No, its just that for some people the upgrade doesn't seem to be replacing their old DLL with the new one for some reason. You can drop it in manually. If you're not sure what is there now check the timestamp on the DLL file and see which beta it matches.
A New Dawn Beta Builds
- Thread starter 45°38'N-13°47'E
- Start date
No, its just that for some people the upgrade doesn't seem to be replacing their old DLL with the new one for some reason. You can drop it in manually. If you're not sure what is there now check the timestamp on the DLL file and see which beta it matches.
Afforess
The White Wizard
Afforess
The White Wizard
Upload a save.
As for the SVN, if you build the full install (all 900 mb), you do not need the patches.
Afforess
The White Wizard
I think this has to do with Windows and how it deals with read/write access with non-admins.
Arkatakor
King
Hey Afforess,
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to do all the fixes requested by everyone here - will be looking forward to the next update
btw one thing that I noticed about fort capturing; I had an enemy invade and capture a fort smack in the middle of my territory. An ally who was also at war with the same enemy later came in and captured that same fort. After the war was over, and the ally had left the fort, the territory in and around the fort continued to belong to my ally with no way of me being able to regain it. Hence I had a blob of allied territory in my own territory with no way of regaining it back.
It was annoying as I could no longer use those tiles and they were next to one of my cities. I DID have facism on though, assuming that it has an effect. My suggestion would be that if no one occupies the fort after X amount of turns, the territory goes back to its default owner (influenced by culture). Or in this case, giving the a person the ability to capture a fort regardless of if its allied owned or enemy owned (that would be even simpler to implement).
Also another thought; how bout giving certain units a 2 square zone of control (ZOC) when occupying forts? Or if its simpler, simply giving forts themselves a 2 square ZOC so they dont have to be built on every other tile?
Here is also another idea; you could make it such that when a siege unit like a canon occupies a fort (and has been fortified in it for at least a turn) it has a high chance of damaging nearby enemy units for 10% of their strength. The range could be decided based on the siege unit in question; for example catapult / trebuchet would only hit units 1 square away, bombard could do 2 sqaures, canon 2-3 squares and artillery 3-4 squares and so on. This range would not extend into enemy territory.
Just thoughts.
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to do all the fixes requested by everyone here - will be looking forward to the next update
btw one thing that I noticed about fort capturing; I had an enemy invade and capture a fort smack in the middle of my territory. An ally who was also at war with the same enemy later came in and captured that same fort. After the war was over, and the ally had left the fort, the territory in and around the fort continued to belong to my ally with no way of me being able to regain it. Hence I had a blob of allied territory in my own territory with no way of regaining it back.
It was annoying as I could no longer use those tiles and they were next to one of my cities. I DID have facism on though, assuming that it has an effect. My suggestion would be that if no one occupies the fort after X amount of turns, the territory goes back to its default owner (influenced by culture). Or in this case, giving the a person the ability to capture a fort regardless of if its allied owned or enemy owned (that would be even simpler to implement).
Also another thought; how bout giving certain units a 2 square zone of control (ZOC) when occupying forts? Or if its simpler, simply giving forts themselves a 2 square ZOC so they dont have to be built on every other tile?
Here is also another idea; you could make it such that when a siege unit like a canon occupies a fort (and has been fortified in it for at least a turn) it has a high chance of damaging nearby enemy units for 10% of their strength. The range could be decided based on the siege unit in question; for example catapult / trebuchet would only hit units 1 square away, bombard could do 2 sqaures, canon 2-3 squares and artillery 3-4 squares and so on. This range would not extend into enemy territory.
Just thoughts.
Says it was established 24. june 2011, ‏08:41:41, changed 20. june 2011, ‏02:00:47, and loaded 25. june 2011, ‏13:35:56. Can't be right as I tried installing just now (25th). Ran the install as admin as per Afforess' comment below, but made no difference.
Is the correct DLL availbale for download somewhere? I checked out the SVN/archive pages mentioned earlier, but to be honest I didn't really understand what I was looking for. If I have to build my own file I think I'll rather wait for a later edition or something.
Still, keep up the good work, I love the mod and it's great to see it developed further (like many others I don't much care for Civ V). Kudos to all involved
os79
Deity
There are many countries annoyed with USA's occupations of some land within their countries....
But I have better idea... If a fort is surrounded by allied player, then over few turns (determined by game speed) the fort slowly flip over to surrounding culture. That only apply to allies having Right of Passage or Open Border.
