Welcome to the C-IV SGOTM 05 Maintenance thread. The purpose of this thread is to give you somewhere to post about non-spoiler issues relating to the game. It is a way of communicating to the rest of the players outside your team, and with the staff about matters that affect your team or everyone. You can post about bugs, rule clarifications, problems with the roster etc. Please subscribe to it so that you are kept up to date with new information as the game proceeds.

The team lists are in the second post in this thread.

The Game
You are Temujin, Leader of the Mongolian Hordes. You have tired of fighting the Barbarians, and so this time you have decided to join them instead. You will win a glorious victory in this Monarch game, of course, but you are teamed with the Barbarians, and you have to adapt to Barbarian assets and liabilities:


You have no starting techs.
The barbs are your friends, and are fighting on your team.
You will benefit from the Barbarian capability to explore the world in animal and human form.
You can research, but you will also learn techs that the Barbarians learn.
.... And you start off at war with everyone on the planet except the Barbarians. You can make peace with anyone.


The Objective
This Monarch difficulty game is on a Standard size, Gyathaar-special map, at Epic speed, against 7 rivals. All victory conditions are enabled, and the laurels for this contest will be awarded to the teams who achieve the earliest victory date in the game.

Versions
This game will be played in Civilization IV version 1.74, using special HoF Mod 1.74.SGOTM5. (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/HOF-1.74.SGOTM5.zip)

Mac players are in a separate team, as there is not a Mac version 1.74, and the HoF Mod cannot be made to work cross-platform. If I am able to produce a mod to support this variant, they will play the game in Civ4 version 1.61 with a modified Mac HoF Mod.

Schedule
Start files for each team will be available on the SGOTM Progress and Results Page (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/civ4sgotm_submission_list.php) at midnight, server local time, at the start of July 25.

Note: The Mac start file and HoF Mod are subject to delays for development and testing, and the feasibility of a suitable Mac mod is not yet proven. The Mac team only has five players currently.

I propose that you aim to complete this game in three months, that is by the end of October 2007.

Starting Position
Here's the starting position - click the image below to see a larger version.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/images/sgotm5_start_small.jpg (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/images/sgotm5_start_large.jpg)

Map Parameters
Playable Leader/Civ - Temujin of Mongolia.
Characteristics - Expansive, aggressive.
Unique Unit - Keshik (Horse archer)
Rivals - 7: China, Japan, India, Arabia, Spain, Persia and Greece
World size - Standard
Difficulty - Monarch
Landform - Special, sort of a fractal archipelago.
Environment - Temperate climate, medium sea level
Game Speed - Epic
AI Aggression - Normal
Barbarians - Raging, and teamed with the Mongols
Permanent Alliances - Not Enabled
City Razing - Enabled

Notes

Please visit the Civ4 SGOTM reference thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168439) to check out the rules and procedures to ensure that you are adequately prepared for this game.

Teams will compete for up to four awards - the Gold, Silver and Bronze Laurels for the fastest finishes, and the Wooden Spoons for the lowest scoring finisher. The number of awards will depend on the number of teams.

All teams must play the sponsored variant - awards will be given to teams who achieve victories in the least turns.

All saved game files uploaded to the server are parsed through software that extracts and archives data about your save, including reload count for each turn set.

Spoiler information will absolutely NOT be tolerated in this thread.

Here are the team lists for this game. They will be updated to reflect any late changes to team names or personnel:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/team_list/50005.php

First post... surely not?! :crazyeye:

I just wanted to say thanks for all the hard work you guys do. This sort of thing takes the game experience to a new level. Three cheers for Alan and the staff! Hip Hip....
:clap:

...Hooray!!!!

:goodjob: my thanks too, to the staff that does all this for us!

Here is a first version of the special HOF mod for SGOTM5

let me know if you find any bugs with it for this setup..

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/HOF-1.74.SGOTM5.zip

My thanks to the team, even to the Viking ;) for their work and patience:goodjob: .

A request, to keep you practiced :D : to better test this special mod, it would be helpful a practice game. I know some people posted some, but if Gyathaar could make a little more effort...

I don't think it's appropriate for Gyathaar to create a practice map. He knows the real one, and cannot distance himself from that knowledge.

Here is a first version of the special HOF mod for SGOTM5

let me know if you find any bugs with it for this setup..

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/HOF-1.74.SGOTM5.zip

Loads and runs the game just fine - no hangups I could find in an admittedly cursory test.

However, I have one small quibble: the package was not bundled into a handy-dandy installer, although the graphics for the installer are included. Some may encounter difficulty navigating the Windoze directory maze without a guided setup.

Here is a first version of the special HOF mod for SGOTM5

let me know if you find any bugs with it for this setup..

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/HOF-1.74.SGOTM5.zip

I've played through the trial game that was posted in the pre-game thread (well, up to about 500BC anyhow). No noticeable bugs.
Temujin and barbarians both show up in score list. Game survives discovery of Alphabet.

One strange thing I noticed was that techs were being discovered that were not the one listed alongside Barbarians name in the score list. (e.g. it said they were researching Mining, but suddenly we were given Archery, presumably because they had just learned it)
I wouldn't say this is something wrong with the mod, necessarily. Just something strange about barbarians in the game, perhaps.

I assume we are not supposed to be able to click on the barbarians name in the score list to make contact with them. It simply clicks and does nothing.

Certainly, it all looks ready to roll. :goodjob:

For anyone who is:

Patching up to play SGOTM 05 (or the next XOTM for that matter) or installing BtS,

Still has old games to finish under the old patches (SGOTM 04, current XOTMs, multiplayer games, etc.)

And is not aware of the need or method of a dual install (if you are saying "huh?" then follow the link),

Here is a link to a discussion of the dual install issues:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232115

dV

I've played through the trial game that was posted in the pre-game thread (well, up to about 500BC anyhow). No noticeable bugs.
Temujin and barbarians both show up in score list. Game survives discovery of Alphabet.

One strange thing I noticed was that techs were being discovered that were not the one listed alongside Barbarians name in the score list. (e.g. it said they were researching Mining, but suddenly we were given Archery, presumably because they had just learned it)
I wouldn't say this is something wrong with the mod, necessarily. Just something strange about barbarians in the game, perhaps.

I assume we are not supposed to be able to click on the barbarians name in the score list to make contact with them. It simply clicks and does nothing.

Certainly, it all looks ready to roll. :goodjob:
Barbarians get free beakers per turn in techs that is known by other teams.. and can this way learn techs even without having techs selected as the active tech to research.

Yes.. you are not supposed to be able to talk to the barbs :)

I assume our leader characteristics are still aggressive, expansionist? (Listed in the sign-up thread but omitted from AlanH's post in our Thread.)

Must have been a slip of the copy/paste tool. Nothing's changed as far as I know.

I've added those items to the first post in this thread, but I don't plan to edit the fifteen team threads.

Loads and runs the game just fine - no hangups I could find in an admittedly cursory test.

However, I have one small quibble: the package was not bundled into a handy-dandy installer, although the graphics for the installer are included. Some may encounter difficulty navigating the Windoze directory maze without a guided setup.


That would be me :(

Where do I stick the files?

You should drop the expanded folder into a Mods folder. The one to use is the one in a folder with a path name like Program Files\Sid Meiers Civilization IV\Mods (this assumes Windows XP).

There's another Mods folder in your user documents path, but it appears that people have problems with this one.

Thanks, Alan :)

You can drop the expanded folder into a Mods folder. The one to use is the one in a folder with a path name like \My Documents\My Games\Civilization IV\ (this assumes Windows XP).

There's another Mods folder in Program Files\Sid Meiers Civilization IV\, and it can go in there instead if you want it to be shared by multiple user accounts on your computer.

I have had issues with using the Documents\MyGames\...... path under both W2K and Vista for the other HoF mods.

I recommend strongly using the the C:\Program Files\Firaxis\Sid Meiers Civizilation4\Mods\HoF-1.74.SGOTM5 path instead. You need to copy and paste the entire extracted folder to the \Mods directory. Then all should work normally.

I have had issues with using the Documents\MyGames\...... path under both W2K and Vista for the other HoF mods.

I'll second this. Placing it in the C:\Program Files\..... path is your best option.

Last night I made a test game with the settings provided and it seems to work, although I didnt have time to test it very far.

What I noticed is that all AI start at a score of 19 in the test game, whereas the screenshot of the starting position shows all AI with a score of 45.

Have they been provided with additional units or is there another explanation for the difference?
Maybe the exact map settings? I used archipelago/archipelago as I didnt have access to the fractal/archipelago Gyathaar style

Last night I made a test game with the settings provided and it seems to work, although I didnt have time to test it very far.

