The Overall aim of this thread:

The overall aim of this thread is to make Civilization 3 the most easily and comprehensively customisable game ever. This spot is currently held by its predecessor, Civilization 2, but even in that game there were many factors that could have been, but were not, customisable. We intend to spur FIRAXIS into creating a game as customisable as possible, while retaining the ease of doing so.

What belongs in this thread:

MAP/SCENARIO EDITOR
GRAPHICS/SOUND CUSTOMISATION
RULES CUSTOMISATION
AI CUSTOMISATION
CUSTOMISED FACTIONS/CIVILISATIONS
UNIT/TECHNOLOGY/CITY IMPROVEMENT CUSTOMISATION

What does not belong in this thread:

Any in-game customisation (NOT scenario/map editor) such as a unit workshop, a random tech tree etc. does not belong here. If it is supposed to be done during the course of a normal game, please post about it elsewhere. We're talking about game-enhancing, modifying and scenario-based customisation here.

We hope you'll enjoy posting here and that FIRAXIS does not repeat the mistakes of SMAC.

Here's the summary: CUSTOMISATION: Summary

Full scenario editting, including -creating cities- and units, editting Civilizations (civ names, pictures of their leader, their flag [if my using flag suggestions is used instead of just using color], maybe even a .MID of their anthem, etc., etc.) should be able to be done from the Map Editor. Actually, maybe the Map Editor should just be a function of the Scenario Editor. You can still just build base maps, but the larger function is to build entire scenarios.

Program-scripting AI would make Civ3 kick butt ... and i mean totally. Unless the Firaxis coffee guzzlers feel intimidated by a mob of fans potentially outprogramming their AI ;> Yeah I know it would be a lot of work, but I think it would be well worth it, but at the same time, not a requirement for creating a custom civilization. There could be "pre-built" or "plugin" AIs ... like "militant expansionist" or "technologist" etc.

Even with doing everying in one integrated scenario editor, everything from maps to AI, etc., I think should be importable/exportable.

quote:

---

Here's an idea for Firaxis:

You don't have to rewrite code & such to make a good scripting language... USE JAVA AS YOUR SCRITING LANGUAGE... Make classes for units, cities, etc. and let the user do whatever he wants to with them. Java classes can include pictures, sounds, formatted text, and a whole lot more. This would crate a very powerful scripting language that isn't much work on your part. The java compiler is free for anyone to download and once compiled, java can run on any machine. I found an article on how to interface Java with C/C++ Code and its use in games in the July 1999 issue of Game Developer Magazine. I have glanced through the article, and it doesn't look like it would be too hard to do and would give the game a very high level of customization and scripting.

---

And now, onto my suggestion: Develop a tool that automatically generates a technology tree picture from a custom tech file. A technology tree poster is very useful for understanding the progression of the game, and they are very difficult to generate by hand. I don't think this tool would be simple to write (especially if some of the more ambitious prereq suggestions from the Technology thread are implemented), but would be very useful for players/designers of scenarios which overhaul the tech tree. I tried to write a tool which would do this for me when I was considering customizing SMAC, and I realized that this is actually a pretty complicated problem. You need to have the technologies arranged in an optimal fashion so that they can be easily connected and try to minimize crossovers between the connection lines, etc.

Also, while I liked that SMAC was customizable via text files, I didn't necessarily like how everything was in a big, hard to manipulate file. Maybe they should have something like a #INCLUDE directive, so you can split the files out if you want to (e.g. one file for just the tech tree, one for default names, etc.) or you could keep it together if you want to.

The game should also be more robust when it comes to customizing the game. It is possible to cause a stack fault in SMAC if you put a cycle in the tech tree (I know, I know, it's not a tree if it has a cycle in it...) because the game gets into an infinite recursion situation. Things like this should be caught by the program and the user should be informed of the problem.

** To the extent that it is possible, make everything OPTIONAL, and make it a simple matter of pushing a toggle button--no more file.txt stuff or any other such system that takes time to learn (o.k., many modifications in a text file are easy to make, but you see my point). I want to access these options from within the game itself.

Examples?

Perhaps the most glaring example in SMAC was Mind Worms/Planet. Although I realize that Planet was the 'extra' player--another faction if you will--and a game-balancer, it simply would have been SOOOO nice to be able to turn Planet off and use nuclear weapons, nerve gas, etc. without worrying about Planet. Does that make the game too easy? Maybe, so the score should be adjusted. But it would also make the game MUCH more enjoyable for many people.

