some initial modding I have done

[Sarxis]

Here is a link to my modded .bic file:

http://members.home.net/koba/civ3mod.bic

First thing I did was give the Privateer +2 attack and 4 movement.
Don't know why it was changed, but the Privateer basically sucks at the defaults.

Also, some of the mounted units before Cavalry have ZOC. Horseman did, and I can't understand why, because the Knight, War Elephant, etc., did not.

Also, I gave Nuclear subs a movement of 4. The civilopedia states that N-subs are faster than standard subs, but in the defaults they both have the same movement rate.

Also, I am not entirely pleased with the current 6 attack/4 defend of subs- I will probably change them, but not sure to what.

And of course, I added my 'Army Corps of Engineers' mod to this: Infantry and Mech. Infantry can now build roads and forts, and can also clear forests and jungles.

I have to take a look at the paratrooper and helicopter units. Their operational ranges seem rather small. And also, the helicopter has only 1 carrying capacity, instead of the 2 the manual states.


And the manual is WAAAY off as far as unit stats are concerned; tons of stats were changed since the manual printing.

Oh and one last thing- I made clearing forests give 28 shields. I am doing this to experiment with the 'logging industry' concept. It should work very well, and make for some interesting civil engineering.

[P.S. If you decide to look at this, make sure you back up your original .bic file, or else it will get overwritten.]

[Sarxis]

I also forot:

Artillery units have been changed slightly. Rate of fire for Cannons was increased from 1 to 2 (Catapults have a ROF of 1, and the Cannon costs TWICE as much, and requires resources).

The 'Artillery' unit was left alone---- I think

But the Radar Artillery, which costs a whopping 120 shields (as opposed to 80 for Artillery) had only a ROF of 2. I increased this to 3.

-edit-

And I also changed the 'Wealth' ratio down for 8:1 to 4:1. It is just too high at the default.

[Sarxis]

Looks like I will be editing the Aircraft ranges a bit too. Their operational ranges seem a bit small.

And what the heck is up with the Cruise Missile? Geezuz!!
I am going to see what I can do to fix it up a bit. I will attempt to make it be more like any other aircraft (bombard), but it will still blow up of course, and do a good amount of damage.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Looks like I will be editing the Aircraft ranges a bit too. Their operational ranges seem a bit small.

And what the heck is up with the Cruise Missile? Geezuz!!
I am going to see what I can do to fix it up a bit. I will attempt to make it be more like any other aircraft (bombard), but it will still blow up of course, and do a good amount of damage.

I highly recommend that you use filename other than civ3mod.bic, that way can distribute your mods without worrying if users will accidentally overwrite their "real" civ3mod.bic.


Dan

[Navyman]

I haven't gottne the game yet because the supreme commander aka my wife hasn't released the requisite funds yets. But I have a question for those who have played the game.

Does the oil resource appear in ocean squares?

If so, that is a great addition if not, I seriously think that would be an awesome addition. It would encourage players to develop and maintain a strong navy to protect off shore oil wealth.

I have played Civ2 a lot and in many games with huge continents, I could win without making a single naval unit other than the transport or galleon for exploration. With the addition of the offshore oil it would be worthwhile to have navies to protect (and attack) sea lines of communication (SLOCs).

Also, with off shore oil, a civ that is cut off from land oil has the option to out flank his opponents by getting offshore oil.

Imagine a carrier task force protecting a oil patch in the middle of the ocean and another one protecting the ports. mmm.....

Oh yeah, this is my first post so hello everybody. Since I am a noob, I hope I don't ask too many annoying questions.

[IBNobody]

What I've done

As an attempt to make things a bit smoother for me, I've made the following changes to my file:

I reduced the worker costs of mines, irrigation, and railroads to 6. Clear Forest was reduced to 8 (with the shield value reduced likewise), clear jungle was reduced to 12, and clear pollution was reduced to 16.

This means that I'll require fewer workers later in the game, and I won't have to constantly watch 'em.