What I noticed is that all AI start at a score of 19 in the test game, whereas the screenshot of the starting position shows all AI with a score of 45.

Have they been provided with additional units or is there another explanation for the difference?
Maybe the exact map settings? I used archipelago/archipelago as I didnt have access to the fractal/archipelago Gyathaar style

I am guessing AlanH took the screenshot on the 2nd turn of the game to make the blue rings for settler show up (a bug makes it not show up in turn 0 when loading a worldbuildersave.. it is fixed in the HOF mod.. but that dont help for Alan, who use Mac)

So the higher score is because the AIs has already settled their cities

I am guessing AlanH took the screenshot on the 2nd turn of the game to make the blue rings for settler show up (a bug makes it not show up in turn 0 when loading a worldbuildersave.. it is fixed in the HOF mod.. but that dont help for Alan, who use Mac)

So the higher score is because the AIs has already settled their cities

That's correct. It's what you get if you leave these things to the hired help :p

Thank you for the responses!

Does that mean we are already one turn behind the AI.... :crazyeye:

I guess the AI need all the help they can get anyway. The challenge is not if we can beat the AI, but how fast! :lol:

No that only means, the Screenshot is onee turn behind. The save will e from turn 0 as usual.

Ah, that's the reason we dont see the top part of the screenshot.

Thanks!

The saves are now available for everyone except the Mac Team and New Team. I still have to complete the mod for the Mac version of the game, and New Team have to agree on a new name.

Good luck!

ehm, where can I get the appropriate mod? (In case my dual-install actually works, which I doubt :p)

Post #5 in this thread?

Thanks Alan

(If I couldn't figure that out, what does it say about my dual-install?)

Just to be sure:
The special mod linked by Gyathaar in #5 of this thread is the official one?

I ask 'cause he was calling it "first version"
or is the first and last one?

Just to be sure:
The special mod linked by Gyathaar in #5 of this thread is the official one?

I ask 'cause he was calling it "first version"
or is the first and last one?
First and last one :)

I can't upload a 4000 BC save, could that be correct?

There can only be one save from 4000BC I think (the starting save)

What I noticed is that all AI start at a score of 19 in the test game, whereas the screenshot of the starting position shows all AI with a score of 45.


I am guessing AlanH took the screenshot on the 2nd turn of the game to make the blue rings for settler show up (a bug makes it not show up in turn 0 when loading a worldbuildersave.. it is fixed in the HOF mod.. but that dont help for Alan, who use Mac)

So the higher score is because the AIs has already settled their cities
On a related note, all the AIs in the SGOTM save start with a score of 0 rather than 19. Shouldn't they get some score for knowing their starting techs?

On a related note, all the AIs in the SGOTM save start with a score of 0 rather than 19. Shouldn't they get some score for knowing their starting techs?
Seems like a small bug with the change I did to allow player and barb score to show up.

It only happens when loading a 4000BC save thou.. and goes away as soon as one of you settles a town it seems

The saves are now available for everyone except the Mac Team and New Team. I still have to complete the mod for the Mac version of the game, and New Team have to agree on a new name.

Good luck!

New Team is now the Misfits...
Could you please update that please AlanH.. Thanks..

~fr

I've Vanilla patched to 1.74 with my BtS disk and it cannot open the save. My build version is 1.7.4.0 from May 17, my mates who used direct CivIV patch to build 1.6.1.1841 of March 30 2006 can load it. What to do?

I've Vanilla patched to 1.74 with my BtS disk and it cannot open the save. My build version is 1.7.4.0 from May 17, my mates who used direct CivIV patch to build 1.6.1.1841 of March 30 2006 can load it. What to do?
Well I'm sure members of most of the competing teams will be quietly celebrating on hearing that news ;)

Confess, Big Pig! Repent before it is too late!!!

Seriously, I'm quite pissed off.

Well I'm sure members of most of the competing teams will be quietly celebrating on hearing that news ;)

:rotfl:

You do us an injustice Big Pig. :lol:

Seriously, I'm quite pissed off.Relax, Lexad, we're your friends. We're all here to help. Just email me your starting save and I'll play your first turnset for you... :cool:

How many turns should I play, about 100?

After reading about dificulties with upgrading and being able to open the SGOTM 05 save, who has had success with this? Are the problems isolated or rather common? In particular, anyone successfully upgraded using BtS in a Vista system (which is what I will be trying tonight ... or not, if no one has had success :eek: )

dV

I upgraded with no problem, but did it using the in game update feature before I received BtS. I am using vista and was able to open the save.

Do note that the SGOTM5 needs a special HOF Mod called 1.74.SGOTM5

I've Vanilla patched to 1.74 with my BtS disk and it cannot open the save. My build version is 1.7.4.0 from May 17, my mates who used direct CivIV patch to build 1.6.1.1841 of March 30 2006 can load it. What to do?
I used the Vanilla patch 1.74 from BtS disc too.. so it should not have anything to do with that...

I have seen many people able tp open the save in the team threads, so cant imagine it is something with my install.

I upgraded with no problem, but did it using the in game update feature before I received BtS. I am using vista and was able to open the save.

Do note that the SGOTM5 needs a special HOF Mod called 1.74.SGOTM5 So no problems with direct X, as others seem to be having? ( ... see the latest patches thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232115)

Since I am still limping along with dial-up I figured that BtS would be a less painful way to get the updates, so hope that works.

By the way, did you do a dual install, and if so, how is that working?

dV

Vista comes with DirectX10, so you shouldn't have any issues with directX problems, I would imagine.

Vista comes with DirectX10, so you shouldn't have any issues with directX problems, I would imagine. One would think so, wouldn't one? But this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232577 seems to suggest otherwise ...

If the BtS install should ask me if I want to "update" directX, should I say yes or no? Or is it smart enough to know that Vista has a later version? Or does the later version in fact not work with the patches ...

Addendum: I suppose I should ask what version of directX is on the BtS disk, assuming that one is ...

dV

interesting how many people in those threads blame Firaxis for their computer not being up to date...

interesting how many people in those threads blame Firaxis for their computer not being up to date... Sure, but back to the question at hand ...

Or does the later version [of direct X] in fact not work with the patches ... Which is what this post seems to be saying: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5721536&postcount=9
What do you make of this?

dV

One would think so, wouldn't one? But this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232577 seems to suggest otherwise ...

If the BtS install should ask me if I want to "update" directX, should I say yes or no? Or is it smart enough to know that Vista has a later version? Or does the later version in fact not work with the patches ...

Addendum: I suppose I should ask what version of directX is on the BtS disk, assuming that one is ...

dV
Vista has both directx10 and directx9 .. the patches and BtS requires a newer version of dx9 than what comes installed by default in vista.. so you will have to update dx9 even if you run vista and have dx10

Vista has both directx10 and directx9 .. the patches and BtS requires a newer version of dx9 than what comes installed by default in vista.. so you will have to update dx9 even if you run vista and have dx10 That explains a lot ... and who would have expected that (at least among non programming types like me). But let's get a bit more precise ...

The Vista version of dx9 apparently runs just fine for 1.61 and 2.08.

Is it just BtS that needs the higher version of dX9, or is it the 1.74 and 2.13 patches that need it as well, even without BtS? Seems like the latter, based on problems with upgrades regardless of BtS.

Should I assume that BtS install will update the dX9 in Vista automatically? Or should I do an update of dX9 on the web (or by exploring the BtS disk)before I install BtS? Or does it matter?

dV

New Team is now the Misfits...
Could you please update that please AlanH.. Thanks..

~fr

Thx for your feedback.

Sorry for the delay, I was out all day and this evening. I've updated your team name in the Team Lists, and changed the thread name, with a reminder of what it used to be for any late arrivals. Gyathaar will upload your start file soon, and then you'll be good to go.

Is it just BtS that needs the higher version of dX9, or is it the 1.74 and 2.13 patches that need it as well, even without BtS? Seems like the latter, based on problems with upgrades regardless of BtS.

Should I assume that BtS install will update the dX9 in Vista automatically? Or should I do an update of dX9 on the web (or by exploring the BtS disk)before I install BtS? Or does it matter?

dV
the new vanilla and warlords patches require it too

BtS comes with the directx9.0c upgrades on the disk, found in the DirectX9 folder.. the installer should automatically run it.. but I think I have seen a couple reports about it not installing automatically for them.. you can just browse into the dir manually thou and launch the dxsetup.exe thou.. no need to download if you have the BtS disk

@rrau - somewhere I read that you have the 1.74.SGOTM5 mod installed in both the My Games path and the Program Files\Firaxis path. Delete it from the My Games path before doing anything else. Then right click on the Firaxis folder and open the properties dialog box, go to the Security tab and make sure that the Users group has all the permissions in the Permissions box checked. You will need to have Administrator privileges to make those changes. It will take a bit of time for the machine to process all those files so be patient.