Millions of examples abound, but here's just one more:

Do you prefer Public Works like in CtP? Or do you actually like (especially in the early half of the game) sending your people out to improve the land? How great would it be if we had the option here? Even better, the ability to switch at will from Public Works to more micromanagement?

I realize that making all these things an option creates a logistical nightmare for the Firaxis team--and a number of player-abused loopholes could result. But if done well, this degree of push-button control over how the game behaves and how we can best implement our individual styles of play would truly set Civ3 apart from all that has come before.

Any more ideas on what should be made an option? I realize we don't have the game in front of us yet, but what do you think?

And if they are going to make this stuff 'tweakable' in the text files, why not make it a 'clickable' option within the game. For example, all the combat modifiers: Make it easily adjustable from the game itself.

However, I'm still in favor of a 'Firaxis version' of the game, since they are masters at balancing things. But why not let people 'mess' with the game in as many ways as possible and as easily as possible? Maybe 'messed' games get no score at all. That's easy enough.

quote:

---

The thought behind my suggestion about using Java was that the FIRAXIS team can implement it easily and it provides COMPLETE control over most aspects of play, and Civilization IS object-oriented, whether you want to program like that or not. You still have units with pictures, hit points, firepower, movement points, and sounds. You have terrain with special resources and location requirements. You have cities with food, production, trade, improvements, supported units, present units, and people (who have different happines levels). So if the scripting language ISN'T object-oriented, how will you reference these?? (With Arrays for each value??? -- HAH) BTW, what do you have against Java? There are some things that it is very good for, and others that it is not so good for. Onthe note that it is not very easy to just "tweak" different aspects of the game, you can still have the rules.txt, etc. files for that.

---

------------------
--- No pixels were harmed during the creation of this post. ---
--- This post composed of 100% recycled electrons ---

I mean, really the choice is between short- and long- term gratification. Sure, you can run through Doom with God mode turned on. But it's a hollow experience. Good for something, sure, but... on the other hand, if you're forced to learn Doom's tactics, some people grouse a bit about dying a lot, but eventually you learn the game and get a lot more enjoyment out of it.

Besides, no offense, but if you can't hack .txt files, you shouldn't be hacking them in the first place. I mean, it's all explained in the comments. It's not hard to do at all.

However, concerning the scenario editor... or rather lack of one...

I'm going to flagrantly copy a post I made in response to people claiming that the previous map editors were fine from Apolyton. It's long, but I stand by it.

"Yeah, kinda combine SMAC and CIV2 and you've got the perfect map editor."

No!

The one biggest thing that dragged SMAC and CivII down was their bad map editor and horrible scenario editor.

At least in CivII you had a separate map editor that allowed you to quickly whip up a map. SMAC had no such amenities. You had to use the cheat menu, and do it while in a game. The messiness of that cannot be overstated. Playing with altitude coherently was nigh-on-impossible. Fooling around with technologies took forever. Same with cities, especially making new cities- switch to Civ that gets new city. Give civ colony pod. Build city. Then cheat it some resources, have a turn go by (in which the computer does god knows what with the other factions taht you wanted to hold still), and repeat for other improvements. Are we having fun yet? Making a scenario, not a map, was basically impossible. And a map was not much fun either.

SMAC's "editor" was a giant step BACKWARDS from CivII's. With CivII I had enough time to create one scenario, IIRC, and that was derivative of the WWII scenario relieving me of the necessity to actually make the map work. SMAC I just gave up after a half an hour of wrangling with the altitude controls.

What I have to give to both SMAC and CivII was their tremendous customizability of rules in both. Keep the rules in .txt files, and add even more things we can edit. That is where I have to take my hat off to both SMAC and CivII. They may not be the best scenario makers, but they sure were able to really customize the standard game to any kind you wanted.

