Any rumours on when a new patch might come out?

[weasel77066]

Hey guys, any suggestions for the patch should probably go here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=183374

and bugs here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=214

Alexman was kind enough to drop in and give some details of what's actually happening, so lets return the favour and keep all the suggestions in one place.

Good God, PLEASE make it so that Charles22 can run his game on his system.

 

[Khamul]

Can we fix medieval times so that 12 trebuchet can't easily take over the most powerful civ in the game like i just did on monarch :

There is one simple fix: don't use 12 trebuchet...

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Hey guys, any suggestions for the patch should probably go here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=183374

and bugs here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=214

Alexman was kind enough to drop in and give some details of what's actually happening, so lets return the favour and keep all the suggestions in one place.

I hope Alexman won't have so much trouble finding the thread about the noise glitch late in Warlords as I did. Quite a few minutes spent just to find out whether to report something or not.

Ö. Lång

 

[jkp1187]

No, but now the new master will only accept the vassal if he also wants to declare war on you.

Just curious, but why would the master accept the vassal if he wants to be at war with YOU? I thought the vassal's foreign policy was supposed to reflect the master, and not vice-versa? Does this mean that:

Victoria is at war with Monty. Victoria has 'cautious' relations with Cyrus.

Monty offers to become Cyrus's vassal. Cyrus accepts.

Cyrus declares war on Victoria.


==Or==

Do you mean that, per the example above, by accepting Monty as a vassal, Cyrus is willing to take the risk that Victoria will continue the offensive (although initially, Monty will follow Cyrus's lead and assume a state of peace with her).

 

[Iustus]

currently, in Warlords, this is how it works:

the vassal declares war on everyone the master is at war with

AND

if the vassal capitulated, then the vassel makes peace with everyone it was at war with

else (the vassal voluntarily sought a master), then the master declares war with everyone the vassal was at war with

---

So, if a vassal voluntarily sought a master, then the master will declare war on everyone that the vassal is at war with.

---

Speculation:

The fix means that in that voluntary case, the master will only accept a vassal if he is willing to go to war with everyone the vassal is at war with ("You" in the above example).

----

Now, in the SDK, there already is a check about this, but it does not compare the power, meaning that some leaders are willing to go to war almost always. The actual check is basically:

if (potentialVassel.Attitude > potentialMaster.DeclareWarRefuseAttitudeThreshold)
AND
if (potentialWarOpponent.Attitude <= potentialMaster.DeclareWarThemRefuseAttitudeThreshold)
then
Accept Vassel

---

For example, Alex has the following values (from the CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml in assets/xml/):

<DeclareWarRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_ANNOYED</DeclareWarRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
<DeclareWarThemRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_PLEASED</DeclareWarThemRefuseAttitudeThreshold>

I think you can see how the above check will almost always be true

---

I assume the fix just adds a power check. The question I have is does it compare each one individually (ie, just past true to AI_declareWarTrade), or does it sum up the power of everyone the potential vassal is at war with and compare that sum vs the power of the master plus the potential vassal?

(look here for more technical version of this)

-Iustus

 

[jkp1187]

Iustus,

Thanks. That explanation made sense. I didn't realize that by voluntarily accepting a vassal, the master currently goes to war with the civs that hte VASSAL is at war with.

So the (speculated) change from the forthcoming patch would not change the 'capitulation' situation, where the vassal assumes the master's peace/war relations with other civs.

 

[kettyo]

IMO a beta patch could be released in the meantime if it's ready.
There is no better QA than the player community.

 

[vilemerchant]

There is one simple fix: don't use 12 trebuchet...

There is that, but why should such a game breaker even be there? When I hear someone say they beat Emperor, I want to think they might be good at the game. Not think they probably just built a few trebs.

 

[StarWorms]

All bugs and no patch makes StarWorms a dull boy

 

[Slade19]

There is that, but why should such a game breaker even be there? When I hear someone say they beat Emperor, I want to think they might be good at the game. Not think they probably just built a few trebs.

It's impossible to rid any game of all the cheese.

Bottom line is that if you use 12 splashing seige units against a city with half the number of defenders to your attackers, you're probably going to take it. Especially if you're fighting similar era units.

Should have posted a save so we could see it.

I'm sure there's a little more to the story than you're letting on. Since in my games... a dozen catapults might take the first city or two, but after that they're toast and the AI is going to bumrush my arse.

 

[Duuk]

Actually, trebs are a bit BS.

I lost a city with 2 grenadiers to 3 trebs. 1 treb withdrew and the other 2 killed my grenadiers.

I was sad.

 

[Slade19]

Actually, trebs are a bit BS.

I lost a city with 2 grenadiers to 3 trebs. 1 treb withdrew and the other 2 killed my grenadiers.

I was sad.

Solution? Attack the trebs before they attack you and rip apart your units with splash damage.

 

[Duuk]

Solution? Attack the trebs before they attack you and rip apart your units with splash damage.

Yes. But a grenadier is strength 12 and a treb is strength 4.

They should have had to attack with more than even odds.

 

[TheDS]

And treb gets double strength on city attack, plus maybe they had some good promotions to narrow the odds even more. So one hits you and does damage to both units, it's hardly surprising the other two kicked you out.

The solution for you was to hit them first. You probaly woulda killed two of them and had one or both of your guys at high strength in case the other got squirrelly (and you'd kill that guy next turn if he didn't run away).

 

[Pitboss]

Not before mid-October.
We would have liked to release it earlier (it's ready), but there are scheduling conflicts with our QA.

By the way, vassal state bugs will be fixed, but do not expect major implementation changes like being able to drop your vassal state. That's working as designed, and changing it would cause other, more serious, balance issues.

Could something like this, be added in the (very) near futur, or for any soon to arrive patches ?

 

[Watiggi]

Something that makes the gameplay feel really cheap is when a Vassal to a more powerful AI gets creamed by yourself to the point where they renouce them being their master. THEN, a few turns later they once again become a vassal to them again. They once again have to be reduced to 50% of their current population. It just doesn't feel right when they severed relations with a master because they were of no help and then turn around and ask for help from them again. One would think that if one was of no help before, one would probably continue to be of no help a couple of turns later.

 

[vilemerchant]

Something that makes the gameplay feel really cheap is when a Vassal to a more powerful AI gets creamed by yourself to the point where they renouce them being their master. THEN, a few turns later they once again become a vassal to them again. They once again have to be reduced to 50% of their current population. It just doesn't feel right when they severed relations with a master because they were of no help and then turn around and ask for help from them again. One would think that if one was of no help before, one would probably continue to be of no help a couple of turns later.

That would be quite easy to fix. Perhaps just a rule that you can't get re-vassallised by the same civ for 30 turns or something.

 

[Balam]

I'm playing Chinese Unification and for some reason boats can't be built. I've seen no boats on this thread but other posts suggesting that there are. Am I going nuts or is this a bug?

 

[tiznoast]

My old PC: (Used for home) Dell Dimension 8300 - Pentium 4HT 3 GHZ, 1.25GB DDR SDRAM, Geforce 5200 FX 128MB, WinXP SP2 - Seemed to run okay on vanilla version, however on Warlords, it runs even worse and quite sluggish as usual.

that's odd.

I have 2.6 gig processor and only 768M RAM and same graphics card running on WIN2K and I've never had any problems - vanilla or warlords.