Once you do those two things you should be good to go.

Bede gave me this solution. I was crashing my game before I followed these instructions. It worked like a charm. :D

@ daVinci we have at least 3 signing ins who have been able to open the save. For me, I upgraded through the ingame Menu, then run into the DX problem, read the solution, implemented it and now everything seems to work just fine.

Well, my teammmates who patched Vanilla and Warlords not from BtS disk also got no problems, so I'll just unistall and redo it from scratch. However, having THAT different patch builds called the same does not compliment Firaxis the least.

Interesting, because nearly every complaint I've seen came from patching without BtS...haven't seen anyone complain from the BtS patches...and usually the problem is DirectX versions, not the actual patches.

I have latest DirectX9.0c and .NET 3.0, it shouldn't be the reason. And I wasn't the only one with such problem on civru.com forums.

Ok, I'll erinstall and check out whether patching directly would help.

I've got a dual-install without BtS in Windows XP, had the DirectX problem but after downloading the newest directX, everything worked.

@Gyathaar - I tried setting up a Warlords HoF game and even with Lock Modifeid Assets checked I got the "Not valid for HoF play. Assets not original. Contact HoF staff"

And I can"t load an SG save using the HoF 2.08.004 mod.

The only thing that has changed is that I installed the 1.74 patch and the HoF-1.74.001 mod and the HoF-1.74.SGOTM5 mods for Vanilla. Warlords remains unpatched, no mods other than the HoF-2.08.004 and the standard Warlords mods are in the Mods folder.

This all started when I set up to play the SGOTM5.

Any thoughts other than uninstall everything and start over?

Warlords relies Civ4 vanilla assets as well as its own set. It does not stand alone, which is why it lives inside the Civ4 folder in the Program Files path. So if you have updated vanilla assets I would guess Warlords is calculating check sums for (1.74 assets + 2.08 assets), and complaining that they are not the same as (1.61 assets + 2.08 assets).

If you want to play Warlords 2.08 locked games you need a complete 1.61 + 2.08 set of program files.

Thanks for the rapid response, gents. Have I told you the HoF and SGOTM staff are really great before? If not, :goodjob: on everything you do to keep this game fascinating.

Not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but I loaded up the 1.74 SGOTM5 HOF MOD, and then when I tried to load the save I got the following message:

The save file you have selected is protected to ensure that the assets in your mod folder have not been changed.

If you know what the problem might be, please speak slowly and as if to a 5 year old :D Thanks in advance.

Possible reasons:

1. You have CivScale installed. If so, reset it to default values.

2. You have not upgraded your Civ4 to version 1.74. If so, please do so.

3. Are you sure you installed the SGOTM5 mod correctly? Is it in the Mods folder in your Program Files path, and does its name display in the top right corner of the main menu screen when it is loaded? If not, you need to reinstall the mod correctly.

4. You have put one or more modified files in your Civ4 installation, in the Assets folder or its subfolders. If so you will need to remove the offending files, or reinstall and repatch a clean copy of Civ4 and add in the SGOTM 5 mod.

Possible reasons:

1. You have CivScale installed. If so, reset it to default values.
No idea what CivScale is.

2. You have not upgraded your Civ4 to version 1.74. If so, please do so.
patched

3. Are you sure you installed the SGOTM5 mod correctly? Is it in the Mods folder in your Program Files path, and does its name display in the top right corner of the main menu screen when it is loaded? If not, you need to reinstall the mod correctly.
It's in the Mods folder, and displays the 1.74 mod in the upper right.

4. You have put one or more modified files in your Civ4 installation, in the Assets folder or its subfolders. If so you will need to remove the offending files, or reinstall and repatch a clean copy of Civ4 and add in the SGOTM 5 mod.
I looked in there and didn't see anything in the folder or subfolders.

I really do apologize for the trouble :(

The software does a check sum across all the key files in the Assets folder. If that check sum doesn't match the one that was calculated when Gyathaar created the start save then it pops up the error you have seen. Other players have loaded the start files successfully, including players in your team, so it has to be something non-standard in your Civ4 installation.

If you can't think of anything you have done to change it, I can only suggest re-installing and repatching Civ4 to version 1.74. If you just add back the SGOTM mod first and try loading the start file, then it should work. If you subsequently add in any other mods you use, and it stops working, then you will know what caused the problem.

Here is a new issue:

My dual install went well, game loads, etc. But if I open the option screen, the exit button won't exit, and I am dead in the water. I can change the options, but can't get back to the game. Have to minimize Civ and kill it in task manager.

Same issue in all the new mods: HOF 1.74.001, HOF 2.13.001 and the SGOTM 05 mod. NOT a problem in the unmodded installs of 1.74 or 2.13. Maybe something to do with the new HOF mods?

Not fixed after a reboot.

If it is not just me (windows vista ultimate), then this may cause a lot of reloads. If one always saves before going to options, that is at least a workaround.

Anyone else having this problem?

BTW, has the new install reset our autosaves to every 4 turns? If so, should remind all to reset to every turn.

dV

Anyone else having this problem?
You are the first person to mention it as far as I know, and several teams have already submitted turn sets with no signs of multiple sessions.

BTW, has the new install reset our autosaves to every 4 turns? If so, should remind all to reset to every turn.
If this is the case, you've just done it. :)

Here is a new issue:

My dual install went well, game loads, etc. But if I open the option screen, the exit button won't exit, and I am dead in the water. I can change the options, but can't get back to the game. Have to minimize Civ and kill it in task manager.

Same issue in all the new mods: HOF 1.74.001, HOF 2.13.001 and the SGOTM 05 mod. NOT a problem in the umodded installs of 1.74 or 2.13. Maybe something to do with the new HOF mods?

Not fixed after a reboot.

If it is not just me (windows vista ultimate), then this may cause a lot of reloads. If one always saves before going to options, that is at least a workaround.

Anyone else having this problem?

BTW, has the new install reset our autosaves to every 4 turns? If so, should remind all to reset to every turn.

dV

I had the same problem.

I dont recall exactly how I got round it. It was something to do with changing some settings (like resolution) without the mod, then loading the mod and changing the HOF settings OR changing one HOF setting at time, exiting after each one.

At some point I also did a new install, installed only the 1.74 patch and then the mod and the sgotm5 mod.

One of these solved it for me.

BTW, has the new install reset our autosaves to every 4 turns? If so, should remind all to reset to every turn.


My autosave frequency wasn't reset. Mind you I updated vanilla & warlords through the in-game patch as my delivery of BTS was delayed. I also run Win XP in case that made a difference.

As an aside it's annoying that the .ini file for BTS doesn't include all the option values. Maybe so that we have to keep seeing those wretched start movies all the time?

I had the same problem.

I dont recall exactly how I got round it. It was something to do with changing some settings (like resolution) without the mod, then loading the mod and changing the HOF settings OR changing one HOF setting at time, exiting after each one.

At some point I also did a new install, installed only the 1.74 patch and then the mod and the sgotm5 mod.

One of these solved it for me. Are you suggesting that when you did the new install and did not install the 2.13 warlords patch, that seemed to help? If so, it might isolate the issue to warlords patch or mod?

Are you running vista or XP? Maybe its a vista issue?

I still have to check if the changed settings will lock in after I kill the game in task manager (may well not be the case). I guess I could set up the settings as I want them in unmodded, close the game, then open with mod, and just remember never to go into options.

dV

I think that patching+new mod resets all your preferences and options. So it might be worthwile to have a good look at the option screens to see if everything is how you like it. Examples of things you need to reset include graphics level, HOF mod specials and autosave settings.

I too had the same problem as Mauer?? I then moved the MOD from my documents etc location to in the program files mod folder and now loads ok.

Are you suggesting that when you did the new install and did not install the 2.13 warlords patch, that seemed to help? If so, it might isolate the issue to warlords patch or mod?

Are you running vista or XP? Maybe its a vista issue?

I still have to check if the changed settings will lock in after I kill the game in task manager (may well not be the case). I guess I could set up the settings as I want them in unmodded, close the game, then open with mod, and just remember never to go into options.

dV

I am running vista. I got the update just before BtS, just used the ingame download. Afterwards, I uninstalled civilization IV (not warlords). Reinstalled and picked up the 1.74 patch from the patch folder and ran it. Then the mod and it was fine.

Here is a new issue:

My dual install went well, game loads, etc. But if I open the option screen, the exit button won't exit, and I am dead in the water. I can change the options, but can't get back to the game. Have to minimize Civ and kill it in task manager.