I made Scouts treat all terrain as roads, but I reduced their movement to 1.

I eliminated all resource depletion...I just didn't care for that. I also reduced the percentage of Uranium just because I enjoyed fighting over that resource.

I also applied the patches you suggested, Anunikoba.

- Nobody

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS


I highly recommend that you use filename other than civ3mod.bic, that way can distribute your mods without worrying if users will accidentally overwrite their "real" civ3mod.bic.


Dan

I tried doing that, but the game breaks (or at least, it did for me).

What happened is I created a new scenario, left the 'no map' option on, and modded some things. When I went to apply the stuff, the science advisor screen became non-functional. I don't know what did it, but I couldn't change the techs there. Is it because it was a new .bic file? If I simply mod the default .bic, and rename the save, should it be ok then?

[Pyrodrew]

Oil & Stuff

Interesting points everyone. If I didn't comment on something it means I'm neutral/indifferent on the subject. Here are my conservative thoughts...

Does the oil resource appear in ocean squares?

No, but you can change that with the editor. Great point & I agree there should be a chance for oil to be found off shore (off-shore drilling). Although I'm not sure if that might make oil appear in too often on maps. "Appearance & Disappearance Ratios" I think are only for *after* a game starts since Bonus Resources are not given these options. Although i suppose you could simply increase the Disappearance Ratio... but how would you to what number to keep thing everything balanced???

First thing I did was give the Privateer +2 attack and 4 movement.

I agree with the 2attack, but given the 'hidden nationality' attribute these privateers with 3movement is fine to me.

Also, some of the mounted units before Cavalry have ZOC. Horseman did, and I can't understand why, because the Knight, War Elephant, etc., did not.

Good eye! That was definitely a mistake they made. That needs to be fixed.

Also, I gave Nuclear subs a movement of 4. The civilopedia states that N-subs are faster than standard subs, but in the defaults they both have the same movement rate. I am not entirely pleased with the current 6 attack/4 defend of subs

Since they were game-balancing the units up until the last minute I suspect they did the same with the N-subs & just didn't update the Civilopedia. But if in real they are faster & it's not just a civ-excuse than 5 is justified. I need more playtesting (which sometimes turns into just playing ) to judge the 6atk/4def.

Infantry and Mech. Infantry can now build roads and forts, and can also clear forests and jungles.

Infantry being able to build forts is a great idea (may I borrow it? ) I disagree on the roads & clear forests/jungles tho.

paratrooper and helicopter units. Their operational ranges seem rather small.

Realistically 4 seems fine, I need more playtesting to judge if they are too weak/small. Same with helicopter being able to carry 1 or 2 units.

Artillery units have been changed slightly. Rate of fire for Cannons was increased from 1 to 2 (Catapults have a ROF of 1, and the Cannon costs TWICE as much, and requires resources).

But the Cannon has a bombardment Strength x2 that of the catapult. Radar Artillery has 50% higher bombardment strength than artillery. Seems fine to me.

And what the heck is up with the Cruise Missile?

I haven't done extensive playtesting or read all the posts here... what is up with the cruise missle?

I made clearing forests give 28 shields. I am doing this to experiment with the 'logging industry' concept. It should work very well, and make for some interesting civil engineering.

Interesting, let me know how that works. From 10 to 28 is too drastic (x3) for me. Also I recommend testing the AI to see if it understands how much more important 'logging' would be.

[Sarxis]

I have been revamping all of this:

The 28^ for forests is too high when you take into consideration the Replaceable Parts speed up and civs that are Industrious. I simply have it a 20 now.

The reason why I have my infantry the road and clearing abilites is because of their late game appearance. These two abilities are usually redundant, as by that time, everything is roaded and railed up the wazoo. But I still like it as an option, and it is quite fun too.


Anyhow, good idea earlier on about giving coastal squares oil- I am going to try to implement it now.

And I will be posting my 'Pre-Patch 1.0 mod' shortly.



