1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

A New Dawn Bug Reports and Feedback

Discussion in 'Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn' started by 45°38'N-13°47'E, Dec 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    No, don't worry, it's just a minor glitch that we can live with for the moment. :)
     
  2. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    I was wondering about palisade... but aren't walls in ancient era displayed as a wooden palisade? Couldn't we split ancient era graphics from more advaced era ones? So that walls always look like stone walls, even in ancient era and palisade always look like walls look like in ancient era now? That way we can solve the problem of the giant palisade, don't we?

    Edit: more about palisade; it looks like in ancient era some civs display walls as wooden palisade; when you switch to classical era palisade become walls. Some other civs like zulu retain their "palisade-looking-walls" up to middle age. Even in classical era walls look like palisade, they become stone walls only when reaching middle age. It shouldn't be too hard to use ancient-era-walls as palisade building and classical-era-walls as proper walls building: what do you think Vokarya?
     
  3. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I was thinking you might like to increase
    Code:
    	<Define>
    		<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_MILITARY_UNITS_POPULATION_PERCENT</DefineName>
    		<iDefineIntVal>12</iDefineIntVal>
    	</Define>
    to like -

    Code:
    	<Define>
    		<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_MILITARY_UNITS_POPULATION_PERCENT</DefineName>
    		<iDefineIntVal>32</iDefineIntVal>
    	</Define>
    or something, maybe even increase free military units by a few too? So effectively would mean instead of getting 12% of your population as support free military units, it would be 32%, essentially meaning extra free units based on how much pop you have.

    I personally think its too restrictive to gameplay - where you are barely able afford units to garrison in your cities to keep your citizens happy, let alone have scouts + ships and stuff.

    It might be less noticeable at lower difficulty levels, but to survive economically i've found I have to constantly try and make trades for gold; build caravans to send to closest ai city, and often I have to disband workers for the gold and remake them. Making units cheaper won't necessarily make it easier for the human player. The AI will have their costs reduced too and since they usually have a bigger population - their 'bonus' free units would be slightly bigger than the human players' bonus.

    I mean I like the game to be challenging but it kinda ruins the fun when u can't build units.. I think being way behind in tech, never being able to build 1 single wonder, seeing the AI build 2x your amount of cities in all fine by me. But not being able to afford units railroads you into only playing one way - turtle up, try and not piss off neighbour as best you can, but if you get attacked b4 you have established an economy that can sustain basic archer/warrior up to where city is happy/content -- if they attack b4 this point, then you basically have to restart.

    I realise its a bit of a rant now, but let me finish by saying - it pigeon holes you into gambling through the early game, trying to tech up as best you can while maintaining the smallest army possible. I probably didn't explain it very well but it makes the early game always the same and it usually feels out of your hands how it ends up. City maintenance is difficult also, very difficult in fact (early on), but I find the principle of it more fair and well.. fun.
     
  4. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    I'm reworking balance to lower city maintenance because it was way too high in the latest revision. I'm also considering the same for units but to tell the truth I've never had so much troubles as you describe. Which gamespeed/mapsize/handicap are you using when you speak about these problems?
     
  5. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    immortal, normal, large/normal, I edit a lot of the gamespeed settings though - can't see that it should make a difference though. For instance I raised the itrain thingy in eras and in gamespeed, lowered tech cost a bit coz I have no tech trading etc.
     
  6. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    Well, then I suppose it's the handicap level you're using. Have you tried easier difficulty settings? I usually test on noble and yet sometimes I have to use caravans to gain some gold early in the game. Immortal is supposed to be hard.
    I'll do some test anyway :)
     
  7. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The thing is, as I tried to explain, I have no problem with it being hard - in fact I quite like it. But the unit maintenance is soo restrictive on how you want/can play the game that it ruins it. The unit maintenance adds to the difficulty sure, but there are lots of other factors that contribute to the difficulty level. This setting in particular shouldn't be relied on (so much) though because it restricts how you can play and the fun your allowed to have.
     
  8. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    Ok, got it. How do you feel about city maintenance costs in your games? I've found them a bit too high and maybe lowering them gives you more room for decisions on gamestyle, thus not limiting you so much on how you can play. Of course this doesn't mean that I won't consider unit maintenance, but I'd like to know how people feel about city maintenance too.
     