Same issue in all the new mods: HOF 1.74.001, HOF 2.13.001 and the SGOTM 05 mod. NOT a problem in the unmodded installs of 1.74 or 2.13. Maybe something to do with the new HOF mods?

Not fixed after a reboot.

If it is not just me (windows vista ultimate), then this may cause a lot of reloads. If one always saves before going to options, that is at least a workaround.

Anyone else having this problem?


dV

Two things you need to do to make this lash up work properly in Vista.
And you need to tell me whether or not you have multiple user accounts on the machine before I can give you detailed directions

Basically you need to enable File Sharing on the Civilization 4 root folder, then change the User permissions on that folder. The problem you are having springs from the paranoid manner in which Vista sets permissions on directories containing executables and files which are opened and written to during the game operation.

....Afterwards, I uninstalled civilization IV (not warlords)....

Interesting! Can you uninstall Civ4 without uninstalling Warlords? I understood Warlords was an add-on to Civ4, and depended on Civ4 data files. It lives inside the Civ4 parent folder, and so either it dies when the Civ4 folder is killed during uninstallation, or the uninstaller leaves some bits of Civ4 in place. Either way, after uninstalling Civ4 you should not be able to run Warlords.

Two things you need to do to make this lash up work properly in Vista.
And you need to tell me whether or not you have multiple user accounts on the machine before I can give you detailed directions

Basically you need to enable File Sharing on the Civilization 4 root folder, then change the User permissions on that folder. The problem you are having springs from the paranoid manner in which Vista sets permissions on directories containing executables and files which are opened and written to during the game operation. On closer look, not just the exit button in the option screen does not work, but the reset defaults button does not work either. I can change the option settings (check and uncheck boxes).

Are you referring to the fact that some folders live in C:\Program Files(x86)\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4 and others live in Owner\Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4 ?

If so, I am curious as to why that never caused a problem with 1.61 or 2.08 and all of their mods, and does not cause a problem with unmodded 1.74 or 2.13? It only seems to cause a problem, at least for me, in the two new HOF mods, and the SGOTM 05 mod (which I assume is based on the HOF mod).

Anyway, only one user account (I have never set up any others) ... there is an owner folder and a public folder. It is Vista Ultimate, and I also run Norton Internet Security.

remconius says he fixed it with some series of reinstalls ... does that make sense? Maybe he had a different problem?

Anyway I do appreciate the help! :thanx:

I'll post this in parallel in HOF support so both audiences can benefit.

dV

First things first - turn off Norton whenever you install a Civ 4 game, expansion or Mod.

These instructions apply to Windows Vista.

For a single user machine the process is pretty straightforward as there is no need to implement file shares.

It goes like this

Right Click on the Firaxis Games directory in the C:\Program Files path and select the Properties option. In the first tab labeled "General" are two checkboxes at the bottom - one is labeled Read Only and should be greyed. Clear it so the check box is empty, then click the Apply button. A dialog box with two radio buttons will appear, select the all folders, all subfolders and all files button. Click okay and and

This will take a while as the machine processes all those files.

When that has finished in the same Properties dialog box click the security tab. In the scroll box labeled Group or user names you will find various names. Click on Users.

The scroll box at the bottom will show all Permissions assigned to the Users group for this set of files. If the permission do not include Full Control click the Edit button just above the scroll box. That opens another dialog box that allows you to change User Group permissions. Select the Users group in the upper scroll box and then check the Full Control check box in the lower scroll box. Click Apply. Get some more

You should be good to go.

For a Vista OS with multiple User accounts you also need to set up Sharing on the Firaxis Directory in the Program Files path, the Civilization 4 directory and the Mods directory and the HoF Mod directory.

The paranoid nature of Vista's handling of directories with executables and dyanmic files like the .py and .xml files make it necessary to jump through these hoops.

IMPORTANT: Victory Conditions

Conquest victory is disabled in the Windows start files. So if you find yourselves all alone on the map, with only the barbs for company, please upload your final save in the normal way, and contact me or Gyathaar. We can then verify that you have indeed achieved a Conquest victory.

This does NOT apply to the Mac Team. Instead, they will not be able to win a Diplomatic victory. This VC is disabled, as I could find no way to mod the Mac version of Civ4 to allow the barb team to give or receive votes.

Imported from the HOF forum, where there is more discussion on this problem

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229172

I had noticed this behavior earlier with other mods but hadn't much thought about it. There is something very hinky, however, going on with the 2.13 and 1.74 patches as I have had an absolute nightmare trying to set up a dual install. At one point the patches refused to recognize the presence of the core game. I had an easy time with my dual install, other than this exit button hang. Mine was a BtS install from disk, so patches installed easily. Might explain why a simplification of your advice seems to have worked, for now ...

Right Click on the Firaxis Games directory in the C:\Program Files path and select the Properties option. In the first tab labeled "General" are two checkboxes at the bottom - one is labeled Read Only and should be greyed. Clear it so the check box is empty, then click the Apply button. A dialog box with two radio buttons will appear, select the all folders, all subfolders and all files button.

When that has finished in the same Properties dialog box click the security tab. In the scroll box labeled Group or user names you will find various names. Click on Users.

The scroll box at the bottom will show all Permissions assigned to the Users group for this set of files. If the permission do not include Full Control click the Edit button just above the scroll box. That opens another dialog box that allows you to change User Group permissions. Select the Users group in the upper scroll box and then check the Full Control check box in the lower scroll box. Click Apply. What I did was to apply this to the HOF-1.74.001 folder in the mods folder in the program files path, rather than the whole firaxis games directory. I will have to do the same to warlords, and for each mod that I add as long as the bug continues. But it did go pretty fast! And I prefer minimalist solutions whenever I can get them.

The exit button hang is fixed :goodjob:

Again, thanks for the help!

dV

I have had issues with using the Documents\MyGames\...... path under both W2K and Vista for the other HoF mods.

I recommend strongly using the the C:\Program Files\Firaxis\Sid Meiers Civizilation4\Mods\HoF-1.74.SGOTM5 path instead. You need to copy and paste the entire extracted folder to the \Mods directory. Then all should work normally.

Yep, I've just learnt it the hard way too. On the positive side - I'm ready to rrumble!

Yep, I've just learnt it the hard way too. On the positive side - I'm ready to rrumble!

@LowtherCastle: I think its time to put Plan B into action!

BP, you mean, run for it? Already?

If you can't think of anything you have done to change it, I can only suggest re-installing and repatching Civ4 to version 1.74. If you just add back the SGOTM mod first and try loading the start file, then it should work. If you subsequently add in any other mods you use, and it stops working, then you will know what caused the problem.


I had the same problem, Alan. I uninstalled both vanilla and warlords, reinstalled just the vanilla, patched it (checked and it worked fine), got the game mod (checked and it works fine), and I still get the same message. :sad:

I don't want to be a pain either, but does anyone have any ideas on how to fix it?

I had the same problem, Alan. I uninstalled both vanilla and warlords, reinstalled just the vanilla, patched it (checked and it worked fine), got the game mod (checked and it works fine), and I still get the same message. :sad:

I don't want to be a pain either, but does anyone have any ideas on how to fix it?

Did you also install the HoF-1.74.001 mod in the C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Civilization 4\Mods path?

Can you post a screenshot of the path that starts with C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Civilization 4\Mods?

Can you create a valid HoF game using the "Custom Game" screen in Startup Menu?

Did you also install the HoF-1.74.001 mod in the C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Civilization 4\Mods path?

Can you post a screenshot of the path that starts with C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Civilization 4\Mods?

Can you create a valid HoF game using the "Custom Game" screen in Startup Menu?

Yes. I have the HoF mod installed.


Screenshot:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k217/mastiffofar/civscreen.jpg?t=1185654858

I can create HoF and even the HoF SGOTM games. But I do get a HOF Warning about the game not being valid for HoF use... because the assets aren't locked, according to the victory settings page.

Thanks for helping!

I'm not sure that matters...the core.dll is changed, so it will show up as having modified assets. As long as you can load it, then the 'right' assets have been changed :p

@Mastiff:

1) I did not see the HoF-1.74.001 mod directory in the screen shot you posted though it is probably not relevant to your problem.

2) The directory path to the HoF-1.74.SGOTM5 mod should look like this

C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Mods\HOF-1.74.SGOTM5

What I see in your screenshot is two folders named HoF-1.74.SGOTM5 right on top of each other with the files for the mod in the lower one. Select all files in the lower folder on the tree and move them into the upper one, Then delete the second duplicate folder.

The tree will look like this when you are done

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/37083/Directory_structure.jpg

What is happening is that the save file is looking for its toys in the path C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Mods\HOF-1.74.SGOTM5 and not finding them. So it reports the error you are getting.

