I noticed this today, I didnt see that nerfed in the latest patch but they are definately not doing collateral damage in my game.

Yep. It's a "feature" of the 3.17 patch.

Yep. It's a "feature" of the 3.17 patch.
Hehe...

Check Solver's unofficial patch to 3.17... there's a way to reactivate it if you want it back.

Collateral damage is best left to your bombers anyway. If you must cause collateral damage from the ground, then artillery could do the job. I'm not even going to fuss about the tank's loss of this promotion, because I feel that I abused it.

Collateral damage is best left to your bombers anyway. If you must cause collateral damage from the ground, then artillery could do the job. I'm not even going to fuss about the tank's loss of this promotion, because I feel that I abused it.

If they no longer do collateral damage, why do they still possess the collateral damage promotions?

If they no longer do collateral damage, why do they still possess the collateral damage promotions?
Because Firaxis didn't edit the promotions out of the XML.

This si weird...wouldn't a giant cannon do collateral damage?

So isn't a tank just a gaint cannon..only with tank treads?

I'm confused,but good thing for the new new unofficail patch

So isn't a tank just a gaint cannon..only with tank treads?


It's typically used quite differently than bombard weapons though. A tank gun is mainly a single shot affair that does damage to a particular target. Artillery etc. fires multiple shells in a wide area with the intention of hitting many targets within it. You could no doubt use a Tank as a barrage weapon, but that's not really the intended purpose of them. That's role of artillery and air cover.

Because Firaxis didn't edit the promotions out of the XML.

Actually, Firaxis never intended Tanks to lose the Barrage ability, it was a bug that was introduced with the changes they made to that promotion. Previously Barrage 2 had no effect due to the way the damage was calculated. By fixing that, they accidentally made it ineffective with units that don't have a natural barrage ability, like Siege units. It was only after the bug came to light that they recommended that Barrage be removed from Armoured units.

@ Willem : exactly. I dunno why they debated that so much in Solver's thread.
Otherwise why do the Tank & Advanced armor have variables set for:

<iCollateralDamageLimit>60</iCollateralDamageLimit>
<iCollateralDamageMaxUnits>5</iCollateralDamageMaxUnits>


Thats a Tank. Believe Advanced armor raises MaxUnits to 6.

This frustrates me. So there is a bug related to collateral damage of tanks in 3.17, but it is unclear whether the bug is that tanks don't do collateral damage or that tanks can get the collateral damage promotion. I want to learn the rules of the game so that I develop my strategies. This is hard with Firaxis messing with the rules, and harder still when it isn't even clear what the rules are meant to be!

Are tanks meant to be able to do collateral damage or not? Should the promotion be removed, or should the damage be added?

(I don't intend to install 3.17 until this kind of stuff stabilises.)

This frustrates me. So there is a bug related to collateral damage of tanks in 3.17, but it is unclear whether the bug is that tanks don't do collateral damage or that tanks can get the collateral damage promotion. I want to learn the rules of the game so that I develop my strategies. This is hard with Firaxis messing with the rules, and harder still when it isn't even clear what the rules are meant to be!

Are tanks meant to be able to do collateral damage or not? Should the promotion be removed, or should the damage be added?

(I don't intend to install 3.17 until this kind of stuff stabilises.)

Check out Solver's thread for "in-depth" discussion on this subject. Maybe we should start a Poll and ask players whether they would stop playing the game if Tanks kept their "over powered" Barrage promotions. :rolleyes:

(I don't intend to install 3.17 until this kind of stuff stabilises.)

Just patch, and install Solver's Unofficial, when you unpack the zip file, BTSUnofficialPatch_v017
delete: Assets\XML\Units\CIV4PromotionInfos.xml
Then copy the contents into BTS program directory.
Then tanks work pretty much just like they have since Vanilla CIV IV 1.00 in 2005.

Believe the first post has install instructions now.

Are tanks meant to be able to do collateral damage or not? Should the promotion be removed, or should the damage be added?

If you use Solver's unofficial patch it will be up to you basically. There was alot of debate on the subject so Solver decided to provide both options. If you want to remove Barrage from the Armoured line you only have to add the CIV4PromotionInfos.xml. If you don't add this file, Tanks will once again do collateral damage with the Barrage promotion, though less than what an Artillery etc. will do, and probably less than they did before though I'm not certain about that.

(I don't intend to install 3.17 until this kind of stuff stabilises.)

Well don't expect anything further from Firaxis. It seems pretty clear that this will be the last patch we'll see for this game. And the official recommendation from Firaxis is to simply remove the Barrage promotion line from Armoured units, which is what Solver advocates with his patch as well.

You'll be missing out on some good fixes and new features by not adding the patch to your game frankly. The issues with the 3.17 patch are very, very minor and certainly no reason not to install it. Especially since they're already beening dealt with in Solver's unofficial patch.

Newer isn't always better.

