Civilization III v1.16f Additions/Changes/Fixes

[Nexus VI]

I'm glad to hear about the patch.

I just want to write a couple of lines to explain an odd behaviour of the workers.

When our cities are many and we are in modern age without using recycle centers or mass transit we get full of pollution soon.

Well, if we have a lot of workers (say thirty or forty) they head to clean the same polluted tile altogether. This is really annoying because the pollution continue to increase while the workers move in group slowly without optimizing the cleaning. This is especially true if we don't have railroads.

It seems the AI analyze the numbers of polluted tiles and put them into an array; then examine the first tile in the array and send all the workers on it. Actually it should split the group of workers and send an appropriate number of them to clean every tile (say two workers per tile).

I believe it should be fixed, it would be much easier to clean pollution.

Bye

[eMarkM]

On the 40 turns max thing. My guess is that this will only effect the beginning of the game where it's a no-brainer to set science to, like, 10% and still get tech in 32 turns. In the real early game there's virtually no difference between 10% & 100% science, they both yield tech in max of 32. So everyone maximizes cash by setting science way down.

With 40 max, it probably will dip to this if you try to set your science rate too low in the beginning. I'm betting this won't be a big deal except in the really early going. Instead of a no-brainer science setting of 10%, you'll have to make a decision if you want to increase cash and take a science hit, just as you do in the rest of the game.

e

[Dire Wolf]

EnigmaticGod,

I can't help but think Firaxians are complete idiots

I can't help but think that most of Apolyton's Civ3 forum goers are a bunch of socially inept, whiny, and rude losers - not to mention being idiots as well.

All of you that attack the developers by calling them names and insulting them should be ashamed - you give gamers a really bad reputation as being immature pea-brains.

I do not love how Civ3 turned out or how a few features that I wanted are somewhat absent (e.g multiplayer.) The difference is that I can express my opinions without resorting to babbling incessantly and verbally bashing the developers.

It's complete lack of commitment to the game. I've said it before, as soon as you say "nice patch" they'll say "Thanks, enjoy the game. We'll see you when civ 4 comes out."

It also works both ways. If you act like a spoiled little brat you have a good chance of turning the developers off of making any future patches. If you want to show the developers your lack of satisfaction, don't buy their next product. Exercise your power as a consumer instead of exercising your "lips."

I have no respect for people who cannot communicate their thoughts without turning into prehistoric nimrods. I think you must have skipped learning "Civility" in your personal tech tree

---------------

On a different note,

I really doubt that we'll see a scripting language added to the game. Unless the appropriate code is already present in the engine, it is very difficult to just add a non-trivial scripting language and engine to the game via a patch. I'd love to see a scripting language too but realistically I can't see it happening. Maybe an expansion pack will address this?

Best regards,

Dire

[Qnuc.dk]

YYEEAAHH

A very good patch list, here's my top 5 favorites, what's yours?

* Added "Show Our Manual/Our Automatic/Enemy/Friend Moves" preferences
* Corruption effects have been reduced.
* Once the UN is completed, you are no longer prompted to vote every turn.
* Added "Show Civil Disorder Pop-Up" pref (displays a pop-up whenever a city descends into civil disorder).
* Sorting columns on the Domestic advisor screen now stay sorted.

Expect the game to be MUCH faster with the numero uno patch update

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
I'm well aware they're not the corporation. But the way they handle complaints is to say "Don't like it, don't play it". Or "Don't like it, edit it". Did civ2 need to be edited and moded in order for it to be fun? Civ2 had a standard. A standard everyone used and played and enjoyed. This game doesn't. Also, Dan and the other guys don't really address the problems. They just deal with them. It's complete lack of commitment to the game. I've said it before, as soon as you say "nice patch" they'll say "Thanks, enjoy the game. We'll see you when civ 4 comes out."

Well if you don't like it then don't play it or edit it. If someone were hitting you in the head with a bat and you didn't like it would you stand still and let them continue and simply complain about it, or would you move (i.e. don't play) or try to take the bat away and hit them with it (edit it)?

Did Civ2 need to be edited and modeled? Heck yes!! You MUST have been late to come into the CIV2/SMAC community or else you would KNOW that Civ2 and SMAC both had at least three patches (even more) EACH and some things in both games was STILL broken.

What problems did they not address? Do you think that maybe, just maybe they plan to put out MORE patches in the future and maybe they were simply rushing this patch to fix the most glaring bugs? You know, exactly how SMAC had to be patched when it first came out as well.

Lighten up and grow some patience. I don't know how your situation is but from my experience people generally want to help more and do a much better job when you offer positive feedback and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism instead of unfounded "feelings" and worries that have had NO basis in fact or truth.

[Gramphos]

Is there a reason that you don't allow Flat maps?

[CharlotteCivver]

Nukes

Soren and Dan -

One thing that has been a large source of discussion on this site is the cost/effect of nuclear weapons. Of particular interest is their cost with respect to the cost of building of the space ship.

I think somebody did an analysis and found that something like six ICBMs cost more to build than the space station, and still cannot kill a city.

Please don't take this as whining - I am generally happy with the patch. I was wondering if you expect to see any changes in this part of the game, either in making nuke cheaper/more effective or making the space ship much, much more expensive.

[bahoo]

COASTAL FORTRESSES

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


As far as I am aware, coastal fortresses work as designed. They always fire at passing ships, but you only hear a sound effect/see a result if it hits. The calculation is the same for units with ZOC, which basically treats those units as temporary artillery units with one shot at passing units.