@Mastiff:

1) I did not see the HoF-1.74.001 mod directory in the screen shot you posted though it is probably not relevant to your problem.

2) The directory path to the HoF-1.74.SGOTM5 mod should look like this

C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Mods\HOF-1.74.SGOTM5

What I see in your screenshot is two folders named HoF-1.74.SGOTM5 right on top of each other with the files for the mod in the lower one. Select all files in the lower folder on the tree and move them into the upper one, Then delete the second duplicate folder.


What is happening is that the save file is looking for its toys in the path C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Mods\HOF-1.74.SGOTM5 and not finding them. So it reports the error you are getting.

I think something else is wrong. (Well, I know it, because I did that and it didn't work.) For whatever reason, the save file is looking for the mod in the "My Games" area. When I took it out of there, the game couldn't find the mod at all. Could that be the root of this whole problem?

EDIT: WOO HOO! Thanks Bede! I went back, uninstalled, and removed anything left in other user files about Civ. (The first time I loaded it for the whole family) That did the trick! Thanks a bunch everyone... I'm glad I get to play! :band:

I'm not going to be a lot of help with this, as I don't run Windows Civ4.

What Windows version are you running? There do seem to be extra issues with Vista.

[EDIT] Sorry. Your screenie looks like XP, I guess.

@Mastiff, I think you must have missed a file when you did the move. The HoF mods (all of them) should not be installed anywhere other than the C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Civilization 4\Mods path.

There is one other possibility, however, if you have more than one user account on your machine.

When you installed Civ4 did you select the radio button for "all users" in one of the set up screens?

PM me with your answer and we will go from there as there is no need to clutter up this thread with install problems.

Wasn't directed at me, but thanks Bede :D

I did as you suggested and moved it from my documents to program files and it works fine now.

All right, here's a good for you guys. I don't have a Program Files/Firaxis and I'm getting teh same message that Mastiff got. How come I don't have that folder?

EDIT: Application data under my user. Never mind.

EDIT2: Thanks Bede.

All right, here's a good for you guys. I don't have a Program Files/Firaxis and I'm getting teh same message that Mastiff got. How come I don't have that folder?

How about a screenshot of your C:\Program Files\..... directory tree?

And

what is the OS

are there multiple user accounts on the machine

Right click the desktop icon for Civ4. Select properties, copy the text in the Target: text box and paste it into your reply

Still in the properties window, copy the text in the Start in: text box and paste it into your reply

Still in the properties window, click on the "open file location" button and copy the text in the address bar and paste it into your reply.

All of the above will tell me where to find the civ4 executable and where you have to put the mod folders to make this dog hunt.

new problem:
1. I can load 1.74 just fine.
2. I can load the HOF 1.74 SGOTM5 mod just fine.

So I download our latest save and I get this instruction:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/32851/Problem.JPG

Then the program ends.

What do I do? Or what did I do wrong?

new problem:
1. I can load 1.74 just fine.
2. I can load the HOF 1.74 SGOTM5 mod just fine.

So I download our latest save and I get this instruction:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/32851/Problem.JPG

Then the program ends.

What do I do? Or what did I do wrong?

:salute:, Bugsy.

Did you start the game by clicking the save?

Try loading the game first, then select "Load a Mod" from the Game setup screen, then after the game restarts, load the save from the game setup screen.

Yeah, I tried it both ways.. Civ - mod - save and Civ - save - mod. Neither works. The puzzling part is that this was working on save 0 when I tested the save as part of Lee's requirements. :hmm:

Any chance that the latest save was played in the wrong mod? Seems unlikely, but so is this problem.

Can other team members open that save?

dV

Have you placed the od in "My Games" or in "Program Files" folder? The latter did the trick for me.

I followed Bede's method - Program Files

I understand other members can open it.

Did you perhaps run Civscale in meantime? I assume you cant open the turn 0 save either any more?

I assume the directory is an absolute address, so it must be default install directory settings to work?

Edit: this may well be the reason it is the only game i have installed on C: drive, i know i would not have done that as a random event.

I assume the directory is an absolute address, so it must be default install directory settings to work?

Edit: this may well be the reason it is the only game i have installed on C: drive, i know i would not have done that as a random event.
No.. you can install it anywhere you like ;)

Gyathaar - I understand my assets file needs to be set up just like yours so I don't get the Assets Protected warning. Can you tell what you have there?

Edit - I have completely structured the files just like HOF-1.74. I need some help here, otherwise I won't be able to play.

Gyathaar - I understand my assets file needs to be set up just like yours so I don't get the Assets Protected warning. Can you tell what you have there?

Edit - I have completely structured the files just like HOF-1.74. I need some help here, otherwise I won't be able to play.
Look further up in thread, to post 87
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5744129&postcount=87
to see how the mod files should be placed..
What the civilization4 folder is called does not matter. nor does it matter whare it is located (as long as the mod folder is directly inside it, and the SGOTM5 mod holder is directly inside that)

Are you able to open GOTM21?

Also what did you do between it working for you and it stopping to work for you? did you reinstall or something? (if so.. did you install the 1.74 patch?)

Also.. you you post a locked save (locked assets game option) with the HOF-1.74.SGOTM5, I can tell you if your problem is with the mod or the civ4 install

I had the same problem as Lexad, Mauer etc - couldn't open the save until I moved the Mods folder from the \My Documents\My Games\ location to the C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\ location.

@Alan - worth adding an update to the original 'install instructions' post to reflect this, since it sounds like a common problem? Since you don't get the error until first opening the save, there might be quite a few people out there who are yet to install the mod and test it out... ?

You can drop the expanded folder into a Mods folder. The one to use is the one in a folder with a path name like \My Documents\My Games\Civilization IV\ (this assumes Windows XP).

There's another Mods folder in Program Files\Sid Meiers Civilization IV\, and it can go in there instead if you want it to be shared by multiple user accounts on your computer. Or you just want it to work. :crazyeye:

Has anyone had the problem of trying to open a save and getting a microsoft style message that Civilization has a problem and must shut down? In solving all the other ones, I hadn't had this happen. The game starts, gets past the video of the earth, and as it begins to load the save, bam... up pops the message.

I have opened other SGOTM saves with this mod, and haven't had problems. It figures my turn would come up and it would quit working...

Has anyone had the problem of trying to open a save and getting a microsoft style message that Civilization has a problem and must shut down? In solving all the other ones, I hadn't had this happen. The game starts, gets past the video of the earth, and as it begins to load the save, bam... up pops the message.

I have opened other SGOTM saves with this mod, and haven't had problems. It figures my turn would come up and it would quit working...

If it helps anyone figure the problem out, the very same save Mastiff tried to open I was successful at opening.

I had the same problem as Lexad, Mauer etc - couldn't open the save until I moved the Mods folder from the \My Documents\My Games\ location to the C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\ location.

@Alan - worth adding an update to the original 'install instructions' post to reflect this, since it sounds like a common problem? Since you don't get the error until first opening the save, there might be quite a few people out there who are yet to install the mod and test it out... ?

I've changed it.

Has anyone had the problem of trying to open a save and getting a microsoft style message that Civilization has a problem and must shut down? In solving all the other ones, I hadn't had this happen. The game starts, gets past the video of the earth, and as it begins to load the save, bam... up pops the message.

I have opened other SGOTM saves with this mod, and haven't had problems. It figures my turn would come up and it would quit working...

Judging from your earlier post there are multiple user accounts on your machine. I can't be certain without seeing the error message but I am pretty sure that the mod is trying to access a resource in a folder or file and your user account does not have the necessary permissions.

I encountered something similar in a Win2K installation of the HoF mod needed to play SGOTM3 although the game didn't fail in that instance it simply locked on moving a unit. The fix involved resetting the permissions for the user account and sharing the folder to that user account as it had been installed by the admin account.

random question...what's the point of having more than 1 user account? I've never created an account, just used the default one created when my computer is first used.

random question...what's the point of having more than 1 user account?

Some of us have more than one person who uses our computer.

I've had that as well, but we all just used 1 user account.

Alan, should you update the first post to show that diplomacy victories are disallowed? or was that just for the mac team?

I've had that as well, but we all just used 1 user account.

Well, ok, but it's much more convenient for different users to use their own accounts. You can have your own desktop, your own browser settings, your own bookmarks, your own Documents folder, etc., etc., etc.

It also makes it less likely that my kids will (inadvertently or intentionally) screw up something in my own account.

ahhh...yeah, that would be helpful...then my wife wouldn't keep sticking all my desktop icons into the quicklaunch toolbar :p

Alan, should you update the first post to show that diplomacy victories are disallowed? or was that just for the mac team?

Just for the Mac team.

