Arabia and other Questions

[blizzrd]

I've just did the second Arab UHV (control territory) in 1.186 (latest) version, it works fine. I suggest you to update RFC.

While I agree that LegioCorvus should certainly upgrade his version of RFC, I think smile286 that you'll find that 1.187 is actually the latest version.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=366707

 

[LegioCorvus]

Not correct. You need 2 cities only IF Carthage is alive, otherwise you need one city.

As Jusos2102 says, tiles has nothing to do with it. Only the number of cities matters.

Why are you playing with such an old patch anyway?

Like I mentioned in the first post:

Version 1.811 (sic) by the way, or whatever shipped with BTS.

If anyone is wondering why I don't just upgrade to the latest version: I started on this one, and I'm just kind of stubborn that way. Sorry.

It's just not a big deal to me, and as far as I can tell, most of the changes from patch 1.181 to 1.187 make the UHVs easier (not all, obviously). I'm still curious why I didn't get the control/vassalize Egypt, Carthage, & Spain UHV 'til 1280, long after I had full control of all those cities. Some things are to remain a mystery, I guess.

I've just did the second Arab UHV (control territory) in 1.186 (latest) version, it works fine. I suggest you to update RFC.

Um, thank you, but like I mentioned, I'm fine with this version. It's not particularly old, and corresponds to all guides & atlases that I can find. Good job with the UHV. Arabia appears to be one of the harder ones, as it took me around 2.5 tries to get.

 

[deanej]

Unless you've never, ever, patch BtS, your version of RFC is already newer than what most of the guides are written for. BtS 3.19 comes with 1.181. Most guides were written pre-BtS or when BtS first came out, which corresponds to 1.05 and earlier. The atlas is updated for 1.187 as are the stability maps.

 

[blizzrd]

Um, thank you, but like I mentioned, I'm fine with this version.

If you're fine with playing an out of date patch, then you should stop asking questions about why the UHV doesn't appear to work the way it should. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either update or put up and desist with the questions because you are about 2 years behind.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Yeah, the world should just stop evolving, so we can all do squatting and kill civs at start. I used to think like that too.

 

[LegioCorvus]

If you're fine with playing an out of date patch, then you should stop asking questions about why the UHV doesn't appear to work the way it should. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either update or put up and desist with the questions because you are about 2 years behind.

Wait... what's with the hostility?

1) I very clearly stated which patch I played in the very first post, and explained why I use it. I even preemptively apologized for it, out of formality, not realizing someone would actually want me to seriously apologize for the way I chose to play my game.

2) I never said "the UHV doesn't appear to work the way it should." In fact, I was checking if I understood it correctly. I admitted that the error should be on my end, and was asking what was wrong with my understanding.

Check it yourself:

I thought I had Arabia, just managing to take over Spain at 1290 AD, but two turns later I only get the 1 of 3 UHVs goals achieved, controlling 3 holy cities. I check F8, and under "control Egypt, Spain, Carthage" is still said Not Yet. Next turn, it goes gray. Do I need to take out Portugal as well?

What about that is me complaining that it isn't working the way I think it should?

3) Finally, I plainly stated that I only had 1 city in Carthage when I won the UHV on my second playthrough. Three times someone told me after the fact that I needed 2 cities... despite the fact that I explained each time that I managed to win it with 1. Even then, I just tested it out with the latest patch, and it still worked with only 1 city in Carthage.

 

[blizzrd]

What about that is me complaining that it isn't working the way I think it should?

I was referring to your comments about Spain, not Carthage. Yes, others gave incorrect information to you about how the UHVs work, but on several occasions I corrected these statements. However, with respect to Spain you continued to make your own incorrect statements about how the UHV condition worked (tiles, not cities).

I don't care what your reason for not updating to the latest patch is. But if you are playing an out of date patch and asking questions as to why something doesn't work they way you think it should you need to update your patch first and then ask the question again.

A major factor in the trigger for the Spanish UHV not probably working is that there have been repeated posts from others about weird date effects in the game when using out-of-date patches. So what you were seeing on the screen as the current date was quite possibly not the actual date, an issue to do with the incompatibility of your version of the mod, which has repeatedly been corrected for others by updating to the latest patch.

 

[blizzrd]

1) I very clearly stated which patch I played in the very first post, and explained why I use it.

No, actually you didn't. You just said that you were too stubborn to update, which in itself is not a reason why you haven't yet done so. Having no access to the internet would be a reason (which is clearly not your situation) why you haven't or couldn't update the patch. Being stubborn is not a reason, that's just irrational behaviour.

 

[LegioCorvus]

I was referring to your comments about Spain, not Carthage. Yes, others gave incorrect information to you about how the UHVs work, but on several occasions I corrected these statements. However, with respect to Spain you continued to make your own incorrect statements about how the UHV condition worked (tiles, not cities).

So correct me. What I said was

I'm (sic) think I figured it out.

Think. Not "I know why."

Then, when it was pointed out it was wrong, I simply stated that I was still curious why it worked out the way it did.

I never "continued to make (my) own incorrect statements." I said that I got i...

You know what? I'm not playing this game. I've been nothing but cool and humble, except for when people tried to continually correct something that I not only had shown wasn't true, but also isn't true for the latest patch. If you want to rage at people about something as trivial as a minor patch update, fine. That's your prerogative.

Other, less openly hostile people provided me with the information I required in the first 10 posts in the thread. I've only got 2 more Civs to finish all the UHVs for RFC, and then I'm off to try another Mod. Thanks for whatever help you did provide.

 

[blizzrd]

So correct me.

Sure. Like I said, with respect to Spain you continued to make your own incorrect statements about how the UHV condition worked (tiles, not cities).

So, in the 1.181 patch (as pointed out at the start of the thread), just having one city in Spain and Spain eliminated won't get you the UHV requirement.

"Controlling" an area means having more tiles in your cultural borders than anyone else. So while Portugal isn't specifically mentioned in the UHV requirements, if their culture covers more of the Iberian peninsula, you won't get the UHV.

Neither of these quoted statements are true. If you post something which isn't true in this forum, you should expect to be corrected.

 

[blizzrd]

Other, less openly hostile people provided me with the information I required in the first 10 posts in the thread.

Incorrect information nonetheless.

Thanks for whatever help you did provide.

You're welcome. You could also scroll through the Questions and Answers thread to see just how many people's quesion's I've answered over the past 5 years. Over the journey, most of the people asking the questions have proved to be far more rational that you have, with your stubborn refusal to play with the most up-to-date version of the mod.

Bye.

 

[fireclaw722]

I've just did the second Arab UHV (control territory) in 1.186 (latest) version, it works fine. I suggest you to update RFC.

The latest is 1.187....