Now, for some constructive criticism. If you want to have a good place to start, go to the HOMM III map editor. It has flaws, but only because it has gone so far beyond what most map editors can do you start to see what CAN be done. For those of you that don't have it, you can place anything you want in the editor on a map right away. Fortifications, mountains, forests, cities- you should only have to drag one over from a sidebar and plop it down. Actually, in CivIII, you'd just paint the mountains and forests on, I suppose (like you can with other basic terrain types in HOMM III, like grass, snow, dirt...). You can drag and drop all the irrigations and roads and mines you want, as well, or click "auto-improve" and watch as the civ builds itself up some (every city improves x-2 squares around it, with x equaling the city's population). You should be able to drag events that trigger when a player walks across a patch of ground signaling a message, a gift of gold, a theft of gold, or a battle encounter with some enemies (in Civ's case, these "ground events" would need to be strips of territory, not just one space as in HOMM III). You should be able to click on the city and modify everything that's in it, all it's stats, and set limits on it. If you want a border fort town, that has city walls & barracks already built but has a max population of 3 and cannot build any structures other than the most basic, then you should be able to do that, and outlaw the other buildings and pre-build the buildings. Not to mention plopping down the citizens, armies, etc. You should then be able to go up to a pull down menu on the top and set characteristics for the entire Civ, like in CivII- technology it has, technology forbidden to that Civ, Social engineering, AI personality, etc. You should be able to set timed events for each civ from this scenario editor, with no need of an events.txt file like in CivII. Those timed events should be like the ground events- they tell scenario information and plot twists, they give money, they take money, they give troops to cities, etc. And needless to say, all you should have to do is select a player from a pull-down menu, take a unit, and drag it onto a patch of ground. Plus, you should be able to give the unit orders as well (if it's played by the AI)- hold your ground, patrol 5 squares from here and attack any that get nearby, goto CityX, etc.- and these orders would be followed by the AI, not changed. The possibilities grow exponentially when items like these are added.

For instance, the Peaceful kingdom of SnowFire is a well developed civ- but that didn't take long, since I merely placed the cities, quickly checked off a list of improvements built in them, and gave them population, after which I selected "auto-develop SnowFire." However, I put the barbarians of Activision nearby. Their cities are not nearly so built up, but they have been amassing of horde of troops to pour into SnowFire's realm. They all have orders to take certain cities in SF's border, after which the AI, which is set to aggressive and really hates SnowFire, will surely continue to use the units to attack. The barbarians also have several technologies forbidden to them, so they can't take my technologies in the attack. They are also set to anti-technological so they will not waste production building libraries. I, as SnowFire, get the news of this attack in events given to me. I try and quickly build up units to knock back the horde. After stopping them with only a few cities lost, I push them back to their own territory. As my army crosses the isthmus, I get a message saying that barbarians army remnants jump out in ambush and attack. Of course, that event could only be triggered by me, and it's canceled after one use. My remaining army staggers back home to rest and rejuvenate, when I get a message saying that the barbarians are not my true enemy, they were really funded by Evil Lord Death across the seas.... blah blah blah. You get the point.

Which reminds me- as in CivII, the scenarios should be able to make use of different rules.txt files than the normal game.

I haven't played SMAC in awhile because of the lack of scenarios, while I keep on making new HOMM III maps and play HOMM III a lot more. Coincidence? This must absolutely be fixed in CivIII.

I might add, to clarify... after the single player game is mastered, there tend to be only 2 paths that keep the game interesting afterwards. One is multiplayer. You will never, ever "master" the game then, since you'll be playing against humans just as wily as you. Good example: Myth, StarCraft. However, I do not think that CivIII will prove to be a good multiplayer game. The other way of preserving life is Scenarios. In a predominantly single player game, this is where you can stack everything against you, and throw in a story to boot. Scenarios is what kept HOMM II going for so long on my computer despite never playing a multiplayer game, and kept CivII alive a lot longer with the add-on pack. Combine them, and you get really long lasting games- Myth: TFL games, after the scenario editor was introduced, flourished for long after the game was released. This is the path the CivIII should take if it wants to live.

Please comment on it and tell me what to add...

------------------
On a fine day the climate of England is like looking up a chimney; on a foul day, like looking down one. - Anonymous

-- Agreed, the editors should be separate programs and not inside the game. Biggest reason I think that's best is that it makes testing both the game and the editors much simpler and bug fixes in one don't cause trouble in the other area.

-- Please give us a map generation code that makes rational, geologically reasonable maps. Civ2 (and most others) map generation routines suffer from too little realism and too much random terrain. Compare the Earth 'canned' maps to anything that the map generator will produce. Desert just doesn't occur in little 1-2 square patches all over the map for instance. Mountains should generally occur in chains defining a plate boundary. Most mountain chains will form boundaries between terrain types--forest on one side, plains on the other; desert on one side and jungle on the other. Sure exceptions exist in the real world and some randomness should be present, but not to the degree currently present. The Civ2/Colonization/etc. map routines also seem incapable of producing really large continents that don't snake and twist all over the map. Sure, that should be one result, but all the time?

-- I also would like to see dynamic maps in the game and player-controlled parameters for scenario building. By that I mean mainly evolution in climate - whole planet shifts to wetter, drier, warmer, colder, gradual change over hundreds of years. Might want to consider a few other types of changes like growing/shrinking areas of forest or desert, an occasional volcano popping up, etc.