Has anyone had the problem of trying to open a save and getting a microsoft style message that Civilization has a problem and must shut down? In solving all the other ones, I hadn't had this happen. The game starts, gets past the video of the earth, and as it begins to load the save, bam... up pops the message.

I have opened other SGOTM saves with this mod, and haven't had problems. It figures my turn would come up and it would quit working...

Try redownloading the save from the server, and check it's file size.

Judging from your earlier post there are multiple user accounts on your machine. I can't be certain without seeing the error message but I am pretty sure that the mod is trying to access a resource in a folder or file and your user account does not have the necessary permissions.

I'll get the exact wording when I get home tonight, but the odd part is that I have another save from the previous turnset in the same folder that comes up just fine. And, as of now, everything Civ related is in one user account called "Civ Only". The account was set up awhile back, but I reinstalled everything and put it all in that spot and nowhere else. I can even start a new game with the SG mod.

Try redownloading the save from the server, and check it's file size.

Okay, will do. Do I check it against something?

I've had that as well, but we all just used 1 user account.

I have teenage sons... I prefer them on their own little accounts that I can administer.

The error message is:

Sid Mier's Civilization 4 has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
---------
If you were in the middle of something, the information you were working on may be lost.

For more information on this error click here.

Then it gives all kinds of information that would take a half an hour to type...


Also, the download says it's 61.9 KB, but when it gets to my computer, it's 34 KB. I mean, what the heck? :confused:

EDIT: Wow. I downloaded it again, for the 4th time, to a different spot... and it opened. Thanks for folks helping out!

AlanH, the 280 BC save for One Short Straw has been uploaded twice by mistake. This seems to have caused a problem with the score graph. Could you remove the second save please?

:hmm: I'm not sure why that would have set a zero score entry for that date. I'll look at it when I get home this evening.

:hmm: I'm not sure why that would have set a zero score entry for that date. I'll look at it when I get home this evening.

I notice that every time I open a save, the scores are zero, and only resume there proper magnitudes once you play a turn. What would happen if you opened a save, didn't play anything, saved it again and then uploaded it? That might be what happened...

Yes, that occurred to me as well. I guess the question then is why would anyone do that? I'm thinking I may change the script to reject a save for the same date as an existing save.

I guess the question then is why would anyone do that? I'm thinking I may change the script to reject a save for the same date as an existing save.

Not saying this is what occured but you would get this scenario in the "classic"
1. Open the save
2. Move scout or warrior to reveal tiles
3. Save to discuss where to settle

Start that a lot of SG's have!

Ralph

The system already prevents a second upload at 4000 BC, because I don't want the original start file overridden. So you can't upload the start+scout_move status, accidentally or deliberately.

This case occurred at 280 BC. At or near 4000 BC, the zero score would have had no impact.

I guess the question then is why would anyone do that? I'm thinking I may change the script to reject a save for the same date as an existing save.

The most common reason to upload multiple saves at the same date would be diplomacy, you might want to make certain trades or agreements and then discuss how those have affected diplomatic relations with other opponents, and what to do next.

However, you can always just post those save files internally to the team thread, so I don't see a problem with disallowing multiple uploads for the same turn.

However, you can always just post those save files internally to the team thread, so I don't see a problem with disallowing multiple uploads for the same turn.

Alan doesn't like saves being posted to the tesm thread. :p

Alan doesn't like saves being posted to the tesm thread. :p

Really? I know it's against the SGOTM rules to transfer the game from one player to another except through the official upload. But I thought there was no problem with posting intermediate saves in the team thread so that other players can observe and comment on them.

My only concern arises because I have seen more than one occasion when the next player has picked up an intermediate or previous save from the team thread instead of getting the latest save from the progress page.

I have been reminded that there is believed to be a bug in the Specialist Stacker feature in the HoF Mod. If you find you are unable to assign a specialist in spite of having all the pre-requisites, please try turning off the Specialist Stacker option to see if this fixes it.

alright have a slight problem here, my game crashed 2 turns in. I do have an autosave it seams 1 turn in. Do you suggest i reload nd go from there? I seem to get a conflict between firefox and civ 4 which crashes civ :(

In the event of a crash you have to reload your most recent autosav and replay the actions you took since that save..

You *should* have autosaves set to happen every turn, and so you should be able to start at the beginning of the turn when you crashed. Worst case would be if the crash happened during the autosave or immediately before it.

Sounds as if you'd better not run Firefox at the same time as Civ4!

yer but then i can be on this incredible forum at the same time :P OK i'll set autosave to 1 turn, thanks for the help :)

While looking at the progress page, I noticed that all teams except the Mac team are playing this game in Warlords. What's up with that?

While looking at the progress page, I noticed that all teams except the Mac team are playing this game in Warlords. What's up with that?

I am on one of the teams, and we are playing the original game. Why do you think we are playing on Warlords? :confused:

Will there be a 0AD spoiler?

While looking at the progress page, I noticed that all teams except the Mac team are playing this game in Warlords. What's up with that?

we are also playing on vanilla...I don't see what would make you think we were playing in warlords...:confused:

I am on one of the teams, and we are playing the original game. Why do you think we are playing on Warlords? :confused:

we are also playing on vanilla...I don't see what would make you think we were playing in warlords...:confused:

It's probably the fact all the teams except the Mac team have the [c4w] logo against their names instead of the [civ4] logo. Perhaps just a cut & paste hiccup when the SGOTM05 progress board was created? :confused:

SGOTM progress looks very strange: OneSS score equals to zero, power MurkyW has the same value. Is it truth or bug?

I think the score equals zero happens when a save is uploaded twice during the same turn. At least according to previous posts in this thread...

SGOTM progress looks very strange: OneSS score equals to zero, power MurkyW has the same value. Is it truth or bug?

It`s a bug, though as far as I am aware the save has not been uploaded twice this time though.

It's probably the fact all the teams except the Mac team have the [c4w] logo against their names instead of the [civ4] logo. Perhaps just a cut & paste hiccup when the SGOTM05 progress board was created? :confused:

That's what I meant.

I'll check it out when I get home. I'm away from my life support systems this week, so everything's on hold until around Sunday.

SGOTM progress looks very strange: OneSS score equals to zero, power MurkyW has the same value. Is it truth or bug?Why don't you stop bugging us about our graph and do something about your miserable graph.... :joke:

It`s a bug, though as far as I am aware the save has not been uploaded twice this time though.

The save was not uploaded twice, but it was opened and resaved, and that resave was uploaded. Since a newly opened SGOTM 5 save shows zero score, that's what yours registered.

Please don't do that.

I've fixed the version info. I just hadn't set the database up correctly to expect this version of Civ4. The Mac team's version was OK because they are still playing 1,61.

As usual, i know you need someone bothering you. ;)

No spoiler for this SGotM?
not that the previous one has great success :crazyeye: , but just to know...

More seriously, is the deadline to 10/31/07 confirmed?

And in this case, what about a new SGotM?

To expand on Blub's post... if the next SGOTM will be Warlords or BTS? I need to know this, as I've lost my warlords CD, and would want to buy another before I go back to where they don't sell them, if Warlords is the case. :D

WARNING:

There's a report that the new BtS patch released yesterday may be modifying non-BtS assets, resulting in Protected Assets errors for existing games. Until I can get this checked out, please don't apply the patch to the Civ4 installation you use for SGOTM 5.

See this thread for more information.

WARNING:

There's a report that the new BtS patch released yesterday may be modifying non-BtS assets, resulting in Protected Assets errors for existing games. Until I can get this checked out, please don't apply the patch to the Civ4 installation you use for SGOTM 5.

See this thread for more information.

Rats. I just applied the patch 20 minutes ago. I'll go and check if I get that problem.

EDIT: Yes I get that protected assets problem. Looks as though I will need to reinstall. :gripe:

There's a report that the new BtS patch released yesterday may be modifying non-BtS assets, resulting in Protected Assets errors for existing games. Until I can get this checked out, please don't apply the patch to the Civ4 installation you use for SGOTM 5.

Well for us poor slobs that already patched, AND already have commited to SGs playing with 3.13 what is the resolution?

The other thread really didn't answer that question.

Here is praying the answer isn't a reinstall...

If you have patched your only copy of Civ4/BtS then, if the reports are correct (and remember, I can't verify it myself) then the only option will be to reinstall and then copy and patch so that you have a dual installation until the SGOTM finishes.

What's the big deal with reinstalling?

What's the big deal with reinstalling?
The last time I went through the uninstall and reinstall process I wasted several hours by the time I got things working right again.

Hmm! Why are these things so complicated?

Gyathaar tells me he believes the only vanilla assets change in the patch is to the CivGameCoreDLL.dll file. If so there's a simpler option than a full reinstall - delete that file in the vanilla folder and run the 1.74 patch installer to reinstate the old one. I don't know what that will do to BtS, of course, so you may need to copy the complete installation and run the BtS patcher again on the copy, creating two installations.