Also, the offense value of the coastal fortress is not very high, so one of the reason people have not seen mauch of an effect is that the coastal fortress has a very low chance of hitting modern ships. Of course, this value is in the editor, so if you want to increase the probability of hitting passing units, just increase it.

Are you SURE they work as intended?

So far in all the games I've played, I have NEVER to my knowledge witnessed one of my coastal fortresses successfully firing on an enemy ship, nor have I ever been successfully fired upon by an enemy coastal fortress. (And I've done a LOT of ship bombardment on enemy cities!)

Few questions regarding coastal fortresses:

1. What is their bombardment range?

2. What is their bombardment attack value and rate of fire?

3. Can I fire them myselves like artillery?

4. Do they get to fire back when your city is bombarded?

You say they are treated as passing shots with zone of control.... How exactly does the passing shots ZOC thing work? It's not too well explained in the book, in my experience it seems arbitrary at best. I've had cavalry in the open that HAVE taken passing shots a lot, while fortresses with fortified units in them have not taken a shot.

Anyway, a few questions about passing shots:

1. Do all units get them?

2. To get a chance at a passing shot does a unit have to move from an adjacent square to another adjacent square, or just into or out of an adjacent square? (If the latter is the case, it may explain why coastal fortresses never shoot, how often do ship "pass" by a coastal city, usually you just pull up and bombard then pull back.)

3. Does a fortress have any effect on whether a unit can take passing shots and/or the probability of them taking a passing shot?

[AnnC]

upgrade path

What about the problem with gaps in the upgrade path caused by replacing default units with special units? For example, in the current version, France cannot upgrade Pikemen to Musketmen even though other civs can. (Pikemen can't be upgraded to Musketeers either.)

[albiedamned]

Soren - What about reducing the AI's desire to build a city in every possible unclaimed location, even when that city is nearly certain to be culturally assimilated? You've mentioned earlier that you were reviewing this for the patch. I'm not sure what is meant by "Cultural priority of AI has been reduced" - is that this?

[kmj]

Re: upgrade path

Originally posted by AnnC
What about the problem with gaps in the upgrade path caused by replacing default units with special units? For example, in the current version, France cannot upgrade Pikemen to Musketmen even though other civs can. (Pikemen can't be upgraded to Musketeers either.)

I'm fairly sure a representative of fireaxis (perhaps soren during the chat?) responded on this issue, stating that this was intended during design. They have no intention of fixing it, because it isn't considered a design problem or bug. Perhaps someone else remembers reading this, too?

[G.A]

Finally a "we have built a unit" pop-up

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by albiedamned
Soren - What about reducing the AI's desire to build a city in every possible unclaimed location, even when that city is nearly certain to be culturally assimilated? You've mentioned earlier that you were reviewing this for the patch. I'm not sure what is meant by "Cultural priority of AI has been reduced" - is that this?

That was probably poorly worded... yes, the AI is now less willing to found a city in a location in which it will obviously convert ot an enemy civ.

[Nemesis of the North]

Well, the patch is here. Hooray. Never saw that many flaws anyway, but at least, now they're gone. (not that I have the time to play 8 hours a day anyway).

Nem

[ntyatecafe]

EnigmaticGod...Put a cork in it already!!!

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
I'm well aware they're not the corporation. But the way they handle complaints is to say "Don't like it, don't play it". Or "Don't like it, edit it". Did civ2 need to be edited and moded in order for it to be fun? Civ2 had a standard. A standard everyone used and played and enjoyed. This game doesn't. Also, Dan and the other guys don't really address the problems. They just deal with them. It's complete lack of commitment to the game. I've said it before, as soon as you say "nice patch" they'll say "Thanks, enjoy the game. We'll see you when civ 4 comes out."

Give it a rest!!!
When you have your own software company, and make your own wittle games, then you can do whatever you want with them. This is someone else's batch of apples...so don't P!$$ in the barrel, okay?

I've just started playing the game myself, and I know there are some problems with it, but name one game that was perfectly operational with no errors/bugs/problems or criticisms right from the start.

Y'know, you did unintentionally bring up a good point. I'm sure that these fine folks at FireAxis have many other projects to work on right now, so why are they even wasting time building free patches for a game that is already making them money...hmmm, following that logic, they are losing a little money doing these patches...why? Because they care. They care what people think of their games, even whining insuggnificant no-goods such as yourself. Why else would they spend time reading and answering messages on a forum...why else would they spend time and money on building fixes for already released and sold games, instead of working on the next game that brings in a buck?

Someone else has already said it, but let me say it again...If you don't like the game, don't play it. Sell it or give it away to someone more deserving than yourself. And for pity's sake, please stop assailing us with your verbose and unintelligible rambling (i.e., shut up!)!

To FireAxis: I apologize for the misguided ramblings of some few people here on this forum. I hope that their pompous whinings have not turned you off of answering questions and working on any future patches. CivIII is the first Civ game of yours that I have played, and I'm not disappointed. I believe you did an excellent job, and my sincerest gratitude for releasing a patch so soon! Thank you all.

I do have one question though, I understand that units can only be combined as an army, but will it ever be plausible to do something similar to workers? I use a lot of workers to build roads, usually in teams of two, but it gets frustrating having to give each worker in each group the same order.

Thanks!