I personally find that the "least broken" official patch is 3.02. I never even messed with 3.13, as it sounded like it caused more bugs than it fixed. After installing 3.17 and finding out about the collateral damage issue with tanks, and that the unofficial patch didn't "fix" things to my liking, I reinstalled BTS to 3.03, which isn't bad, but has several graphics glitches. I'm going back to 3.02.

Some people opt for the unofficial patches, but I personally avoid them because I'd rather not let some random person who isn't affiliated with Firaxis possibly change the way the game plays based on their own preferences.

So basically, decide which problems you find most important, and play with whichever patch you find to be "least broken" based on your own personal style. Of course if you play multiplayer, this becomes a little trickier, as you probably need to have the same version as your human opponents.

@twansalem : to each their own. Though you are likely missing out.

Solver includes all the modified files, including the ones changed that comprise the re-compiled DLL. Tanks are back to "normal" by not using the promotions xml file. And all the other twe3ak/fixes are a definite improvement.

Those that are in anywaywhatsoever code-savy can easily look over the changes - which we have done - and given feedback on things that didn't seem right, when there was a general consensus it was readjusted in the next release.

Funny that, twansalem. I actually find 3.02 to be the most broken BtS official patch. 3.13 had several bugs that could be game breaking but didn't happen all the time. 3.17 has a whole bunch of minor issues. 3.02 actually had crash bugs - I remember fixing quite a few for the unofficial patch, and it had at least two very serious gameplay bugs, as well. You are missing out if you don't use the unofficial patches, I'd say. For the record, what I try to do is specifically not to "change the game based on my own preferences", or else I'd be making quite a bunch of very different changes.

You should be able to build an Assault Gun unit. Cheaper than tanks, less strength, but a bonus vs. gunpowder units and collateral damage.

Newer isn't always better.

I personally find that the "least broken" official patch is 3.02. I never even messed with 3.13, as it sounded like it caused more bugs than it fixed. After installing 3.17 and finding out about the collateral damage issue with tanks, and that the unofficial patch didn't "fix" things to my liking, I reinstalled BTS to 3.03, which isn't bad, but has several graphics glitches. I'm going back to 3.02.

Like I said, the issues with 3.17 are very, very minor. If you're waiting for a perfect game, you're going to be waiting a long, long time as in all likelihood this is the last patch we're going to see from Firaxis. And things have indeed been fixed to your liking in the unofficial patch. If you choose to have things the way they were before, more or less, you simply don't add the Promotions.xml file and your Tanks will do Barrage damage again. The way the damage is calculated is somewhat different than it was but it results in the same thing.

Some people opt for the unofficial patches, but I personally avoid them because I'd rather not let some random person who isn't affiliated with Firaxis possibly change the way the game plays based on their own preferences.

Solver has been working with Firaxis on the game even before it was originally released. He's been one of the official beta-testers since the beginning and has been in fairly close contact with them all along. He's about as close to being an actual Firaxis representative as you can get, without him actually being on the payroll.

So basically, decide which problems you find most important, and play with whichever patch you find to be "least broken" based on your own personal style.

The only things "broken" in patch 3.17 is the Tank Barrage thing and the fact that the demographics screen doesn't show the other civs if you select to turn espionage off. Both of which were fixed in Solver's patch. Those are the only real bugs that have been reported so far, other than some AI idiosyncracies that have been in the game since the beginning, and some crappy all-Forest starts that have been in BtS since it was released. I'd say that makes it the least broken. You'd really be foolish if you didn't install it IMO. But if you'd prefer to play with a buggy game that's your option.

Actually it was very overpowered, I was just used to using it. It really just means build more artillery and bombers. No biggee if you ask me.

The only thing that bothered me somewhat, was the removal of combat promotions from Siege. Every now and then I'd attach a GG to a Cannon :crazyeye: I know :-) And that's entirely out of the question now, it will never survive w/ no Combat promos.

I believe Siege units should have been given something to warrant the removal of combat promotions, even if it was just a +10% Chance to Withdraw/Retreat from combat.

Removal of barrage from tanks makes you use other units to do collateral damage, and that brings artillery bank into the picture. Siege units get improved collateral damage from barrage promotions, and that makes up in theory for losing combat promos.

The survival promotion of choice for siege is city raider, but limits you to attacking cities. Since you do that a lot anyway, it isn't a horrible thing to lose out on the combat promos.

i read somewhere that most casualities in- ww2? were from Artillary- (i would think small arms) - however, i also read that tanks had anti-personell shells as well as whatever else shells. Tanks should have collateral.

Hm the only advantage I see is for Tanks to keep he Barrage protmotion is for Amphibious attacks on cities, since the patch denies Seige units the ability to attack Amphibiously, but tanks can attack Amphibiously since they're not Seige units.

Ah well the nerf to seige has made Cho-kunus stronger... I'll never upgrade any of my cho-kunu during the Res Age, especially during wars.

Tanks, realistically, should do collateral damage.

I'll chalk this up to an error on Firaxis's fault.

i read somewhere that most casualities in- ww2? were from Artillary- (i would think small arms) - however, i also read that tanks had anti-personell shells as well as whatever else shells. Tanks should have collateral.