But I have better idea... If a fort is surrounded by allied player, then over few turns (determined by game speed) the fort slowly flip over to surrounding culture. That only apply to allies having Right of Passage or Open Border.
IPEX-731BA5DD06
Deity
Dark Force
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28
Long time lurker. First of all I would like to say thank you for all the hard work put into this mod, its given me a reason to pick up Civ again after Civ V was such a let down for me.
But back to business, I noticed this error in the bug menu after I made the 1.76 b5 build from the SVN tonight:
Also attached save. Anything else let me know!
But back to business, I noticed this error in the bug menu after I made the 1.76 b5 build from the SVN tonight:
Also attached save. Anything else let me know!
Dark Force
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28
Thank you! After watching quietly for near forever (civ III) I've finally decided to take the plunge. Hope I can contribute a little in repayment of how helpful this site has been
I will definitely try that out this evening when I'm off work.
EDIT: It worked, thank you so much! I didn't even get a copy over warning by windows.. I wonder why that didn't install the first time? :/
I will definitely try that out this evening when I'm off work.
EDIT: It worked, thank you so much! I didn't even get a copy over warning by windows.. I wonder why that didn't install the first time? :/
DRJ
Hedonist
Hello, I have a question/bug report about changed mechanics with revolutions.
Playing C2C the following happened (Koshling told me to re-post here in AND beta bug report)
----
Ok, In my last game I had the revo bug: 2 cities (one of which I founded myself but had some fighting in front of its gates, one conquered, both in my empire since a thousand years and well developed) revolted - my garrisons were quite large and all had promotions left that i used to fill them up for the coming strikes. The former mongolian city even had a -50% revolution in city - morale 4 field commander. But then: my troops are suddenly outside city, 7 units in it - both cities and worst of all: my long trained field commander is gone...
Making revolutions harder all ok with me but this sucks. Most buildings for the cities will be gone even if i get them back...
Is there a fix for the revolutions out there - what caused it to be changed? There must have been a fiddling with the code!?
Playing C2C the following happened (Koshling told me to re-post here in AND beta bug report)
----
Ok, In my last game I had the revo bug: 2 cities (one of which I founded myself but had some fighting in front of its gates, one conquered, both in my empire since a thousand years and well developed) revolted - my garrisons were quite large and all had promotions left that i used to fill them up for the coming strikes. The former mongolian city even had a -50% revolution in city - morale 4 field commander. But then: my troops are suddenly outside city, 7 units in it - both cities and worst of all: my long trained field commander is gone...
Making revolutions harder all ok with me but this sucks. Most buildings for the cities will be gone even if i get them back...
Is there a fix for the revolutions out there - what caused it to be changed? There must have been a fiddling with the code!?
Has anyone experienced a problem with Limited Religions / Choose Religions in the 1.76 beta? I used both of these options in 1.75C without any problems. I'm currently playing a 1.76 beta 5 game where it gave me the option to choose a Religion after discovering Philosophy, and 3 choices pop up, I choose one, then 2 choices pop up to choose another. Clicking on a 2nd religion from the remaining two choices does nothing as the two choices pop up again and you can't get past the religion selection pane. I checked BUG settings and disabled Limited Religion Exceptions, but still have the same problem.
I attached a save just in case it is helpful, but it may be hard to use. I'm using several civs from the AND mega civ pack, so you would need those installed. I have made very minor xml changes to a few buildings that should have no impact on loading the save. No other mods installed and certainly no Python changes or anything involving religions. I could not find the AND log file, is it still used? The save is also the robust format supported in the beta, not the original BTS.
(note, it is not a crash bug, realized I should have named the file something else after I loaded it)
I attached a save just in case it is helpful, but it may be hard to use. I'm using several civs from the AND mega civ pack, so you would need those installed. I have made very minor xml changes to a few buildings that should have no impact on loading the save. No other mods installed and certainly no Python changes or anything involving religions. I could not find the AND log file, is it still used? The save is also the robust format supported in the beta, not the original BTS.
(note, it is not a crash bug, realized I should have named the file something else after I loaded it)
Dark Force
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28
@Cykur - I'll see if i can duplicate and confirm it when I get home.
@keldath - gotcha!
@keldath - gotcha!
youmakemefart
Warlord
So I finally a little time to play properly...
