pacific scenario the lethal bombard makes the scenario more realistic but emphasis here should be on the epic game default rules.)

I vehemently disagree with you on this one. Lethal bombard is very, very realistic and necessary IMHO. Look at all the major conflicts the U.S. has been involved in the last 15 years. We have invested tons of R&D into air superiority, and for good reason. In literally a matter of days we are able to rip to shreds a well-fortified army. Lethal air bombard must stay in.

EDIT: Maybe a good compromise would be to disallow lethal air bombardment with standard bombers, but allow lethal bombardment for F-15s, Jet Fighters, and Stealth Fighters/Bombers.

Traelin · November 20, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie
IMO, bombardment should have logic something like this:

1. Is there an enemy resource in range?
Yes--> Bomb the tile until the resource is disconnected.
No-->
2. Are there enemy ships in range?
Yes--> Bomb the ships until they all sink.
No-->
3. Are there enemy land forces in the open in range?
Yes--> Bomb the exposed enemy land forces.
No-->
4. Are there enemy cities in range?
Yes--> Bomb the enemy cities.
No-->
5. Is there enemy infrastructure in range (any other tile improvement) ?
Yes--> Bomb closest enemy tile improvement.
No-->
6. Rebase to a location with enemy targets in range.

This is EXACTLY how I feel it should work. Exactly.

Brundlefly · November 20, 2003, 13:43

There is not much Firaxis/Atari/Breakaway presence in this thread. Are they listening? Do they care?

Traelin · November 20, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

Huh? Trading for Iron will do nothing for making the IronWorks small wonder. You must have coal and Iron in the same city, don't you?

vmxa1, you are correct.

Traelin · November 20, 2003, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Thoth
Early switches to Republic are much tougher, but by the time you reach the mid-to-late Middle Ages, they can support an impressive military for low/no maint cost. By the time Democracy rolls around, there is even less point in switching now than there was in PTW. Your unit support costs with a decent sized empire will be far lower under a Republic than a Democracy.

By the mid industrial, it's a fairly straighforward matter to have 15-20 metros (more on larger than standard maps). As a Republic this means 60-80 free units. In order for a Democracy to pull ahead in support costs, you'll need to have more than twice that number of units. Factor in Demo's increased war weariness, and the 6-8 turns of anarchy just for faster workers (and often higher unit costs) just isn't worth it.

Oh so true. This was the first game I never had to switch to another govt. other than Republic. I love big-a*s militaries, so Republic is definitely the most viable govt. for me right now when I'm not Religious.

Traelin · November 20, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Ummm, DrSpike, look at my suggestion

!!! I think the problem with Republic in Civ3, generally, is that the enabling tech occurs around the time of the Roman Republic, yet the government they describe sounds more like our Modern Republics-like the US-which was never how Rome really was! After all, the ROmans and Carthaganians were more warlike, but Probably had big problems with Corruption in their far-flung cities! I doubt that they would have used paid labour to fast track most of their big construction projects either-but I could be wrong on this last point

! Still, I think there should be TWO types of Republic, and possibly even two types of Democracy (Classical and Modern) What do YOU guys think?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Two types of Republic sounds like a great idea, but there should only be one type of Democracy IMO. Roman Republics functioned very differently than America, which is for all intents and purposes a Modern Republic, NOT a Democracy.

Traelin · November 20, 2003, 13:56

OK this is seriously not a big deal to me, but I'm in an anal mood so I'll mention it. Please add the Sistine Chapel graphics back to the City View. I know noone seems to use it, but I personally like to look at the city View every now and then. I'd also like the newer Wonders added, too, but if that's too much trouble then don't bother. Just please add the Sistine Chapel back in.

The_Aussie_Lurker · November 20, 2003, 18:15

Traelin, you are ABSOLUTELY correct that the Roman Republic worked VERY differently from the Modern republics in the world today but, by the same token, the type of Democracy which existed in Athens in the Classical age is VERY different from that which is practiced around the world today! After all, our modern system relies on us electing people to represent and make decisions for us, wheras the Athenians relied mostly on a Plebicite model! The point is that both classical governments would have improved war weariness, but worse corruption, 'cause these forms of the government seemed to work best when the nations which practiced them were very small!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Greg1 · November 20, 2003, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos

The problem for Firaxis in doing so is that there is currently no relation of anything between the icons and the animations. (The icons are just an offset in one file whilest the animations are given by a name)

Hm. Well at the very least, they could have included all of the animations used in the expansion in the list of available animations in this editor. Since those particular animations are on my machine anyway, they may as well make them available - like the dinosaur in the old Civ III PTW who was available in the editor even though he was no part of the epic game.

statusperfect · November 20, 2003, 18:27

Anal nitpicker report 2 from fall of rome scenario:

BUG: The Scourge of God wonder uses the same icon as the War Council (from japanese conquest), but when i build it a picture of the pentagon (

)is displayed. Using the War Council splash would be more appropriate.

Please add to list

Mad Bomber · November 20, 2003, 18:51

Since I have already detailed my complaints on scenerios on another thread I will stick to my easy fixes to the epic game.

1. The privateer should get gold for capture instead of inslavement. In my current game, I took on 9 Russian gallies (trying to invade someone, I suspect the target was me) with three privateers. The fighting ended (after 3 turns) with me having 6 privateers (lost one) and the Russians entering their final slumber. Simply put the Privateer is simply too powerful as designed (it is poweful as a Frigate in attacking) Instead they should get 25 gold (or perhaps 10) per capture.

2. After the TOA (Temple of Artimis) is made obsolete, all of the temples placed by the wonder disappear and have to be built.

3. The SOZ (Statue of Zeus) and KT (Knights Templar) should be small wonders. SOZ should require Horses and Ivory. KT should require a Feudal government. Frequency should be chaged to 3 (optional). These are too powerful to be GW's.

4. Make the Naval Academy ( A DD every X turns) a SW in the epic game.

5. Fix the corruption bugs!!!!

statusperfect · November 20, 2003, 19:04

DP

alexman · November 20, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
1. The privateer should get gold for capture instead of inslavement.

Maybe, but it sure is fun this way. The old privateer was way underpowered. It's not like the age of the privateer lasts long anyway. What will you do with all your enslaved privateers after combustion?

Quote:

2. After the TOA (Temple of Artimis) is made obsolete, all of the temples placed by the wonder disappear and have to be built.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Quote:

3. The SOZ (Statue of Zeus) and KT (Knights Templar) should be small wonders. SOZ should require Horses and Ivory. KT should require a Feudal government. Frequency should be chaged to 3 (optional). These are too powerful to be GW's.

4. Make the Naval Academy ( A DD every X turns) a SW in the epic game.

You might be right, but these are big gameplay changes that would have to be tested. They seem to me to belong more in a mod than in a patch. They are good ideas though.