UUs

MOAB · April 2, 2003, 16:17

I am new player of Civ III and PTW and love it. Reading the threads has really helped me learn how to play. Is it possible to add a new unit using the editor for certian civs, and if so, to have it initiate a second golden age. I tried using the editor and got: Error Reading Program File Missing Entry in "text\pedialcons.txt":ICON

I am a history buff as I am sure many of the Civ fans are. I just believe that some civs, English, Spanish, French and maybe the Romans should have two golden ages.

Also, the Roman Legionary should be able to build roads. The Arabs and Mongols also need some increased capability.

PLATO · April 2, 2003, 18:13

MOAB, Roman Legions building roads...hmm. While this may be more historically accurate, the legionary is already a formidable unit even for a UU. Probably to much power in one units hands I think.

Azeem · April 2, 2003, 19:26

For the pediaicons thing, you need to type the icon in the pediaicon.txt file. Each new unit needs a new entry in pediaicon.txt. You can simply "borrow" icons from other units though by copying their file names and renaming them then typing their file names in pediaicon.txt.

bvoncranium · April 2, 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MOAB
. Is it possible to add a new unit using the editor for certian civs, and if so, to have it initiate a second golden age. I tried using the editor and got: Error Reading Program File Missing Entry in "text\pedialcons.txt":ICON

You may find the following post/thread instructive:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=66922

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Also, the Roman Legionary should be able to build roads.

From a gameplay perspective, I think that this would make Rome too strong.

If Legionary road building was added, something would have to be taken away for balance IMHO.

Best of luck with the new unit additions.
Cheers, bvc

WarpStorm · April 2, 2003, 23:00

The game only allows one Golden Age per civ (even if you add a second UU).

Addding road building will work for the human, but I'm pretty sure the AI won't use it that way because you won't be able to set the Terraform Strategy with only the road flag.

ToeTruck · April 2, 2003, 23:28

Does anyone know why Firaxis decided on one and only one Golden Age? I understand not allowing them to happen willy-nilly, but it seems like having one for a victorious UU and one for Wonder building would work well.

I often find that I hold off fighting with the early UUs for fear of triggering a premature GA.

- TT

Fried-Psitalon · April 3, 2003, 08:21

Because it could be easily abused; if you got your first Golden Age before the other guy, you could spend it building the other fellow's needed wonders, confident that you'll get one more to take care of yourself later. (Ignoring what all your other cities might be doing.) If you were playing a moderately early Civ vs. a late Civ (China vs Germany for example) and strung your GAs back-to-back, 40+ turns of Golden Age Rider production could easily shatter the back of a Civ that was your equivalent going into the GA. (You could also ride a double-GA through a technological era in very little time.)

GA's are powerful enough as it is.

And for those who play Internet MP... do you REALLY want the Zulu or the Aztecs to get TWO Golden Ages?

::wince::

bongo · April 3, 2003, 09:48

GA's are very powerful unless one is started by accident when an AI idiot attacks my greek hoplite with a warrior

The GA feels a bit wasted when I only have 3 small cities...

Maybe you could allow 2 GA if you seperated them with at least one age? Like if you had your first in the ancient age you couldn't have another until the industrial age. If you weakened each GA you could even have one in each age. Or different kind of GA. When you get GA of enlightment you would get 20 turn with science bonus, GA of Conquest would yield cheaper military upgrades and so on.

MOAB · April 3, 2003, 11:56

Thanks for the feedback. The UUs and GAs are a great aspect of the game. Any changes made to any civ would have to be balanced to some degree for all the civs. However, it seems that most of the historically strong civs England, France and Spain to a lesser degree Rome are all undesirable civs to play but they should be some of the more interesting. And Carthage should have the War Elephant-Hannibal crossing the Alps and all.

Fried-Psitalon · April 3, 2003, 12:12

England is undesirable to play? Hooooboy. Hyper-REX with sub-normal corruption is great, as long as you're playing a nice, big map.

MOAB · April 3, 2003, 13:20

I'll give England a shot. Besides the map size does does it matter what type of world.

Fried-Psitalon · April 3, 2003, 13:28

Actually, no- England can be the first to get boats if you're on an archipelago, and if you're on a Pangea, can get an ultra-early granary. Mind you, there ARE better Civs out there than England for expansion, but England's combo of being able to expand very quickly under any circumstances and having lower corruption at longer distances is very potent in longer games.

MotownDennis · April 4, 2003, 23:15

I would have to say that, all in all, England is simply the very worst civ in the entire game.