In WW1 80% of casualties on the western front were from Artillery shells.

In WW1 80% of casualties on the western front were from Artillery shells.

Then again, that was the war partially won by influenza.

i read somewhere that most casualities in- ww2? were from Artillary- (i would think small arms) - however, i also read that tanks had anti-personell shells as well as whatever else shells. Tanks should have collateral.

Yeah, tanks were armed with armor piercing rounds to take out vehicles along with high explosive to kill infantry and buildings.

Hehe...

Check Solver's unofficial patch to 3.17... there's a way to reactivate it if you want it back.

Can you give me a direct link to the post where this fix is in that thread please?
I can't find it anywhere, and I want my tanks to have collateral damage again >.<

Can you give me a direct link to the post where this fix is in that thread please?
I can't find it anywhere, and I want my tanks to have collateral damage again >.<

There's no specific fix, just don't add the PromotionsInfo.xml file that comes with the patch. He put the collateral damage back into the game, but also removed the promotion from the Armoured line so everyone can be happy.

I'd like to see a reference to that 80% figure. If he'd said machine guns instead of artillery.... well, I'd still wanna see it, but I'd have an easier time believing it. The Eastern Front was a different war, though, much more like what we'd call blitzkrieg, elsewise Russia wouldn't have lost nearly so much land.

More towards the subject, though, you must remember that combat isn't two guys (or two tanks) facing each other and taking turns shooting at each other. There's a lot of moving around, looking for a better position. Units sometimes get mixed together, and Tanks are fast enough that if they get through the front lines, they get into the rear and blast things that had little to do with the unit they plowed through. I had no problem believing tanks deserved (lesser) Collateral Damage. The Barrage promotions can simply be viewed as being faster tanks that can shoot up more behind enemy lines before the enemy can respond and push them out, OR they can be viewed as having artillery attached (not physically).

If you've played Hearts of Iron, promotions are a lot like attaching battalions to divisions to boost their capabilities. Attaching artillery to a unit improved its anti-personnel ability, attaching AT-guns improved its anti-armor ability, and so on. This is no different, just a lot more possible meanings to promotions (and a lot more promotions).

I'm not sure whether or not it is better for gameplay for tanks to have collateral damage, but I'm am pretty damn confident that their collateral damage was not removed deliberately.

Imagine the developers thinking about it... "tanks are very powerful units even without collateral damage, maybe we should remove their collateral damage so that artillery units are still useful", so far so good, "we'll remove tanks' collateral damage by changing the game mechanics so that no non-artillery unit can deal collateral damage!" My point is just that this is not how any sane person would go about removing collateral damage from tanks. Clearly the lose of tank collateral damage was an unintended side effect of the other artillery changes. If the developers had intended to remove collateral damage from tanks, they would have removed the promotion.

For this reason, I'm surprised that one of the features of the unofficial patch is to remove the barrage promotion from tanks. Maybe Solver honestly believes that Firaxis intended for it to be removed, or maybe he is tanking the balancing of the game into his own hands. Either way, I'm not using that part of the unofficial patch.

However, if _I_ was in charge of balancing the game, I'd strongly consider removing that promotion from tanks anyway. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next official patch removed the promotion.

For this reason, I'm surprised that one of the features of the unofficial patch is to remove the barrage promotion from tanks. Maybe Solver honestly believes that Firaxis intended for it to be removed, or maybe he is tanking the balancing of the game into his own hands. Either way, I'm not using that part of the unofficial patch.


When the bug first came to light, one of the Firaxis devs, the lead programmer in fact, came on line to discuss it and his suggestion was simply to remove Barrage from the Armoured line. So Solver is in fact just doing what Firaxis has suggested. He's also responding to the many posts that were made on the issue, which is why he also gave both options. The majority of the people that responded to the issue when Solver first started working on it though were in favour of removing the promotion altogether.

Yes, that discussion thread went on for at least 3 pages in the thread. A number of different proposals were made/rejected, and two different code fixes were implemented - the first one changed outcomes too much. The latter (current) solution is closest to the original code, but even so it still changes how damage is reduced for units with Collateral protection. Personally I thought that change was completely unnecessary.

Reenabling tanks to do collateral gives them basically their Barrage promotion in STR (20/50/100%). Units with Collateral protection 20/40/60.
A unit with 20% Collateral protection, previously, would reduce the multiplier by 20/100.
So in effect, a Tank +20, a defender -20; Tank = 0 Damage

Solver made it so it does this: Damage * 20/100, then reduce that damage by 20%
So that defender with 20% Protection, will take 80% of the tanks damage instead of 0.

I see, I realise that there was some discussion about it. I read some of it, but people seemed to just be saying the same things over and over (as with most internet debates), so I didn't read it all. I didn't realise that Firaxis actually suggested that it should be removed. With this new information it is clear that Solver's patch does the right thing! It seems everyone is in agreement about the removal the promotion. Thanks for the info.