v1.17f Reaadme

[Libertarian]

That could be nondeterministic in instances where you have, say, a tank and a marine stacked. Would you have the tank move two and the marine one, or what? I think the way they say they've implemented it makes sense.

[player1]

Originally posted by ACooper
It looks like it's only stack movement, not stack commands. (Is that the way anybody else reads it?)

I think that's a compromise.
Chage a little get a lot.

"Fixed bug which caused some govenment buildings not to function properly." - Anybody know what this means?

If Corthouse in distant city wich doesn't give anything is considered as "not function properly", than we have solution for corruption problem.

Corthouse is govenment building.
Right?

[belchingjester]

The patch looks promising. I'm glad they didn't try to cram additional stuff in there (for instance the "expose whole map by naming your sav game something" bug) and sacrifice testing quality.

I think there will be at least one patch after this (to address at a minimum the issue noted above). It will be interesting to hear from Firaxis on some of the more controversial fixes (for instance the AI tech trade "fix" in 1.16f - do they plan on backing this out or implementing differently, or do they foresee no change?).

Stacked movement!
- belchingjester

[Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I had heard before, that there was a bug, saved the game and sunk the galley. A message popped up, that the Russians have been destroyed, after which the game crashed.

Do you still have this save? If so, please post it and I will look at it.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Libertarian
While you're at it, though, you might want to do a bit of editing in this thread.

I thought Libertarians believed in the freedom of the individual as long as he isn't hurting anyone else? And being annoyed by someone's actions doesn't count as being hurt, otherwise people would pretty much not be allowed to do anything, which kind of defeats the purpose of being libertarian?

[Harovan]

No problem. Here is one, already in the modern age, but it works. Sink the Russian galley near Minsk. A German navy is already nearby.

[Snorklis]

Ohh.. And I was hoping for Multiplayer to be in there.. well.. it seems like it wont be real until summer?.. :-(

[Alex]

Wow, this patch seems really good... Good work, Firaxis.

The stacked movement as implemented with this new patch will alleviate a lot of hard work, but of course will not address the problem in its entirety. I mean, only units of the same type can be grouped and moved together. Since we use much more combined arms in Civ3 than we ever did in any of the previous titles, that means that if I have 3 tanks and two infantry units on a tile, I still have to move the tanks and then the infantry. But is much, much better than to move one unit at a time, I have to say, and that (as Vel usually says) cannot be overstated!

Overall, I'm happy with the changes. Seems like the editor will be finished on a next patch or on an expansion pack, though.

Again, nice work.

[Libertarian]

I thought Libertarians believed in the freedom of the individual as long as he isn't hurting anyone else?

Libertarians believe that rights accrue from property. Mark, who owns Apolyton, doesn't seem to appreciate the sort of viscious and vulgar posts that infest the cited thread. We are not exercising any so-called "freedom of speech" here. We are merely exercising a privilege that is extended to us by Mark.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Alexnm
I mean, only units of the same type can be grouped and moved together. Since we use much more combined arms in Civ3 than we ever did in any of the previous titles, that means that if I have 3 tanks and two infantry units on a tile, I still have to move the tanks and then the infantry.

Huh? I sure hope not. If this is true, then they havent solved anything at all. One should be able to move mixed stacks within each military branch. By "type" I think (well, I HOPE) they mean land, sea and air-type.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Libertarians believe that rights accrue from property. Mark, who owns Apolyton, doesn't seem to appreciate the sort of viscious and vulgar posts that infest the cited thread. We are not exercising any so-called "freedom of speech" here. We are merely exercising a privilege that is extended to us by Mark.

The pot calling the kettle black?

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Libertarians believe that rights accrue from property. Mark, who owns Apolyton, doesn't seem to appreciate the sort of viscious and vulgar posts that infest the cited thread. We are not exercising any so-called "freedom of speech" here. We are merely exercising a privilege that is extended to us by Mark.

Yes, I agree with your assessment of freedom of speech and this forum as a privilege. Just wondering what your view was.

[Libertarian]

Well, the pot was banned for much less. What happens to the kettle is up to Mark.

[Libertarian]

Yes, I agree with your assessment of freedom of speech and this forum as a privilege. Just wondering what your view was.

I appreciate the question. I thought it was a good one. Our base ethic is noncoercion. Property ownership is the only ethical means for establishing rights.

[DrSpike]

General consensus - patch good. But I am off to whip a load of peasants before it comes out.

P.S No cracks about me perhaps playing some civ3 after please.