Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch

[Aquatic]

qwert. The readme file in the patch explains what to do. It says:

This dll replaces the one located at "C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Beyond the Sword\Assets\CvGameCoreDLL.dll"
It is recommended to backup your current dll file (renaming it will work fine) before installing this version. Simply copy the new version into the same folder, making sure the game isn't currently running. After that, simply play the game!
(my emphasis)

 

[qwert]

Ok. I will try to follow this.

Thanks.

 

[jray]

Hey Bhruic! What I was trying to say is that I was in favor of option (2). I keep it simple in my mind. When someone plays with "no tech brokering" on it is because they don't want the AI trading away their tech. Period. When you form a colony, they can trade away your tech. Doesn't add up for me.

I also prefer (2). If I play with "No Tech Brokering," I want that to mean "I am in control of all trading for the techs I researched." Otherwise I would refrain from creating any colonies, and I'd feel bummed. I also don't want to be tempted by the exploit of having a free-for-all with a new colony spawned from my worst enemy.

I realize it's debatable which option makes more sense in "real life," but IMHO gameplay should trump realism.

 

[Bhruic]

I am somewhat constrained about this on two fronts:
1) The "bug" was present in all versions of BTS, and no one really noticed it until now, and
2) Only one of the two options fixes what really qualifies as a "bug".

Some of the arguments against allowing Colonies to trade techs they obtained at creation time are persuasive. But in terms of gameplay mechanics, I can't see any reason to make that change. The "bug", imo, is that Colonies can trade techs that their Master's can't. I have no problem fixing that bug. But the other option seems more like a gameplay change, not a bug fix, so I'm reluctant to implement it.

Bh

 

[jray]

I am somewhat constrained about this on two fronts:
1) The "bug" was present in all versions of BTS, and no one really noticed it until now, and
2) Only one of the two options fixes what really qualifies as a "bug".

Some of the arguments against allowing Colonies to trade techs they obtained at creation time are persuasive. But in terms of gameplay mechanics, I can't see any reason to make that change. The "bug", imo, is that Colonies can trade techs that their Master's can't. I have no problem fixing that bug. But the other option seems more like a gameplay change, not a bug fix, so I'm reluctant to implement it.

Bh

I don't really think of your 1) as an issue. If somehow we collectively had a Firaxis QA moment and didn't notice the missing culture displays until now, you'd still fix it, right?

I will support you on 2), even though it's not my personal preference. You're right, unaltered gameplay is a good gold standard when there's a lack of consensus.

 

[Bhruic]

Well, (1) is more of an issue in assessing the degree of severity of the bug. If people have been playing this long without noticing it, I'm forced to take statements like "I'm not going to be building Colonies anymore" with a grain of salt. If you've been building Colonies previous to this, you were under the full effect of this "problem" without even being aware of it, so it can't have affected your game as dramatically as you are suggesting.

Bh

 

[KMadCandy]

What about if you settle two cities on a foreign body and free them that very next turn? They contributed nothing, and got all of your techs. I think the advantages of a colony are matched with the fact that the colony inherited every single tech you have. The ability to freely trade all of that puts it over the top in a "no tech brokering" game.

Please everyone, we're not discussing whether this should be allowed. It's whether it should be allowed in a "no tech brokering game."

You created settlers from one of your older cities, didn't you - They are the placeholder for the new cities to get founded... those people DID their contribution...

i don't understand the "placeholder" perspective. the only games i've considered making a colony are when i've conquered a big island/continent. if i don't want to vassalize the annoying guy already living there, i consider making a colony of the first city or 2 i capture (the first ones so that i can keep the later ones if i decide to, and pick and choose which to liberate, rather than have to split off the entire land mass at once). all troops that did the conquering were made obviously before the colony existed. maybe centuries earlier and were upgraded. they don't stay in the new colony. the new island didn't do squat.

the case where i captured monty's island since it had coal and i didn't was a lose-lose in either case. i'd have had to tech him up to steam power for him to see it. so i didn't take his cap or make a colony, i just took the expense hit. in fact i've never made a colony except to test the mechanics and then reload.

 

[jray]

Well, (1) is more of an issue in assessing the degree of severity of the bug. If people have been playing this long without noticing it, I'm forced to take statements like "I'm not going to be building Colonies anymore" with a grain of salt. If you've been building Colonies previous to this, you were under the full effect of this "problem" without even being aware of it, so it can't have affected your game as dramatically as you are suggesting.

Bh

I agree in principle, but I think it's pretty hard to tell when your colony is trading techs away. So it could be having a large impact but we wouldn't realize it.

