v1.17f Reaadme

[Cesa]

Originally posted by Feephi
Firaxis, we all appreciate the work you've done on the new patch.

I personally have no interest in scenario building, multiplayer, or editor functions. I just want to play a balanced game. Along those lines, I was disappointed that AI tech trading during the player turn was not addressed in this patch.

Would you comment on the AI tech-trading during the player turn that appeared after the 1.16f patch? Is this a bug or not? Since this was not documented in the release notes of that patch, many people assume it is a bug.

Some people thought AI tech trading out-of-turn might have been added to counter the so-called "exploit" that allowed a player to sell the same tech to every civilization on his turn. Many people, however, did not feel that being able to do this was an exploit since the AI can do the same thing on it's turn. At the very least, if you leave it this way allow the player to initiate diplomacy during the AI's turn to balance things out.

Thanks again for the patch!

I've been asking about this in a couple of threads already, but haven't gotten any answer yet. They don't need to tell whether they are working on it or not, I just wish they could tell if it's a bug or a feature.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Leonidas
The Stack Command is really just a pseudo "stack command".

Let me explain:

The patch readme states that only units of the SAME TYPE within the stack will move to the designated location. So if you are being sensible and have a variety of DIFFERENT units, you will have to give them ALL individual unit commands. So much for stacked movement. . .

If you want to implement the so-called "stack movement", you'll have to make sure that all your stacks contain the EXACT SAME UNIT. So much for combined arms. . .

Well... reading the readme closely, I think that you only have stacked movement with units of the same type -- horseman, cavalry, archers, transports, workers etc. -- which is not what Ralf was envisioning. The readme says: "Air units of the same type will try to rebase"... which means that the units will not be considered as pertaining to larger groups (air, sea and land units).

On the other hand, I think that TechWins has a good point about this, so we'll have to see how it plays out.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
Still waiting for Gold Edition. Glad we have some good people to do the testing for me before then. Get to work, people!

saved for future reference....

[Cossack]

Question to Mike at Firaxis,

In the editor will we now be able to create more than 8 strategic resources and assign these resources to more than the 24 graphic slots in resources.pcx so that we can effectively create and display more than two extra strategic resources?

Thanks for all the work on the patch.

Cheers

The English Cossack

[Kiltdown]

What i hope and think about stacked movement

I'm hoping stacked movement distinguishes between fortified and unfortified units, ie, fortified units should not be moved.

I think they got stack movement right. One of the problems in moving a mixed stack is the difference in movement rates, and the resulting turn count to get to deestination. If you asked to move a mixed stack a distance that required, say, three turns, then at the second turn, the horsies would have to "know" that they couldnt move their full distance. The current implementation (17f) can be accomplished just by iterating a common order across a common unit, requiring only a small change to what happens when the command is actually issued. Linked movement would require that the units know they are linked together - much much much more difficult.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Salvor


It shouldn't. Your OS knows which devices are fixed HDDs and which are removeable CD drives without having to perform any actual I/O on them.

err wrong. I just have to goto word or any other application to prove this. I just open the open/save dialog box and the system pauses to turn the 2nd HD on and read it. Any program that uses a tree file structure (windows explorer for example, or the browse option in PSP6).

[Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Cesa


I've been asking about this in a couple of threads already, but haven't gotten any answer yet. They don't need to tell whether they are working on it or not, I just wish they could tell if it's a bug or a feature.

It's a feature. I'm pretty sure it's been removed based on feedback but I don't know if it's been removed for this patch or not (I didn't work on this feature which is why my details are a bit vague).

[Grumbold]

Re: What i hope and think about stacked movement

Originally posted by Kiltdown
I'm hoping stacked movement distinguishes between fortified and unfortified units, ie, fortified units should not be moved.

/agree

Linked movement would require that the units know they are linked together - much much much more difficult.

The basic principle already exists in the army structure. One container holding multiple units of mixed type and mixed movement values. A spin-off from this would be the ability to unload from armies which would be another popular addition.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Cossack
Question to Mike at Firaxis,

In the editor will we now be able to create more than 8 strategic resources and assign these resources to more than the 24 graphic slots in resources.pcx so that we can effectively create and display more than two extra strategic resources?

Thanks for all the work on the patch.

Cheers

The English Cossack

Yes, that would be nice. There's room on the resources.pcx file for 12 more icons, so why not let the game use them? Although that's probably more than an editor issue I suspect.

[DrFell]

Hmm, so despot rush has been cut down in power? Thank god, that will make things a little more interesting.

[Barnacle Bill]

Re: Re: What i hope and think about stacked movement

Originally posted by Grumbold
The basic principle already exists in the army structure. One container holding multiple units of mixed type and mixed movement values. A spin-off from this would be the ability to unload from armies which would be another popular addition.

The simplest way to do this would be to make "army" an unlimited number of units that march around together, which can be created at no cost any place you have two or more units stacked together. Military academies would no longer build "armies", but "leaders". If necessary, some differentiation could be made between built leaders and leaders promoted in combat for the purposes of rushing wonders (or change the mechanism for rushing wonders). If a leader (of either type if that is used) is assigned to an army, and the number of combat units in the army does not exceed the limit (3 or 4, as today), that leader could be ordered to "command" that army. Then that army would act like armies do now. You could still add/remove units from a leader-commanded army, but could not add in excess of the limit. Armies without a leader in command would just be a movement grouping.

[pauli]

not quite ... my formula provides a reasonable shot at a maximum value for the minimum distance between civs that always ensures the users set sane combinations, and is flexible enough to allow rather large distances on large maps. It is a reasonably accurate formula that gives the maximum possible minimum distance between any two civs on a map, given the map dimensions and number of civs. It is intended to replace the hardcoded maximum of 32, not the individual values (which are usually less).

Suppose we were creating an "itty bitty" map size, 40 x 40, 4 civs. A limit with the constant value of 32 is too large here, and is likely to cause problems if CIV3 doesn't perform good sanity tests. My formula would enforce a maximum distance of 20 in the editor, but the mod maker would probably choose a closer distance.

Or suppose we're creating a "gigantic" map size, 256 x 256, 16 civs. My formula would impose a maximum distance of 64 here, but again, the mod maker will probably choose a lesser value.

no, see, by max distance i'm refering to the hardcoded max. no matter what, with the current version, you cannot set it up to space starting points more than 32 squares away from each other. that 64 square spacing you specify for 256x256 is great... but it's completely impossible at the moment.

presumably, the max will be raised to 128 (which, i think, would give you the ability to start one civ on each side of the planet)... then your formula could be used to determine the actual spacing.

[Kiltdown]

Re: Re: What i hope and think about stacked movement

Originally posted by Grumbold

The basic principle already exists in the army structure. One container holding multiple units of mixed type and mixed movement values. A spin-off from this would be the ability to unload from armies which would be another popular addition.

Agreed, a functioning container would be nice. My guess it would be a heck of a lot more work than order iteration.

[Thrawn05]

The way I figure it, if we get stack unit moves, what's the point of an army? Granted, I have had the game for a couple of months and still couldn't produce a leader that was able to make it back to one of my cities to make an army, but to me it makes little sense now to make an army. I guess it's just me.

[Grumbold]

An army attacks together as well as moving together. When it fights each unit - even infantry - will retreat automatically if it gets to 1hp as long as there is another unit in the army that is in better shape to step up and fight.