[BtS]40 civs-allows colonies AND 34 civs

I am impatient....

http://files-upload.com/files/673245/40CivsV40e.rar

for anyone who doesn't want to pay to download the file.

I bit the bullet and paid.

Good heavens ... impatience indeed.

You don't have to pay to download the file. There's a clearly visible button labeled "Free", you click on it, then wait until it's your turn (there's a countdown showing you how long you have to wait, it's rarely more than 2 seconds for me), and then you enter the displayed code to prove that you aren't just a bot.

So your "biting the bullet" was totally unnecessary, I hope it at least tasted.

I really ought to start a file distributing site, it's so easy to get money from all the people who are too impatient to even read a small web page with download instructions ...
 
Good heavens ... impatience indeed.

You don't have to pay to download the file. There's a clearly visible button labeled "Free", you click on it, then wait until it's your turn (there's a countdown showing you how long you have to wait, it's rarely more than 2 seconds for me), and then you enter the displayed code to prove that you aren't just a bot.

So your "biting the bullet" was totally unnecessary, I hope it at least tasted.

I really ought to start a file distributing site, it's so easy to get money from all the people who are too impatient to even read a small web page with download instructions ...

Way to be an ass about it.

As demonstrated not just by myself but at least one other person here who COULD NOT download the file using the free button.

It said that the Download had reached its limit of free downloads.

So next time you decide to open your big flapping mouth, maybe use your brain and not start in on a conversation that has nothing to do with your pompous ass.
 
As demonstrated not just by myself but at least one other person here who COULD NOT download the file using the free button.

It said that the Download had reached its limit of free downloads.
Well ... if one would actually read the site in question, one would see the line "Download-Limit: Unlimited! (Some files have 100.000 Downloads!)" very much on top.

So, according to your reasoning, I'm supposed to believe that you couldn't download the file because of some limited number of free downloads (which doesn't exist according to the site itself). Then I should take a statement of someone who couldn't download the file for a totally different reason as a proof that you're correct. The fact that me and others were (and are) able to download the file even after your claimed "max number of free downloads" was reached doesn't seem to make you question your reasoning.

I'll let that stand as it is. It wasn't my intention to make you look stupid or to start a flame war with you, I don't see any merit in that.

My point was that your post gives people the impression that they had to pay for the download from the place where the author put the file, and since this information is wrong, it made sense to correct it.

I think we should simply agree that the file actually *can* be downloaded without having to pay for it - that's the thing that matters for people who want to download it in the future.

Also, please understand that I won't answer to crude personal attacks and name calling. I won't stop you either, but don't expect me to participate in such behavior.
 
Well ... if one would actually read the site in question, one would see the line "Download-Limit: Unlimited! (Some files have 100.000 Downloads!)" very much on top.

So, according to your reasoning, I'm supposed to believe that you couldn't download the file because of some limited number of free downloads (which doesn't exist according to the site itself). Then I should take a statement of someone who couldn't download the file for a totally different reason as a proof that you're correct. The fact that me and others were (and are) able to download the file even after your claimed "max number of free downloads" was reached doesn't seem to make you question your reasoning.

I'll let that stand as it is. It wasn't my intention to make you look stupid or to start a flame war with you, I don't see any merit in that.

My point was that your post gives people the impression that they had to pay for the download from the place where the author put the file, and since this information is wrong, it made sense to correct it.

I think we should simply agree that the file actually *can* be downloaded without having to pay for it - that's the thing that matters for people who want to download it in the future.

Also, please understand that I won't answer to crude personal attacks and name calling. I won't stop you either, but don't expect me to participate in such behavior.

I was not giving people the impression of anything, I was posting some help (in the form of an alternate link) that people who had the same problem I did could get the file from.

How does that in anyway effect future people who come to this thread? Most people will attempt to download the file from the main link first. After which, if for some reason they are unsuccessful, they may click on Page 8 or 9 of this thread for some answers, which is where I provided a TEMPORARY alternative until the main link is fixed for people who have problems.

Lord Joakim could not download the file. I actually emailed him the file. What have you done to help anyone out here besides saying "Go try the link that hasn't worked for you already"?

You claim I was making "personal attacks", I did not insult you personally at all. I described your behavoir. You insuated that I and anyone else who could not download the file was either a liar or a moron and couldn't read the webpage, if that is not pompous, stuck up behavior, what is?

And although you are less blunt about it, you are making subtle attacks of your own "if one would actually read the site in question" once again is implying a lack of intelligence. So please do not try and sit on a high horse and claim you are above flaming, subtle sarcastic insults are flaming, just as much as blunt descriptions of said behavior.

Oh and here you go.



Since I have never been to this site before I tried to dowload this file, I assumed this meant the file had reached it's limit. If it actually mean's that I have reached my limit, than I guess this website you are defending so valiantly has some different issues because like I said, never been there before.
 