The dual install details are here:

The thread is

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232115

The key starting post is (post 12 to post 19)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...6&postcount=12

Here is a description of the issue for those unfamiliar ...

The issue is that pre BTS, we had vanilla 1.61 and warlords 2.08. Installing BTS automatically patches vanilla to 1.74 and warlords to 2.13.

The wrinkle is that the HOF mods are patch-specific: an HOF mod designed for 2.08 won't work with 2.13.

And the XOTM are HOF mod-specific ... has to run in the mod that created it. This meant that a WOTM made with an HOF mod designed for 2.08 won't run on 2.13, so if you had unfinished games in 1.61 or 2.08, you either had to not install BTS until those were done, or generate a dual install of each game, one in the old 1.61 and 2.08, and a second copy that would update to the 1.74 and 2.13 when you did the BTS install.

Also, if you ever want to go back and replay an old XOTM, you would have to keep a dual install of the version for that game.

That was then, pre the 3.13 BTS patch ... now, 3.13 apparently changes shared assets. So ...

Newer XOTMs and SGs may require 3.13 versions of BTS, Warlords, or Vanilla (or newer pitboss games?), while older XOTMs and SG's (or older pitboss games?) might still require pre 3.13 versions of BTS, Warlords, or Vanilla. Or maybe only if HOF mod is being used (which would exclude pitboss I assume)?

If you need to be able to play old 1.61, 1.74, and now 1.74post3.13 games (or only if using the HOF mod?), then you may need a triple install of vanilla.

If you need to be able to play old 2.08, 2.13 and now 2.13post3.13 games (or only if using the HOF mod?), you may need a triple install of warlords.

And if you have pre 3.13 BTS games, then I assume you might need a dual install of BTS, one pre 3.13 and one post 3.13 to continue to play the old ones.

Ouch. :cringe: And if you already updated and need to go back ... super ouch. :cringe: :cringe:

@ Staff: correct any errors I have made here, but unforturnately I think I am right, or close to it.

dV

Hi Alan, i've seen you busy with the new BtS patch problems, perhaps you didn't noticed my question in my #146
The only sure thing seems that the new game can't overlap with the present.

I did see it. I don't have any answers. In the current fluid situation I am not about to throw yet more games and mods into the equation.

And SGOTM spoilers are not my favorite topic either, as I am sure you have detected :p

I did see it. I don't have any answers. In the current fluid situation I am not about to throw yet more games and mods into the equation. I second the wait and see on a new SGOTM.

Is 10/31 the wrap-up date for the current one, or will we have more time if we are waiting for the dust to settle ...?

dV

If you need a bit more time then we can move it to 30 November. I was more concerned to avoid months of delay from the first finishes to the last, rather than clashing with the next game.

I would like to see a final deadline. If you look at the progress chart you can see that some teams are moving very slow (5 turns/week) and I think they need to know how much time they have left.

Gyathaar tells me he believes the only vanilla assets change in the patch is to the CivGameCoreDLL.dll file. If so there's a simpler option than a full reinstall - delete that file in the vanilla folder and run the 1.74 patch installer to reinstate the old one. I don't know what that will do to BtS, of course, so you may need to copy the complete installation and run the BtS patcher again on the copy, creating two installations.

I had this problem with the BtS patch and fixed it by downloading the v1.74 Patch (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6183) and installing it after removing the CvGameCoreDLL.dll in the "Assets" folder.

I think too long a finish deadline for the SG takes away from the fun. As Big Pig has often mentinoed in our threads, when there's too much lag between turnsets, people tend to lose track of the progress and drift away from the game.

GOTMs are deadlined, I don't see a big problem with deadlining the SGs too.

I think too long a finish deadline for the SG takes away from the fun. As Big Pig has often mentinoed in our threads, when there's too much lag between turnsets, people tend to lose track of the progress and drift away from the game.

GOTMs are deadlined, I don't see a big problem with deadlining the SGs too. I think a deadline is fine, I just want to know what the deadline is so we can plan accordingly.

With some teams not in the second millenium yet, and no rush to the next SGOTM given the patch issues, maybe 11/15 or 11/30 is a better deadline than 10/31? I guess we need the various teams to weigh in.

dV

If you need a bit more time then we can move it to 30 November. I was more concerned to avoid months of delay from the first finishes to the last, rather than clashing with the next game.

Is there any request from any team to move the deadline? Extending the time period may not be fair to teams who have "rushed" their turns in order to complete the game within the hinted deadline. (We (Murky Waters) did not rush, so we would not suffer)

I got the impression from SWOTM4 that the reason for delay for many teams was boredom i.e. the not-so-fun-click-next-turn sequence. Will players enjoy SGOTM5 more if we added another month? Of course, patch problems is something else, and a perfectly valid reason for adding perhaps a week. I'm just worried that adding another month will reduce the interest from teams who have completed the game to discuss various tactics with other teams (because of memory decays etc).

I fully understand that some teams have real life obligations that prevent them from playing the game quickly. Still, I think it's wise to stick to a deadline to ensure that teams keep a steady pace to keep all team members interested in the game. Of course, I support whatever decision the staff takes. :D

I propose that you aim to complete this game in three months, that is by the end of October 2007.

My proposal was never seconded, but it was never challenged either. So until I hear that teamS (note the plural) want it extended, 31 October is still the objective.

I agree with Erkon, perhaps some day of delay, a month is too much.

BTW, if the only problem derived from the 3.13 patch is CvGameCoreDLL.dll, people that don't have patched yet (like me) can simply copy that file in a safe DIR, then apply the patch and switch the two files as they need.

Prolly the guys at Firaxis could have told this, as the remedy is so simple if you have prior knowledge.

My proposal was never seconded, but it was never challenged either. So until I hear that teamS (note the plural) want it extended, 31 October is still the objective.

:goodjob: Great

My proposal was never seconded, but it was never challenged either. So until I hear that team S (note the plural) want it extended, 31 October is still the objective.

I am going to request that if we want a hard deadline that it be announced at the start of the game so that teams now the pace they need to play for.

With two dropouts and analysis paralysis Real Ms. Beyond is very doubtful to finish by Oct 31. I put a note in the team thread asking if the team wants to officially request a deadline extension.

I think Smurkz has similar slowdown issues. I doubt we will finish by 10/31 (with or without the deadline). I tend to agree with LKendter that announcing a deadline at the start is better. But trying to motivate people to play faster makes sense too.

I am going to request that if we want a hard deadline that it be announced at the start of the game so that teams now the pace they need to play for.
My original proposal was intended to represent a deadline. How did you interpret it?

Fistful of Dynamite might be hard pushed to finish by the Oct 31st deadline also - although we are making steady progress (about 5th or 6th on the leaderboard in terms or number of turns played).

Agree it is not fair to push out the deadline though if other teams have already planned and played accordingly.

Hmm... maybe all those teams with saves still in the pre-1000ADs have already finished!! :eek:

My proposal was never seconded, but it was never challenged either. So until I hear that teamS (note the plural) want it extended, 31 October is still the objective.I didn't realize that your proposal was up for seconding or not. Sounds to me like we have 1) Precedent, whereby deadlines were a bit flexible, 2) Your proposal, which was concrete, but not seconded, and 3) A Request from teams to know what the deadline is, in advance, if there's going to be a hard one.

Seems to me a good solution would be for you to tack on a week or two, giving teams more than a month to finish, and announce it officially as soon as you've made a final decision.

As for the future, sounds like you might just want to stick to an official three-month deadline or whatever (knowing in the back of your mind that you can extend, officially, if it makes sense to do so, like last time).

No one can really complain either way, AlanH, since the rules clearly state that your decision is final in all cases except where your decision is final... ;)

One way or another I missed the deadline date. I doubt Chokonuts will collect our third wooden spoon in a row by then but we'll get a push on and see.

I propose that you aim to complete this game in three months that is by the end of October 2007.

To be honest I barely noticed this comment. In addition, the word "propose" to me implies a soft deadline. It should be bold, and underlined next time to that it can't be missed. I would change it to "you MUST"...


At least 3 of the 4 members of Real Ms. Beyond would like an extension. The fourth is on vacation. I am formally requesting an extension for the team.

I don't accept that everything I write in less than bold/underlined can be ignored.

However, if there is at least one more team who wants to formally request that the end date should be extended, THEY MUST say so. Also, I need an ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL as to the length of such an extension.

Does this meet your requirements for emphasis? :p

I would feel a fair compromise would be a month from now so everybody has a very firm deadline in their heads and sufficient time to "catch - up" (e.g longer turnsets) if they need to.