1) Open up the game set-up to allow the selection from among all civs -- those built into the game AND custom made by the user --of any combination of civs up to the maximum allowed, leaving the assignment of their colors by the user for after their selection.

2) Provide a powerful custom civ editor that will make it easy to create a new civ to ADD to, NOT REPLACE, those built into the game. This editor should enable the user to customize every detail needed by the game for the civ to function in all respects as those built into the game do. Allow any number of custom civs to be created and added to the game.

3) Write the code for multiplayer gaming to allow the use of each player's custom civs, as well as the built in civs, in a shared game.

This would allow for maximum enjoyment of CivIII by all, as all could play as their own particular favorite world civ (be it Poles, Confederates, Laplanders, or whatever!) and no longer be limited by those few that happen to be built into the game.

FIRAXIS...you simply MUST do this!!!!

quote:

---

-- Please give us a map generation code that makes rational, geologically reasonable maps. Civ2 (and most others) map generation routines suffer from too little realism and too much random terrain. Compare the Earth 'canned' maps to anything that the map generator will produce. Desert just doesn't occur in little 1-2 square patches all over the map for instance. Mountains should generally occur in chains defining a plate boundary. Most mountain chains will form boundaries between terrain types--forest on one side, plains on the other; desert on one side and jungle on the other. Sure exceptions exist in the real world and some randomness should be present, but not to the degree currently present. The Civ2/Colonization/etc. map routines also seem incapable of producing really large continents that don't snake and twist all over the map. Sure, that should be one result, but all the time?

-- I also would like to see dynamic maps in the game and player-controlled parameters for scenario building. By that I mean mainly evolution in climate - whole planet shifts to wetter, drier, warmer, colder, gradual change over hundreds of years. Might want to consider a few other types of changes like growing/shrinking areas of forest or desert, an occasional volcano popping up, etc.

---

quote:

---

About Modification Languages:

I suggest a two-level language, kind of like Java/JavaScript. At one level there'd be a very simple language anyone could learn, developed for a very specific task: macros, triggers and city improvement descriptors. At another level it would be an advanced, object-based language for those advanced enough to use it. JAVA, CivC, whatever.

Here's how I picture the simple language: There are three classes of objects: "global" applying to all civs, "civ()" applying to a specific civ (if blank your civ), and "specific()" which if left blank would take to mean the current unit, and if specified means an object with a special designator (you could assign these through the map editor). In each class there'd be a number of objects, such as "unit()", "City()", etc. In the brackets either a name or a number could be entered. Finally, each object has a number of properties, such as "Ability()", (Special ability n of a unit), "Name", etc. So, for example, Civ().Unit(Trireme).Ability(Sinkable) would be the property of a trireme that makes it sink if far away from land. Specific().Unit().Value(Movement) would be the movement value of the current unit.

Now, this could be used in several ways. Either by modifying a value (Specific().Unit().Experience()=+1, which would add a point to the current unit's experience) or by changing it (Specific().Technology().Research()=100, which would complete research on the current tech). It could also be used in conditional IF-THEN statements (e.g. IF Civ().Technology(Pottery).Research=100 THEN Civ().Message().Display()="You've found pottery!").

I think this would be a versatile language anough to define both all macros and all wonders/city improvements. IT is rather easy too, and could easily be made within the map editor. (With combo boxes for class.object.property, and the possibility to add IF-THEN satements. Or the game could provide you with premade examples.)

---

It worked (not well, but it worked) in Civ2: Fantastic Worlds. Recently, the add-on ACEdit utility for SMAC parsed the Faction Files, to great effect.

What should it mean to "win" a game of Civ3? Some things to think about:

· What should a player have to accomplish to be declared a winner?
· How many different sets of these accomplishments should exist for you to choose from?
· Are there circumstances where a particular set of victory conditions wouldn't be available? (example: would having Napoleon as your leader mean that an only a conquest victory is possible until he's replaced? would choosing a socialist/communist government eliminate an economic victory?)
· Are all victories equal or does a technology win score more points than a conquest win?
· Are victories even scored numerically or is a system like Colonization better where you get various levels of achievement recognized but not scored with numbers?

Some obvious possible victory conditions or goals:

· Conquest of the world by you and/or the alliance you are a part of.
· Economic dominance measured somehow.
· Technology victory, reaching the top of the tech tree and then doing something (building the spaceship in Civ2)
· Diplomatic or world-peace victory, entire world unites behind your leader
· Time expiration only, no specific goals-define how points are accumulated and most points at the end of a specific year wins.

Scoring system-if we have one, how does it work? What gets points towards victory?