 

[jkp1187]

I agree in principle, but I think it's pretty hard to tell when your colony is trading techs away. So it could be having a large impact but we wouldn't realize it.

Could be WAD. After all for colonies, getting thrust into the game, usually with only a handful of cities, trading tech may be a way for them to 'keep up' in the technology race, so to speak.

I think that under No Tech Brokering, colonies probably shouldn't be able to trade techs that the masters did not research, since it seems to go against what NTB is supposed to be, but I'm still on the fence for the techs that the master legitimately researched. (Or stole.)

 

[Bhruic]

Well, I can say right now that the next version will include both removing the ability to trade stolen techs, and removing the ability for Colonies to trade techs their Master's didn't research. But I think that's as far as I'll take it.

Bh

 

[Aquatic]

I will support you on 2), even though it's not my personal preference. You're right, unaltered gameplay is a good gold standard when there's a lack of consensus.

I agree. If Bhruic doesn't feel comfortable with changing something on these grounds, then that settles the issue so far as I am concerned, however persausive the arguments may be (unless, of course, something even more persuasive comes along to make him change his mind!).

 

[jpinard]

Well, I can say right now that the next version will include both removing the ability to trade stolen techs, and removing the ability for Colonies to trade techs their Master's didn't research. But I think that's as far as I'll take it.

Bh

Bhruic - I think that's perfect and honestly I wouldn't want you to take it further. Your even-handedness in patching is pretty remarkable. Can I as when you think it might be available? I've made sweeping changes to my own little mod and am waiting to start a new mega-game until your new update.
Hey, it's like a little bit of Christmas!

 

[oedali]

Well, I can say right now that the next version will include both removing the ability to trade stolen techs, and removing the ability for Colonies to trade techs their Master's didn't research. But I think that's as far as I'll take it.

Bh

Sounds great, looking forward the next version!

 

[Bhruic]

Well, there's still some other things I'm considering. Stealth units, for one. I can understand that if all you've got on a square is a Stealth Destroyer, for example, then allowing the enemy to attack it makes the whole "Stealth" concept moot. On the other hand, if you've got a Stealth Destroyer on the same square as a loaded Transport, wouldn't it make sense for the Stealth Destroyer to defend the Transport (ie, be used to defend instead of the Transport)? I can't see any realistic or game play reason to suggest the Stealth Destroyer should just sit back and calmly watch the Transport get sunk.

Bh

 

[Quagga]

I can't see any realistic or game play reason to suggest the Stealth Destroyer should just sit back and calmly watch the Transport get sunk.

We can't take any action or they'd know we have cracked Enigma.

I don't think that reasoning applies, but it is a possible thought process: Don't let them know we have stealth, so don't take any action that reveals it.

 

[Bhruic]

That might be a sound argument if you couldn't check what techs the other Civs have. But if you can figure out they have the technology to build them, it doesn't seem logical to deny their existence.

But yes, I can see that it would allow for confirming the location of one of the ships. Is keeping that secret more important than protecting a Transport?

It's really a semi-non-issue, as long as people are aware that it works that way (ie, if you've played the game enough to know that Stealth units aren't going to defend your stacks, so you don't try to use them in that capacity). But I've ready plenty of reports from newer players who don't understand that, and approach it with an expectation that they will defend their stacks. Having those sort of reactions tends to point to a "poor design choice" in some fashion - either by not making it clear how they work, or for not conforming to people's expectations.

Bh

 

[Todd Hawks]

Since the defense is automatic, this is no valid reasoning.
What if I don't care whether they know it and would rather protect the transport? There's no way to decide this if the ship automatically choses not to defend.
And from a gameplay perspective this is even more pointless... my opponents know that I researched the necessary tech and therefore know I potentially have the ships. In fact, knowing I actually have them will make them more careful because they could be anywhere as far as he knows (human opponents... the AI doesn't care anyway).


Edit: Bhruic was faster.
Actually, while I'm at it, I'd rather see a quick fix for some of the bugs reported earlier than too much pondering about stuff like this... there still is time for it in a later patch. But of course this decision is all yours, Bhruic.

 

[Troymk1]

Now I am having a problem with this patch fix! I'm running a PitBoss game and as one of the earlier posters suggested I installed your patch fix 1.05 as a Mod.


But although the Mod (SDK) shows in the PitBoss application when I attempt to load it I get this!

Spoiler :

 

[Dagta]

Aside from the colonies debate, anyone else seeing the bug with Recycling Centers?

 

[Bhruic]

Yes, it's there. I'm trying to decide which way it should be fixed, assuming it should. In the strictest technical sense, it's perfectly accurate this way - those buildings still cause unhealthiness, the recycling center just removes it. But it's still probably confusing.

Bh