Feedback:
Basically this is the best civ ever. So much that works well. Game speed is better. Still a few points:
This is a big issue: ARMOURED UNITS
They MUST start with commando (especially if cavalry have it). I could write 5 pages about the historical evidence for this. The essential point is that there should be a qualitative difference between the limitations and possibilities of Infantry and Armour. At the moment, as soon as there is armour, there is virtually no point of using infantry (especcially on the offensive) – which is so, so unrealistic. Infantry should remain strongest in suitable terrain.
Armour, like cavalry, loves open, accessible terrain. Roads are also a huge plus. Tanks should be weaker attacking cities and stronger in certain terrains, such as plains, deserts, grasslands etc. But armour should get -50% on peaks and in forests and jungles and they should only be able to enter these terrains on roads.
Anyone with a military background gets nausea seeing a main battle tank progressing through forest, and also getting a defensive bonus for it. Also: off-road jungle, forest and mountain warfare is completely impossible for Mech Inf., Mobile Artillery, (Heavy) Tanks, and Battle Tanks etc. and should remain the sole domain of Marines, regular infantry and Special Forces.
To summarise: All Amour MUST get:
These suggestions would really, really improve and diversify modern age warfare, and make it realistic.
Apart from this....
EPIC
Feedback:
Basically this is the best civ ever.
So much that works well. Game speed is better. Still a few points:- As already stated in another thread: the cavalry changes rule, most of all the terrain differences - with maybe the exception of the "commando" promotion which is not necessarily realistic or a must from a gameplay perspective
- I think instead of commando an additional movement point for cavalry would be better
This is a big issue: ARMOURED UNITS
They MUST start with commando (especially if cavalry have it). I could write 5 pages about the historical evidence for this. The essential point is that there should be a qualitative difference between the limitations and possibilities of Infantry and Armour. At the moment, as soon as there is armour, there is virtually no point of using infantry (especcially on the offensive) – which is so, so unrealistic. Infantry should remain strongest in suitable terrain.
Armour, like cavalry, loves open, accessible terrain. Roads are also a huge plus. Tanks should be weaker attacking cities and stronger in certain terrains, such as plains, deserts, grasslands etc. But armour should get -50% on peaks and in forests and jungles and they should only be able to enter these terrains on roads.
Anyone with a military background gets nausea seeing a main battle tank progressing through forest, and also getting a defensive bonus for it. Also: off-road jungle, forest and mountain warfare is completely impossible for Mech Inf., Mobile Artillery, (Heavy) Tanks, and Battle Tanks etc. and should remain the sole domain of Marines, regular infantry and Special Forces.
To summarise: All Amour MUST get:
[*]Commando Promotion
[*]+25% Grassland Plain Desert attack
[*]-25% City Attack
[*]Can only enter Forests, Jungles and mountains on roads
[*]-50% Forests, Jungles and mountains (because they are completely restricted to roads and sitting ducks)
These suggestions would really, really improve and diversify modern age warfare, and make it realistic.
- Chariots still basically didn’t exist in the game I played. Maybe Marathon game speed was still too fast
- Although I select the “No Storms” option, I lose a ship every 10 turns…
Apart from this....
EPIC
you talk about history yet you want armored units to get -25% city attack ?
they should get 25% city def and attack bonus if anything , hiding behind buildings and blowing buildings. leading charge guarding infantry, tanks never were at disadvantage in towns, maybe in todays warfare when everyone can shoot rpg out of windows.. but those rpgs cant penetrate todays tanks
and in old days there was little town siege without armored division support , you couldnt take out fortified infantry posts without artillery or tank fire and others tank would lie in hiding while in towns,
they should get 25% city def and attack bonus if anything , hiding behind buildings and blowing buildings. leading charge guarding infantry, tanks never were at disadvantage in towns, maybe in todays warfare when everyone can shoot rpg out of windows.. but those rpgs cant penetrate todays tanks
and in old days there was little town siege without armored division support , you couldnt take out fortified infantry posts without artillery or tank fire and others tank would lie in hiding while in towns,
youmakemefart
Warlord
of course tanks aren't completely useless in city warfare, but they are a lot more vunerable.
http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/feature-urban-armor.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50333336/16/Module-4-ANTI-TANK-Tactics-for-Infantry-Units
and the problems described here are concerning modern tanks - think of how much easier it would be to take out a wwII tank
the points you raised are completely valid - but now think how much more effective they are on a grassy plain...
Dark Force
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28
I tried last night and I THINK the Limited Religions overwrote Choose Religions. I'll try a quick game again (couldn't call it quits after I got started last night
)Seconded. Cav have increased speed but realisticly for them to use an enemy nations roads as effective as them they would have to have current information about the roads and where they went.