-edit-

Here is the mod: CivIII Pre-Patch Mod 1.0

[Swissy]

Re: some initial modding I have done

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Also, some of the mounted units before Cavalry have ZOC. Horseman did, and I can't understand why, because the Knight, War Elephant, etc., did not.

You do not understand the history of mounted combat and units. Knights and War Elephants are mounted fighters best used enmass, either in attack or defense. Both were at a serious disadvantage when used in patrol type situations. ZOC indicated the ability to patrol or exert force into a large area. The horseman fits this role, knights and war elephants do not.

[TheDarkside]

Yeah privateers do suck at default. I changed almost all my naval units to better suit my opinion of how they should be. some of them being...

Privateer has better attack and faster movement

caraval has less defense but 1 extra movement (why would they move only as fast as a galley?)

destroyers are a little faster, cruisers are beefed up and faster

battleship's defense beefed up

carriers cost increased by alot (i also wish i can make carriers and battleships increase culture, as they truly are marvels of human accomplishment)

and on the ground i thought it would be cool if i gave tanks a weak bombard attack. the regular tank is equivalent to a catapult, while mdoern tank more like a cannon. This is my attempt to simulate tanks firing long range as they normally do.

i also gave forts a defense of 100%. if u think about, the forts are expensive, and since many units dont have ZOC their importance isnt as much as civ2...

[Swissy]

Originally posted by TheDarkside
and on the ground i thought it would be cool if i gave tanks a weak bombard attack. the regular tank is equivalent to a catapult, while mdoern tank more like a cannon. This is my attempt to simulate tanks firing long range as they normally do.

Don't try to rationalize you game changes with weak statements as above. The tank does not normally fire at long range in a bombardment role. Tanks are a weapon of movement, intended to exploit breaks in the opponents defenses, or counter the opponents breakthru. The only long range fire a tanker typically uses is overwatch as his comrades advance. What you think would be "cool" is a-historical.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Swissy


Don't try to rationalize you game changes with weak statements as above. The tank does not normally fire at long range in a bombardment role. Tanks are a weapon of movement, intended to exploit breaks in the opponents defenses, or counter the opponents breakthru. The only long range fire a tanker typically uses is overwatch as his comrades advance. What you think would be "cool" is a-historical.

Please go away Swissy. That kind of 'preference slamming' commentary just isn't appreciated.

One of the reasons I didn't like the horseman getting ZoC was becuase he upgrades to the knight. It just doesn't make sense to have a unit lose ZoC because it upgrades. Plus, the units in the game that do get ZoC are either mounted that have 3 movements points, armor, or the mech infantry (AEGIS too). So comparing the horseman with other ZoC exerting units, it just doesn't make gameplay sense. Historically, you could make a cause of it by getting into Chivalry and Bushido; but in terms of the game, it just isn't balancing or logical.

[Swissy]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
One of the reasons I didn't like the horseman getting ZoC was becuase he upgrades to the knight. It just doesn't make sense to have a unit lose ZoC because it upgrades.

It makes sense when taken historically. In the ancient and medieval eras the light to medium armoured horsemen was the only method to cover large areas. The knight was the shock weapon, point and shoot. With little maneuverability, the knight relied on horsemen to cover their vulnerable flanks. So the knight is not so much an upgrade, than a change in tactical philosphy. The true upgrade of the horseman is the calvaryman, adding firepower(shock) to manueverability.

Plus, the units in the game that do get ZoC are either mounted that have 3 movements points, armor, or the mech infantry (AEGIS too). So comparing the horseman with other ZoC exerting units, it just doesn't make gameplay sense.

In civ2 I would agree. But this is civ3 with a vastly upgraded AI. Games I have played have not seen the eventual out-teching the AI to the point where I have tanks and the AI has cavalry at best. So units are more kept within their eras. When taken within the era they are intended to be used, the horseman deserves a zoc. It would be better to design a trigger which would eliminate the horseman zoc when encountering units of a higher era.

[Sarxis]

I guess I just agree to disagree with you Swissy.