On the nuclear-winter and time-expiration- there's a fairly simple cure for that. When the UNS Unity was launched, the Earth was in turmoil. Around 2000 OR when the technology reachs that whereabouts, the chance of revolts and riots starts going up. Rebel units pop out of nowhere and burn your lands. Cities defect. Terrorists commit acts against your cities. The surviving civs need to band together and build the Unity before they are destroyed. Sure, you can keep waiting, but eventually the "barbarians" will start using nuclear missiles and will destroy large parts of the world. After that, well... your remaining loyal one or two cities gets to start over again in a nuclear-winter world, with far less usable technology. So, if you miss your window and don't build fast enough (you're still in the era of WWI when you hit 2000, say), you get to keep on playing a lot longer on the wasteland that is Earth to try and get civilization to the point where it can try and build the Unity again.

quote:

---

Victory conditions DO NOT belong in this thread. This thread is for discussing how to change CivIII after you are finished with the regular game (such as modpacks and scenarios). If you have a suggetion as to how to implement being able to change the victory conditions for a scenario or modpack, THEN it belongs in this thread. As soon as I figure out where victory conditions go, I will edit this message and tell you.

---

Hey, All I said was that options and the choice whether or not to include a victory condition in the game was in this thread. In a scenario, disabling economic victory might for example be vital. That is an Option and definately not an in-game option, so it goes into this thread.

I think everything should be customizable , and there should be an in-game editor to customize it. The modifications would be stored in a text file (I personally enjoy modifying Rules.txt and Alpha.txt). When I say everything should be editable, I mean everything.
Terrain should have all characteristics editable, like which terrains are ocean, and stuff like that. Maybe do away with the "ocean" idea entirely, and give units flags allowing them to go over only certain types of terrain.
And you should be able to create and edit your own improvements. I want my own improvements! Sorry.
There should also be a graphics editor that is superior to Paint for editing the BMPs.
The only problem with everything editable would be the fact that everything'd have to be in 5 to 10 files, so you didn't have the problems I had with Alpha.txt, where it's hard to find what you're looking for in the huge file.

Okay, if that post doesn't belong here, just where should it go? If not here, then move it to where you think it does belong--fine with me. Maybe I'm just missing the obvious, but I don't see where it goes. Didn't before, still don't.

Which is it: this post (and the topic and questions) are okay but in a different thread --if so which? or it doesn't belong in any thread now existing? or just should be discussed at all?

Specific to this thread, I don't see how you can have a useful discussion about customizing something if there's no agreement on what the devil you're customizing. To get that far there has to be a background discussion of the topic which is what I tried to start here. Otherwise we can just say, victory conditions (and everything else) should be customizable. True, but not very useful.

For particular victory conditions, you might want to discuss them in another thread, e.g. you could discuss a technological victory in the TECHNOLOGY thread.

Destroy all enemies (default)
Kill a particular hero
Capture a town
Find a certain artifact
Bring a certain artifact to a certain town
Accumulate a certain amount of resources
Accumulate a certain amount of some troop type
Flag all mines (wouldn't really work for CivIII)

and one I'm rather surprised they didn't include:
Survive a certain amount of time (good for defensive scenarios)

Loss conditions included standard, lose a certain hero, lose a certain town, or run out of a pre-set time to win the map.

I see quite a few weaknesses and flaws with the HOMM3 Editor.

1. Triggering system. What can it do? Give you stuff and tell you messages. Lah-di-dah. A good triggering system should be able to spawn monsters, change AI instructions, Simply do anything in the game. Civ2: FW or StarCraft both had excellent triggering systems, although StarCraft's was a bit more powerful.

2. Set Graphics and units. You cannot change the monsters at all, not even their properties! This is clearly a minus when it comes to customising. The graphics of Homm3 are the graphics of Homm3, and nothing else. Even the sub-quests, though numerous, are really non-editable. A seer's hut is a seer's hut is a seer's hut.

3. Slightly clunky interface in places. Especially the terrain features are extremely unorganised.

I still say the StarCraft editor is the best for basic editing, while Civ2: Fantastic Worlds has the edge for most customisation. HOMM3 is the easiest to use, I'll grant you that.

The rest of your ideas have been mentioned previously, which you would have known if you'd have bothered to read the summary...

Anyway...

What should the macro language be like? A series of "triggers" like the one in StarCraft? Should it be like the one in Civ2 - Fantastic Worlds, or should it be more advanced? Should it be hidden grom the average user or placed in a text file?

What is the general opinion on Text files/Encrypted files? Should everything have to go through an editor and be neatly packaged with the scenario or should all the separate files have to be included?

What is the feelings on File Formats?