1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

2 issues for later correction... eventually

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Unofficial Patches' started by r_rolo1, May 3, 2009.

  1. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    First, the fact that you can get the pop-up asking you to give a city to a civ you haven't met yet. Most of the times it is irrelevant to the game, but as it happened in LHC BtS with Capac to some players, it could had tilted the game a lot ( in that case, by giving acess to a civ that could only be contacted some centuries later and a free espionage center..... ). I don't recall this particular issue being solved in the patch.

    The second issue is the fact that lumbermills and preserves in the out side of a river bend are not counted as riverside for effects of the extra 1 C. I don't see any description of why is this like that or devise any rationale for that ( given that all other improvements get the extra coin when they can be built there... if there is any discussion on that, I would love to see it ) ... and I'm not sure if it is a feature or simply a oversight
     
  2. BwdYeti

    BwdYeti Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    I always thought it was intentional for Lumbermills, like how you can't build a Watermill there. Like the riverside Lumbermills get the 1C because they can use the river to move lumber, as opposed to the ones at the bend... not being able to as easily? I guess it makes less sense now that I think about it, but either way I don't think it's a problem.
     
  3. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    The issue is that you can't make watermills in those spots, so there is no possible comparation between the two situations. And OFC the "wood through river" doesn't explain why preserves don't get it ....

    IMHO it is a coherence issue: all the other improvements that can be built in the out side of a river bend recieve the extra coin, so, unless there is a good mechanics/exploit/realism reason for that that has been pointed by the coders ( I would love to hear one ), I still maintain this in the list of "possible bugs"
     
  4. eris

    eris Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    623
    Location:
    On this forum
    It is my understanding that no forest qualifies for the extra commerce for being by a river, whether it is on the outside of bend or not, whether it is improved or not. Is that incorrect?
     
  5. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    That is correct.
     
  6. BwdYeti

    BwdYeti Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    What I meant was the Lumbermills get the bonus specifically for being on the river. The only specifically on a river improvement is a Watermill, which can't be on a bend, so the Lumbermill bonus not being on bends either makes sense in a way. Other improvements that get a commerce bonus on a bend do so because the base land beneath them does, it's not a trait of the improvement. I agree though that there's no reason why they couldn't have done it the other way, but I don't think it's wrong either.
     
  7. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Lumbermills ( and preserves ) gain 1 C for being riverside , as any improvement, except when they are in the out side of the bend. That makes them unique, because all the other improvements gain the riverside 1 C as long as they can be built, regardless of where they are built. That is why I called this to attention: it is not coherent with the rest of the improvements, doesn't appear anywhere on the game documentation ( either in the civilopedia or in paper ) and i don't recall any discussion in the forums regarding that or any possible rationale behind this from the devs mouth ( like i said, if someone knows a reason, I would be more than happy to know it )

    My opinion is that they made the code of the lumbermills and preserves out of the watermills one and something was left behind, but I haven't looked at the code yet ( to say the truth, I don't even thinked on where to look yet ).
     
  8. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    AFAIK this two issues are still unresolved .... too bad :(
     
  9. jdog5000

    jdog5000 Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    California
    1)

    I'm not sure I understand, what popup appears asking you about giving a city to a player you haven't met yet? What are the circumstances under which this happens?

    2)

    Lumbermills and preserves set the XML tag RiverSideYieldChange, where the "RiverSide" phrasing is also what Firaxis used to limit where watermills can be placed. So, it appears Firaxis did this intentionally ... there is no RiverYieldChange tag for improvements like there is for terrain.

    The Civilopedia phrasing (English at least) is that these improvements give an extra commerce when "next to a river" while grassland/plains/etc give +1C when "adjacent to a river". They're clearly trying to differentiate between the two cases, but it is quite ambiguous. It's better than the watermill phrasing though, which simply says it "Requires river"!

    As for the rationale for why lumbermills and preserves would generate extra commerce "next to" a river, it seems to me to be the same as why unforested grasslands would - proximity to the river increases traffic. I agree coherency there would fit better logically, but it's been this way since the beginning and changing it would be kind of a pain.
     
  10. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    About 1)

    I'm talking about the pop up that says that X city rightfully wants to join Y civ. I've discovered, via one of the LHC, that this pop up doesn't check if you know that civ. I've attached a save based on that LHC ( I only added the settler and removed some fog to make it clear that it is a pre Astro valid settling spot ... not that it matters much ). Settle on spot and IBT will appear the dreaded message ... X city wants to join the germans, in spite of we not knowing the germans or even have acess to them before optics. My understanding is that the code in this case ( no foreing culture in city tile ) simply checks distances from capitals ( this spot is closer of the german cap than from the Incan cap, as a WB check will show ) ... that, obviously ,in some cases ( like this one, that is a map that came directly from the Fractal script ) is not enough :p

    About 2)

    Fair enough... but it would definitely not hurt having a clearer explanation :p

    P.S A screenshot from 1) happening in the same map, from other player.:
    Spoiler :

    From here
     
  11. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    About issue 2) ... Pep described here a similar issue already with UP 1.3 code in here . it looks that this issue needs a deeper aproach than simply block of the pop-up
     

Share This Page