  9. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    City maintenance is definately high, but once you establish certain civics it becomes quite manageable. By this time the AI will have a substantial city lead but overall I have no problem with this. This advantage or restriction feels more natural or um.. fair perhaps to me. Not being able to afford basic defense to cover :mad: after monarchy when running like 15% science is just frustrating to say the least ;)

    Perhaps just tweak the early civics, like the one that gives +150% number of cities maintenance & +100% distance maintenance (i think). Shortly into the game you can have a -30% city maintenance civic, its such a massive contrast.. Maybe evening this out would be a good move, not sure. I see the civics' intention - it stops people from being able to churn out settlers early game (which would become the best and only viable strategy otherwise). It makes the player consider when and where to expand, its a becomes a big decision, rather than just spam spam spam. Maybe it should be relaxed a little bit though, its debateable imo.
     
  10. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    15,127
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    AND is definitely anti-expansionist in the way Afforess set up the Maint. basics and the Civics. And 45* has maintained that course too. I've always thought it was too strong. But I stopped complaining to Afforess way back when and just stopped playing AND. It gets more play time now that I've had some input accepted and been made part of the team. I agree with your initial assessment.

    JosEPh
     
  11. Vokarya

    Vokarya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    6,063
    I would really like to keep the round palisade if possible, then switch to the stone walls. I will try to experiment and see what I can do.
     
  12. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I was thinking maybe you'd like to change to 'routes upgrade' 45°38'N-13°47'E in the A_New_Dawn_GlobalDefines.xml
    Code:
    	</Define>
    	<!--The Time and Gold to Build a Route over an existing route is reduced by the time and Gold already invested in the previous Route-->
    	<Define>
    		<DefineName>ROUTES_UPGRADE</DefineName>
    		<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
    You still need to have a worker build the upgraded version of the road, but it is quicker & cheaper depending on what route was on that tile previously. I think this is more intuitive and could also help to balance early finances a little bit imo since building roads can really add up.
     
  13. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Oh and I was wondering, in the A_New_Dawn_GlobalDefines.xml

    AiAndy made the "Do_caching"

    Also Koshling made "ENABLE_DYNAMIC_UNIT_ENTITIES" in revision 2440 for c2c.

    --

    Both these are in AND2's A_New_Dawn_GlobalDefines.xml, I turned them both on last time I played and it didn't crash or anything. I was wondering if these actually work for AND2? Like are they in the .dll or whatever?

    Oh also, while on the subject, have you thought more about incorporating Koshling's new dynamic camera thingy, it makes c2c way faster and is a lot less intrusive than viewports for example. The game plays pretty much seamlessly like normal imo.


    edit: actually do_caching freezes game on launch (2nd time you load the game after turning setting on), so this doesn't work :)
     
  14. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    This is something that's been there long before I started working on the project. Never tried and I don't know if it works. Have you tried it?
     
  15. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    I've imported that code in the dll but I've never tried those options, some part of the code might be missing, that's why I've never activated those options.
    As for Koshling's latest magic, as I've explained I'll wait a bit more I think, to make sure everything is working.
     
  16. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yeah I use it, works fine. Generally it just means if u have an old road then a worker can build a newer road on the tile in half the time and half as cheap. Makes sense imo.

    Dynamic unit entities seems ok. Its kinda hard to tell though unless you are in late game / big map and you can actively compare before and after.
    No worries that you want to wait to see how Koshling latest magic unfolds first. It seems to be going pretty well, not sure how much more work/bug fixing is needed if any, thats why I ask. Fair enough though, let him do the heavy lifting first anyway ;)
     
  17. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    Definetly, I'll do some test and I'll turn it on by default in the next update.
     
  18. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Sorry, I have a bad habit of posting, getting distracted, then coming back and edited on a new slab of text :blush:
     
  19. HotFusion

    HotFusion Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    Buildings that have a "needs resource in city vicinity" requirement get broken after reloading the game files (either by using Control-Shift-T or done automatically after editing the xml files and reloading a game).

    You can definitely see this behavior on the Stoneworker's Hut, the Furrier, the Fisherman's Hut, Fish Traps, and probably lots of others. Interestingly, the free specialists from the Boathouse aren't affected.
     
  20. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,833
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    Tried it myself with Fish Traps and Fisherman's Hut and it works perfectly.
    Sounds to me you have a corrupted/wrongly tweaked version for some reason. Or possibly a very old savegame which isn't 100% compatible with current version.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page