Agreed about the commando for armor if cav get it.
However, I would have to disagree about infantry.. Modern warfare is evidence enough that the Armored unit is the core of the strength in a ground campaign. Their superior durability, firepower, and mobility make them unrivaled. No infantry is going to be able to take out any tank with a simple rifle/machine gun.
If you want to incorperate the value of infantry back in the game here are my suggestions: Increase the benifits of anti-armor infantry against armor + collateral damage against units in the same tile. However, these units tend to be slow firing and have a limited amount of ammo. To reflect this, give them a penalty against infanrty units (25-33%).
No. Smikis is right about cities. Armor is basically specialized mobile artillery and the damage done to a city by a tank would be much greater than any infantry. As for terrain, I don't think it needs any bonuses. The only exception i could see is hills/mountian defense (well for any unit) because of the stratigic advantage.
Movement? Yeah I can agree with that. However for defending they should get a bonus (see above) and if you are going to penalize them do it solely in attacking and 10-20% for forest/jungle and 20-33% for mountians.
The defensive bonus should be eliminates, yes. However I would imagine they should be able to still recieve a fortification bonus no?
I wouldn't say impossible, but it would(should) slow them down and provide them a little disadvantage. Except I agree with mountians. On that note, all infantry should recieve bonuses from forests/jungle with marines and special forces maybe getting a +1 movement?
EDIT:
At the same time they are probably going to be engaging defenders in the city from outside of it as they make their way in and during this period its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Tanks have pretty universal superiority. The only time their effectiveness is changed is in certian terrains that slow them down or put them on a lower elevation, hense the no bonus and just the penalties.
My 2 cents (summary):
- Commando Promotion - remove from cav, or add to armor
[*]Give anti-armor infantry +10-20% more against armor, -15-35% against Infantry
[*]Armor city attack stays same
[*]Armor attack penalty for forests, jungle, and hills -10-15%
[*]Armor attack penalty for mountians -20-33%
[*]Armor still can move through forest/jungle/hills
[*]Armor can't cross mountian without some sort of road
[*]Infantry recieve slight bonus (+10%) against armor in jungle/forest.
[*]Marines/special forces recieve +1 movement in jungle/forest
Agreed with chariots.
And I don't think it is the "No Storms option that prevents you from losing ships, that just turns off weather. There is an option in the BUG menu about probablility of ship being lost at sea, I can't remember its name. But thats the one you want
Responding to the above posts re: unit balance, I don't think there is a big need to over-engineer all these bonuses. Part of the problem of giving commando to cavalry is it opens up the door to over-engineering all the other units to make them seem consistent with the highly mobile cavalry.
All units are going to have a good time when they are defending in harsh terrain as opposed to when they are attacking it. Tanks can hide in a forest or behind a building or find a good defensible position in hills or mountains. This is why these terrains give defensive bonuses. Horses need that forest attack penalty because they just don't run around that well in terrain where there is brush and trees and roots that can obstruct their vision and break their legs.
I totally agree that early horseman and chariots sucked vs the spearman hordes, but I think that has been fixed. Late cavalry, especially those promoted with an extra movement point, can move 3 squares on flat terrain in enemy territory and can cause a lot of havoc -- one of my favorite units in the game is light cavalry for its mobility, escape chance, and favorable bonuses at running down infantry and archers. It can't be the only unit I make because it isn't good on defense, so it needs an army to operate from, but otherwise I find it to be a very good tactical unit.
I think the balance for cavalry was pretty good before the commando change.
All units are going to have a good time when they are defending in harsh terrain as opposed to when they are attacking it. Tanks can hide in a forest or behind a building or find a good defensible position in hills or mountains. This is why these terrains give defensive bonuses. Horses need that forest attack penalty because they just don't run around that well in terrain where there is brush and trees and roots that can obstruct their vision and break their legs.
I totally agree that early horseman and chariots sucked vs the spearman hordes, but I think that has been fixed. Late cavalry, especially those promoted with an extra movement point, can move 3 squares on flat terrain in enemy territory and can cause a lot of havoc -- one of my favorite units in the game is light cavalry for its mobility, escape chance, and favorable bonuses at running down infantry and archers. It can't be the only unit I make because it isn't good on defense, so it needs an army to operate from, but otherwise I find it to be a very good tactical unit.
I think the balance for cavalry was pretty good before the commando change.
Similar threads