Worthingtons · April 4, 2003, 23:50

They arent that bad Dennis, I play England always (since I'm from there!) and have learned thier advantages. As people the Corruption benefit is great, couple it with a good Settler farm and a handful of techs at the beggening of the game and you're laughing

MotownDennis · April 5, 2003, 02:21

I wish they were good; I think it'd be fun to be the English. Their traits are so-so and the UU is obviously weak. They could be ok, but i could make a case for any other civ being better than them. That's why I say they're the weakest.

Fried-Psitalon · April 5, 2003, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by MotownDennis
I wish they were good; I think it'd be fun to be the English. Their traits are so-so and the UU is obviously weak. They could be ok, but i could make a case for any other civ being better than them. That's why I say they're the weakest.

Well. With conclusive, mighty evidence like THAT....

WarpStorm · April 5, 2003, 08:55

My only issue with the English is their weak UU. Their traits put them near the top of the heap.

Gramphos · April 5, 2003, 12:28

It would be good to allow a second GA for civs, but only if their power has re-raised after they had fallen a lot (i.e after a long bad time comes new hope) This would seldom render a second GA, only if a civ mannages to survive a major fallback, and then somehow (probably through diplomacy) mannages to rerise to it's former size (or make great step towards it).

It should maybe also be a second GA if, after a long time of non or very slow growth the growth speeds up extremely for ome turns. However, I think that a second GA from UU-victory is too mush. Analysing the histograph is better way to produce a second GA. (But as it would most likely be more work the allowing a second GA in another way we'll most likely not see it)

Sava · April 5, 2003, 13:12

I think England would be better if the combat values of naval units were more realistic.

MotownDennis · April 5, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Well. With conclusive, mighty evidence like THAT....

You're right; I didn't do some in-depth scientific analysis. It's just that my personal hierarchy of the civ traits goes like this:

1) Industrious
2) Religious
3) Scientific
4) Militaristic
5) Commercial
6) Expansionist

Since England has my two least favorite traits and a useless UU, guess where they end up on my list of civs?

I think maybe I'll play my next game as the English just to see for myself.

Azeem · April 5, 2003, 18:33

I personally seldom use UUs. I'm more interested in the traits of civs since UUs can become obselete pretty fast.

WarpStorm · April 5, 2003, 21:24

See that's where we differ. Expansionistic is by far my favorite trait.

MotownDennis · April 6, 2003, 00:01

By far? It does give you an early advantage, but then what? It's useless after the first 30 or so turns. It's nice to get the lay of the land and the nice goody huts (along with the free tech and occasional free settler), but I'd rather have a trait that is useful for the entire game. Especially when playing harder levels, you just can't afford to only have one "working" trait after the ancient age. But, hey - whatever works I guess.

Flanker · April 6, 2003, 09:55

Speaking of GA:s, when is the best time to get it? Personally I think it is somewhere during the industrial era, when you start building factories and hospitals, and there are some nice wonders to be built. Personally that´s usually also the time when I really start build up some military, in the early days I usually only have the most necessary defensive units.

Sava · April 6, 2003, 12:43

The best time to use the GA depends on the CIV, IMO. I like to play as the Germans usually. And coincidentally, I usually use the GA in one of two times: 1. When another Civ gets ready to build Newton's College (building it triggers German GA). 2. When I have Panzers poised to conquer the world. (I usually build up a monsterours army of Panzers, position them strategically, then roll over entire Civs in a few turns).

Zero · April 6, 2003, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by MotownDennis
By far? It does give you an early advantage, but then what? It's useless after the first 30 or so turns.

Popping settler from goody hut, exp trait giving you advantage early = Any advantage you get in the beginning is exponential

This is gonna turn into trait thread, but oh well here it goes

My order:

exp
Ind
Mil
Rel
Com
Sci

Obviously I like the americans, but with UU, it would be china.

MotownDennis · April 6, 2003, 17:05

I understand that the effect of expansionist is exponential in the early game - I've just had too many times when I'm stuck by other expansionist civs who suck up the goody huts. I get a few huts then I have a useless trait for the rest of the game.

WarpStorm · April 6, 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MotownDennis
By far? It does give you an early advantage, but then what? It's useless after the first 30 or so turns. It's nice to get the lay of the land and the nice goody huts (along with the free tech and occasional free settler), but I'd rather have a trait that is useful for the entire game. Especially when playing harder levels, you just can't afford to only have one "working" trait after the ancient age. But, hey - whatever works I guess.

I use my head start to keep ahead for the rest of the game. In addition, you will have another trait that will give you another advantage. Expansionistic-Industrial is probably the strongest for my play style.

MotownDennis · April 6, 2003, 21:33

I agree that it's nice to get off to the good start. The problem is this: What if you don't get ahead early? What if the goody huts aren't quite as "good" as you thought they'd be? In both SP and MP I've found that if I don't play expansionist and I sneak ahead of all the expansionist civs, it's GAME OVER. I'll have two "working" traits and you'll have one.