A New Dawn Bug Reports and Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am playing game(rev825) for some time, and at one point civ4 always crashes, without warning or message.
There are save file and minidump in attachment, crash occurs at next turn.I would be grateful if someone could check t.
 

Attachments

  • MiniDump_823.rar
    13.3 KB · Views: 83
  • Hrvoje 2014-09 AD-2158 crash.rar
    5.7 MB · Views: 83
Hrvoje193 said:
I am playing game(rev825) for some time, and at one point civ4 always crashes, without warning or message.
There are save file and minidump in attachment, crash occurs at next turn.I would be grateful if someone could check t.
Click to expand...

You crash has been fixed as of Revision 834. Thank you for the report. You should be able to update to the latest version and continue your game.
 
do you think the Gutenburg bible world wonder is a tad over powered.

It spreads you state religion to ALL connected cities upon completion.

I've just had Perciles complete this wonder, and it spread his state religion, from another continent, all through out my Continental empire.

79 cities all getting the same religion at the same time, well, not quite 79 a few, <5 would have had it, but at least 75+ cities suddenly have a foreign religion.

Spoiler :


Not really realistic, maybe scaled to map size and cities in existance.???
 
It's certainly powerful, but given that its benefit is to spread your state religion to other cities, it does need to be really impressive at doing that, otherwise it's a waste of time.
 
I think a bit more balanced effect for the Gutenburg would be immediate religion spread to 5-7 nearby cities (worldsize dependent) and then also add a religion spread modifier (new XML tag) to boost religion spread from that city by 100%.
 
5-7 really doesn't sound like much, to be fair. Presumably Theocracies and Atheist states would be exempt.
 
Arakhor said:
5-7 really doesn't sound like much, to be fair. Presumably Theocracies and Atheist states would be exempt.
Click to expand...

On a standard map it is probably 10-15% of the cities.

The religion spread change would be a serious boost though. I think most players underestimate how much temples/cathedrals boost religion spread too.
 
Afforess said:
I think a bit more balanced effect for the Gutenburg would be immediate religion spread to 5-7 nearby cities (worldsize dependent) and then also add a religion spread modifier (new XML tag) to boost religion spread from that city by 100%.
Click to expand...

The fixed city number sounds good to me.
Besides that, why not have a global effect that is increasing the spread factor of all of your state religion's buildings (maybe not only in your empire)?
 
I have recently noticed that trade routes have been removed from the game, affecting wonders such as the great lighthouse and petra.

Now under the new scheme, one needs to be connected to a foreign city to gain benefits from the aforementioned wonders (since localized trade routes have been removed). This in effect turns these wonders from buildings that always had immediate benefits to wonders that have conditional and for the most part, delayed benefits.

If one takes into account that they both expire at some point, this change constitutes a serious nerf to the latter two wonders, effectively throwing out the window any chance for an archipelago based civ having a decent economy early on (great lighthouse).

What was the reasoning behind the removal of trade routes?
 
Arkatakor said:
I have recently noticed that trade routes have been removed from the game, affecting wonders such as the great lighthouse and petra.

Now under the new scheme, one needs to be connected to a foreign city to gain benefits from the aforementioned wonders (since localized trade routes have been removed). This in effect turns these wonders from buildings that always had immediate benefits to wonders that have conditional and for the most part, delayed benefits.

If one takes into account that they both expire at some point, this change constitutes a serious nerf to the latter two wonders, effectively throwing out the window any chance for an archipelago based civ having a decent economy early on (great lighthouse).

What was the reasoning behind the removal of trade routes?
Click to expand...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=529079&page=4
 
Sogroon said:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=529079&page=4
Click to expand...
If I understood that thread correctly, this was implemented to optimize things. If thats the case optimization should not necessitate removing / compromising an entire feature. Further to this, the game does not have any performance issues that I am aware of since last year which leads me to ask why this was implemented.

Let me know if I understood that thread wrong :)
 
Arkatakor said:
If I understood that thread correctly, this was implemented to optimize things. If thats the case optimization should not necessitate removing / compromising an entire feature. Further to this, the game does not have any performance issues that I am aware of since last year which leads me to ask why this was implemented.

Let me know if I understood that thread wrong :)
Click to expand...

I think that's interesting point because I play Earth like maps so i never see problems lije that. I wonder about maps that are either very small or very islands filled.
 
Arkatakor said:
If I understood that thread correctly, this was implemented to optimize things. If thats the case optimization should not necessitate removing / compromising an entire feature. Further to this, the game does not have any performance issues that I am aware of since last year which leads me to ask why this was implemented.

Let me know if I understood that thread wrong :)
Click to expand...

If the removal of trade routes was purely on terms of optimizations, it would not have happened. I don't usually compromise content for performance, unless either is extreme (and trade routes were not extreme).

The larger issue is that trade routes are an anti-feature. They are unpredictable, produce bizarre results, do not work the way players expect them to work, cause unforeseen side-affects in diplomacy and economy-building. There is no way, short of reverse-engineering the game code, to predict the future output of trade routes. Nor is there a way to predict the effects of opening or closing borders with a trade routes. Nor is there a way to predict the effect of creating new routes or pillaging routes, or new cities, or dozens of other things that affect how cities are connected. It was complicated to calculate trade routes in the machine code, it is nigh-impossible for a human to calculate.