Oh and now that I have posted proof to my fanatical claim that I couldn't download the file! I am, like you, done with this discussion. I came to these boards to discuss a game I enjoy with other people who enjoy it. Not have arguments.

This is an awesome mod that has made the game more enjoyable for me and I do not want to turn it's thread into a flame war.
 
Since I have never been to this site before I tried to dowload this file, I assumed this meant the file had reached it's limit. If it actually mean's that I have reached my limit, than I guess this website you are defending so valiantly has some different issues because like I said, never been there before.
Erm, this message comes up when you try to download more than one file at once, thereby exceeding the "one file at a time" limit for free users, which (again) is clearly spelled out on the page, just above the "Free" button. There also seems to be limit that stops a single person from downloading too much, but I haven't seen this in action so far.

And for the record, I'm not insinuating that you're stupid. I'm working on the assumption that you were - as you mentioned yourself in your post - impatient and therefore skipped or misinterpreted the info on this page, thinking that payment were required to download the mod. And I think that this info should be corrected. I wouldn't want anybody (for example) to read your post, not find *your* (temporary) upload, and then unnecessarily pay for Rapidshare Premium because they think your info was correct.

I admit that I wasn't very friendly about it and that you probably didn't deserve such a treatment when all you wanted to do is help. I apologize for being overly sarcastic. However, I still think that the info you spread ("payment required") was wrong and needed to be corrected. Can we leave it at that, and both enjoy this wonderful mod, which certainly doesn't deserve its thread to be turned into a flame war?

Peace. :)
 
I'm trying to combine a couple of different mod components and was just wondering whether the posted source files for v4.0 was compatible with Bhruic's changes.

Also, I've been having problems making SDK changes. According post #124 by Lt. Bob, all I need to do to allow 40 civs is to change the value from 18 to 40 in CvDefines.h; however, whenever I compile a dll with only this change, I can still only use 18 civs. Is there any other change I need to make?
 
did anyone find out the cause for the defeated at star problem by now?

it's really crazy :mad:
I made a map and while I made it in the world editor it loaded perfectly for some nations and produced the defeated-problem for the other nations :crazyeye:
now the map is done and of course now all nations I tried are defeated at start!
since 3.13 creating a map is horrible :mad:
so did anyone figure out the reason?

sorry for asking in this thread (the map is for 18 civs ;) actually it crashes when loaded with the 40civ mod..) but this problem was already discussed here some time ago so maybe someone who reads this thread knows a solution ...
 
marx&engles: Changing the value to 40 should be the only value that needs to be altered in order to allow 40 civs. My other changes focus on colony creation code and the alternate global warming option. If you want to see all the things I changed the source code is availible in the first post.
Make sure that the dll you're compiling with changes is the one being used. Some people have problems with using the dll in a mod directory. Try backing up the default BtS dll and putting your changed one in there.

Mef: I tried to track down the instant defeated issue once before, and it seems to be a problem with teams who lack starting position values. Try making a new map with the teams you want. If the game works on a fresh map, open the WBSave with a text editor and compare it with the one that doesn't work. Civ seems awerfully picky about the WBSave files.
 
Mef: I tried to track down the instant defeated issue once before, and it seems to be a problem with teams who lack starting position values. Try making a new map with the teams you want. If the game works on a fresh map, open the WBSave with a text editor and compare it with the one that doesn't work. Civ seems awerfully picky about the WBSave files.


actually I made a map and everything was fine but at one point I had this problem again. then I just copied the file and the "new" file worked perfectly fine :confused: :cool:
Im not in the mood right now to try it with other maps but I assume that this is a solution for the problem... strange :crazyeye:
 
actually I made a map and everything was fine but at one point I had this problem again. then I just copied the file and the "new" file worked perfectly fine :confused: :cool:
Im not in the mood right now to try it with other maps but I assume that this is a solution for the problem... strange :crazyeye:

I know how you feel. Some of the problems I've had with the WBSaves have been maddening to the point of insanity. :)
 
This defeated at start thing is other . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . and seems to happen whenever i make files with someones map creator,

I'm posting here to tell you your latest version keeps crashing to desktop.
I never had problems till the update.
 
EDIT: Never mind, ignore post, I got it to work.
 
ok, I was abble to build Your source code.. in new dll, to increase the civs number to 60

#ifdef _USRDLL
//Mikel Olson - Changed to 60 from 18
#define MAX_CIV_PLAYERS (60)
#else
#define MAX_CIV_PLAYERS (CvGlobals::getInstance().getMaxCivPlayers())
#endif
But even if in my map (not really mine ;)) i add new slots (till 59) e join some civilizations as playable they are not seen... what's wrong??? I have to change other lines?? :confused:
 
Top Bottom