Ralph

A month from now is only a week later than the original proposal. A week in three months is not a big deal, but I suspect this is not what The Real Ms. Beyond would want.

Speaking from the Real Ms. Beyond, I don't understand the bickering in regards to extending the deadline to November 30. In doing so, all teams who have not yet picked up the pace can do so and finish on time.

Teams who are already ahead will finish early. Whats the big deal? Can't wait for those results for a couple of weeks?

Speaking from the Real Ms. Beyond, I don't understand the bickering in regards to extending the deadline to November 30. In doing so, all teams who have not yet picked up the pace can do so and finish on time.

Teams who are already ahead will finish early. Whats the big deal? Can't wait for those results for a couple of weeks?

I think we are rather talking about getting the results 2.5 months after finishing - at least for some teams. I wonder if they can still remember the game by the end of November...

*** Spam deleted ***

I wasn't aware so many teams were finished?

I wasn't aware so many teams were finished?

The status page hides who has finished, to prevent other teams from seeing their date and aiming for it. I'm not convinced this is such a great idea, though (but then I've always been on the teams that finish late).

Disclosing the end date for a fast team does undoubtedly provide a target for slower teams - it's happened before, and that prompted the search for some method of obscuring the information.

I previously tried a complex arrangement where the graph only showed progress up to a cut-off date, determined by the slowest moving team, but that proved unpopular because the faster teams couldn't see their progress.

The current system does leave some element of doubt about the dates achieved, and it was the best I could come up with way back when, but please feel free to suggest an alternative.

I wasn't aware so many teams were finished?

It's been ... ummmm ... a while. I forget how long now.

As long as we start the next SG on November 1st, I don't care if the deadline is extended 10 years. :lol:

This SG, perhaps for the first time, has a deadline from the start.
Accordingly to this, i stressed my team to be on time with the TSs.
I think that if some team doesn't care to play according to this, well, they deserves what they achieved at the deadline date.

I agree a that a subscription thread should be started, not much time to Nov. 1st.

Just, please, some better start.

About the results page: i find it OK, no changes for me.

The current system does leave some element of doubt about the dates achieved, and it was the best I could come up with way back when, but please feel free to suggest an alternative.

I would put the final save on the Progress page, but replace the date with FINAL or something similar, so that the exact date of finish is concealed in the same way as it is now.

This is pretty similar to the information that people already have (if a team hasn't uploaded in weeks, it's pretty obvious that they have finished), but it also gives observers access to the results, and the fact that some teams have finished may serve as a spur to get others to do the same.

disclaimer : I do not speak for the team, just myself here.
I don't see the point in playing spy games. If you can win earlier, you should win earlier anyway, so there is no big deal IMHO if the other teams' finish dates are somewhat disclosed .
DaviddesJ's proposal is good enough for me, in the sense that you don't know the exact final turn. The estimation is in a range of 10-15 turns, which IMHO wouldn't lead to a "total race" event.

Then again, I'm not especially competitive here, so maybe I'm underestimating the others' competitive soul.

I agree. I like to know in advance that there is a deadline and plan towards it. Those who don't play fast enough to finish by the deadline remove themselves from the competition for awards.

This SG, perhaps for the first time, has a deadline from the start.
Accordingly to this, i stressed my team to be on time with the TSs.
I think that if some team doesn't care to play according to this, well, they deserves what they achieved at the deadline date.

What he said.

I agree a that a subscription thread should be started, not much time to Nov. 1st.

Agree with who? :confused: No-one else has proposed starting a sign-up thread as there is no game to sign up for :crazyeye:

Until AlanH has a new SGOTM for us, there is no point of a subscription thread. Of course it would be nice if there were a new SGOTM announced soon, but there are various confounding factors with patches and mods etc.

I really don't like the idea of extending the deadline. As BLubmuz said (I'm on his team), Fifth Element has been pretty firm about getting our turnsets played on time. This sometimes comes at the cost of time for analysis and the achievement of a consensus amongst the team. We were well aware of the trade-off between time spent and quality of play, and our decisions regarding this trade-off were certainly affected by our knowledge of the looming deadline.

Extending the deadline effectively punishes the teams that put an effort into playing the game as per the rules that were originally put forth (and likely sacrificed some quality of play as a result) to the favor of those that did not. I don't see how that's fair.

If it's determined that 3 months is not enough to complete a SGOTM (I completely understand that sentiment), then give future SGOTM's more time from the start.

FWIW I agree with Civicide, even though I belong to one of the teams who risk being cut off.

Of course it would be nice if there were a new SGOTM announced soon, but there are various confounding factors with patches and mods etc.Well, I mentioned starting a new SG on November 1st. I can think of no faster way to solve all these dreadful problems than to start an SG. Works like a charm every time.

***deleted***

I am also on the no-extension team ;-) I know that with some time extension, we (Smurkz) will find time for *more* discussion...

Since Murky Waters was the first to complete, at least I now understand why our result was so bad...

I think since we're revising the rules anyway, we should add a penalty for finishing early, and a bonus for taking as long as possible. :trophy:

There's a built-in penalty for finishing early, as Murky Waters have suggested. I'd be happy to give extra points for taking forever - saves me bothering to start a new game ... ever. However, I suspect that would upset a few players.

Agree with who? :confused: No-one else has proposed starting a sign-up thread as there is no game to sign up for :crazyeye:


One of your minions, LC, proposed this - clearly without your knowledge and consent. I didn't know he was allowed to express independent opinions in public.

There's a built-in penalty for finishing early, as Murky Waters have suggested.

Not really. It's not like anyone isn't going to finish as soon as they can. But I understand the sentiment, and if people like concealing the exact finish date, then I think that does little harm.

One of your minions, LC, proposed this - clearly without your knowledge and consent. I didn't know he was allowed to express independent opinions in public.

Do you really think we'd ever win any laurels if we started listening to LC's proposals? MW policy is to ignore all LC proposals - and if possible to do the exact opposite

(At least, that is how I've been playing my turnsets)

***spam deleted***

Last time it seemed like most teams just didn't care about finishing and left the rest of us waiting for month on the results. We have our deadline, let's stick to it.

TDK at OSS.

We're for sticking to deadline as well.

CRC

Agree with who? :confused: No-one else has proposed starting a sign-up thread as there is no game to sign up for :crazyeye:
With LowtherCastle, the post right above the one you quoted.

And i like the proposal od Daviddesj about show a "final" when a team has completed the game.

I think too long a finish deadline for the SG takes away from the fun. As Big Pig has often mentinoed in our threads, when there's too much lag between turnsets, people tend to lose track of the progress and drift away from the game.

GOTMs are deadlined, I don't see a big problem with deadlining the SGs too.

deadlines can take away the fun if they make someone feel pressured. GOTMs will never have the "i don't want to let down my team so i'll play this now rather than wait until i'm in the right mood" so i do see the situation as different.

but ... part of the fun is comparing results to other teams, and if they finish much later you don't get that fun as early. lurker comment: part of why i stay a free-roaming lurker is that i get a kick out of watching multiple teams during the game, not just reading other threads all in one chunk afterwards. so i'm not sure which side of the fence i'm on, and i don't have any right to vote on the fence in the first place :crazyeye:

We're for sticking to deadline as well.

CRC

How come you get to look into other teams threads? I see you posting in other teams threads all the time in the right column.:confused:

How come you get to look into other teams threads? I see you posting in other teams threads all the time in the right column.:confused:
His team must have finished there game. Once the game is submitted as over, you can look at other teams threads.

How come you get to look into other teams threads? I see you posting in other teams threads all the time in the right column.:confused: There are only two possibilities, and only one within the rules ...

dV

edit: cross posted with Lkendter

For someone new to the SGOTM world, could anyone explain how the progress and result page handles victories? (Or, in other words, can we see if anyone has finished?)

(Or, in other words, can we see if anyone has finished?)

All of the save files are displayed, except for the last (winning) save.

You can't see whether a team has finished, except by noticing that they have stopped posting new saves.

All of the save files are displayed, except for the last (winning) save.

You can't see whether a team has finished, except by noticing that they have stopped posting new saves. Or by noticing them invading (posting in) the threads of other teams, which indicates that both teams are finished.

Or a post by AlanH or Gyathaar may be the congratulations (or commiserations) post and might suggest completion ... but sometimes those posts are other business.

dV

***spam deleted***

Or by noticing them invading (posting in) the threads of other teams, which indicates that both teams are finished.

Or a post by AlanH or Gyathaar may be the congratulations (or commiserations) post and might suggest completion ... but sometimes those posts are other business.

dV

That's another thing I wanted to know (are you telepatic or what? ;))
People can only post in other threads when they're finished, and the teams they're responding to is finished too?