My views on this are backed up on the fact that Civ5 abandoned trade routes. Eventually, one of the Civ5 expansions added a feature named trade routes, but that is actually based on units, and is much simpler in nature.
 
1) Colonists are still human only feature.
You can't expect CyInterface codes to work for the AI :D

2) Abu Simbel
Why is it
if (eStateReligion > 0):
when 0 is a legit religion

3) Gutenburg
for iPlayerX in range(gc.getMAX_CIV_TEAMS()):
Pretty obvious what is wrong
 
platyping said:
1) Colonists are still human only feature.
You can't expect CyInterface codes to work for the AI :D

2) Abu Simbel
Why is it
if (eStateReligion > 0):
when 0 is a legit religion

3) Gutenburg
for iPlayerX in range(gc.getMAX_CIV_TEAMS()):
Pretty obvious what is wrong
Click to expand...

1.) No idea what you are talking about. Colonists use the onCityBuilt python event and there is not a single CyInterface reference in sight.

2.) Nice find.

3.) Ouch, who wrote that? :lol:
 
Code: 
	def onCityBuilt(self, argsList):
		'City Built'
		city = argsList[0]

		[COLOR="Red"]pUnit = CyInterface().getHeadSelectedUnit()[/COLOR]
		if pUnit:
			if ( gc.getDefineINT("ROM_MULTIPLAYER_FIX") <= 0 ):
			# if multiplayer fix for Colonist and Pioneer unit isn't enabled, allow them to work 
				#pAdvancedSettlers=CvEventInterface.getEventManager()
			
				if pUnit.getUnitClassType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString("UNITCLASS_COLONIST"):

					pPlot = CyMap( ).plot( pUnit.getX( ), pUnit.getY( ) )
					iMessageID = 410
					BugUtil.info("RoM - Colonist messageID: %d", iMessageID)
					iPlotX = pPlot.getX()
					iPlotY = pPlot.getY()
					iOwner = pUnit.getOwner()
					iUnitID = pUnit.getID()
					CyMessageControl( ).sendModNetMessage( iMessageID, iPlotX, iPlotY, iOwner, iUnitID )
				
				elif pUnit.getUnitClassType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString("UNITCLASS_PIONEER"):
					pPlot = CyMap( ).plot( pUnit.getX( ), pUnit.getY( ) )
					iMessageID = 411
					BugUtil.info("RoM - Pioneer messageID: %d", iMessageID)
					iPlotX = pPlot.getX()
					iPlotY = pPlot.getY()
					iOwner = pUnit.getOwner()
					iUnitID = pUnit.getID()
					CyMessageControl( ).sendModNetMessage( iMessageID, iPlotX, iPlotY, iOwner, iUnitID )
 
Afforess said:
If the removal of trade routes was purely on terms of optimizations, it would not have happened. I don't usually compromise content for performance, unless either is extreme (and trade routes were not extreme).

The larger issue is that trade routes are an anti-feature. They are unpredictable, produce bizarre results, do not work the way players expect them to work, cause unforeseen side-affects in diplomacy and economy-building. There is no way, short of reverse-engineering the game code, to predict the future output of trade routes. Nor is there a way to predict the effects of opening or closing borders with a trade routes. Nor is there a way to predict the effect of creating new routes or pillaging routes, or new cities, or dozens of other things that affect how cities are connected. It was complicated to calculate trade routes in the machine code, it is nigh-impossible for a human to calculate.

My views on this are backed up on the fact that Civ5 abandoned trade routes. Eventually, one of the Civ5 expansions added a feature named trade routes, but that is actually based on units, and is much simpler in nature.
Click to expand...
Noted and thanks. However as it stands, regardless of their unpredictable behavior, trade routes (whether internal or external) were a significant asset for the players economy and this step has now compromised wonders like the the great lighthouse, which gave 2 extra trade routes per city immediately upon construction. This significant wonder allowed archipeligo based civs to compete with inland civs that though the latter would normally end up getting the upper hand, unless declared war upon.

So my question to you is, are there any plans to boost wonders that gave extra trade routes (great lighthouse, petra, chichen itza, naugalism shrine) to accommodate for this change?
 
Everything which influenced TRs now has connectedness effects, which also provide significant cash for the economy. Whether or not they're equivalent is a different matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Anarcomu
  • Locked
Bug discussion before report (on Github)
Replies
8
Views
593
Recursive
Recursive
<Nexus>
BUG REPORT, F.A.Q. and known issues
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
5K
<Nexus>
<Nexus>
The_J
Old World update #120
Replies
8
Views
1K
The_J
The_J
Leoreth
Access to the map branch
Replies
18
Views
2K
Leoreth
Leoreth
Z
Replacing Frontend UI Scripts
Replies
10
Views
2K
zzragnar0kzz
Z
Top Bottom