Bug Reports and Technical Issues

[bluepotato]

Patches for the game, the mod, or wine? I have 64-bit Wine 4.11 staging and recently updated to 1.16.1 of the mod. I was running into these errors on 1.15, and I think on 1.14, but I don't think I had them on either an older version of the mod or an older version of Wine (a 3.x release maybe?), or maybe a 32-bit version of Wine.

For the mod. It seems like the bug has existed since about 1.11, at least I think that was the first version that let me roll a Byzantine start. The game still CTDs sometimes, but that happens a lot less frequently so I'd say it's quite playable. Last night I played a Polynesia game on Marathon and it only CTDed in the 16th century. I have no proof but I think this has something to do with resurrections, since that's when the game showed me Python exceptions and the previous crashes were related to collapses.
Wine patches never fixed the problem, and I stayed on the stable version anyways until 5.0 rc2 (staging) because of this bug. I even have 1.7 installed with PlayOnLinux because that's the only version that's able to compile the DLL.
EDIT: oh and I forgot to mention, I've tried both 32 bit and 64 bit wine before and both of them behaved the same way.

 

[cryptid]

It was more or less fine last time I played, before I switched to 1.16.1, just had to try some starts 4 or 5 times, or occasionally load an auto-save and try replaying a few turns. Now I get a CTD every time between auto-turns 100-130. I haven't yet tried playing a game-start civ to see what happens if it's not going through auto-turns.

Is there any idea on what specific conditions trigger the error, aside from it having to do with unit flipping?

 

[Zaddy]

Hi, getting a consistent CTD on the end of the turn with this save. Latest version

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I noticed that several leaders in CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml have redundant MemoryAttitudePercent entries, some of which have different values and others the same. See Tokugawa for example:

               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_STOPPED_TRADING</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>
               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_HIRED_TRADE_EMBARGO</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>
               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_MADE_DEMAND</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>-200</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>
               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_TRADED_TECH_TO_US</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>5</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>
               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_STOPPED_TRADING</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>
               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_HIRED_TRADE_EMBARGO</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>
               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_MADE_DEMAND</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>
               <MemoryAttitudePercent>
                   <MemoryType>MEMORY_TRADED_TECH_TO_US</MemoryType>
                   <iMemoryAttitudePercent>5</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
               </MemoryAttitudePercent>

Other leaders I have noticed this for are Victoria and Ezana, and it always seems to be the same four entries, MEMORY_STOPPED_TRADING, MEMORY_HIRED_TRADE_EMBARGO, MEMORY_MADE_DEMAND and MEMORY_TRADED_TECH_TO_US.

 

[f1rpo]

I noticed that several leaders in CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml have redundant MemoryAttitudePercent entries, [...] MEMORY_STOPPED_TRADING, MEMORY_HIRED_TRADE_EMBARGO, MEMORY_MADE_DEMAND and MEMORY_TRADED_TECH_TO_US.

In BtS, Suleiman and all leaders after him have these duplicates. I've kept the averages of the two values when I cleaned that up. Don't know which values BtS had used.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh really? I had assumed I messed up when resolving a git conflict or something like that. I assume that from how XML parsing works that the last value is the "real" one (i.e. the one that is effective in the game). That should be easy to check.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Is it intentional that Isolationism's "No Foreign Trade Routes Allowed" effect overrides the Porcelain Tower's effect of being able to have Trade Routes with civs without Open Borders?

 

[bluepotato]

Is it intentional that Isolationism's "No Foreign Trade Routes Allowed" effect overrides the Porcelain Tower's effect of being able to have Trade Routes with civs without Open Borders?

Being able to use isolationism with foreign trade routes sounds quite OP for me. That's +1 specialist in every city PLUS foreign trade even with the independents PLUS free espionage points PLUS no foreign instability. You could even cause a world war with defensive pacts, let every second civ collapse from foreign instability and still have a great economy.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Being able to use isolationism with foreign trade routes sounds quite OP for me. That's +1 specialist in every city PLUS foreign trade even with the independents PLUS free espionage points PLUS no foreign instability. You could even cause a world war with defensive pacts, let every second civ collapse from foreign instability and still have a great economy.

Well yeah, but as it stands now half the effect of the Porcelain Tower is useless if you (somewhat canonically) adopt Isolationism.

Also wait a minute, does Porcelain Tower allow trade with Independents too? I was under the impression it only counts major civs.

 

[bluepotato]

Also wait a minute, does Porcelain Tower allow trade with Independents too? I was under the impression it only counts major civs.

It did on a 1.16 development version for me but Leoreth might've changed that since then.

 

[Leoreth]

Is it intentional that Isolationism's "No Foreign Trade Routes Allowed" effect overrides the Porcelain Tower's effect of being able to have Trade Routes with civs without Open Borders?

Let me look at the code.

 

[Zaddy]

The Ottomans start with Janissaries without the tech required to build them. Is that intended?

 

[Rodnok]

The Ottomans start with Janissaries without the tech required to build them. Is that intended?

That happens for many civs. E.g. Ethiopia has at least one Shotelai without Bloomery. I guess Ottos need some guns to take Constantinople with its Theodosian Walls.

 

[Zaddy]

The two city core that Iran has is not enough to control the required territory for it's second UHV goal.

Spoiler :

This empire gives me -20 expansion stability from overextension, and my core cities can't grow much larger. Extending the Iranian core to Tabriz and Herat would help with this

 

[Leoreth]

You don't need to control it for long though.

 

[Hickman888]

Hey there,

I got a few things to report.

First, in my game as Persia the other day, I noticed one of my cities (Tureng Tepe) would not grow from culture, despite having a monument and my religion in the city. The history of this city, if it helps, is that it was conquered by Alexander, who then collapsed, turning the city over to barbarians. I then retook the city from the barbarians. (I don't remember for 100% certainty if the city grew with culture before Alexander took it, but I believe it was).

Second, I had two games in a row, starting as Rome, where I started with only a catapult on Sardinia. If I kept the catapult and ended my turn, my units would spawn in as normal the next turn, however I would be running primitive civics, not the civics Rome should start with. If I deleted my catapult, my units would spawn in as usual, and I would be running the proper civics. Not a big deal, just thought you should know.

And lastly, for the Civilpedia: The text entry for "Revolutionism" is missing, and, under the "Stability Influence Factors", it says that one should run either Republic, Democracy, Constitution, or Ideology after the discovery of Representation in order to avoid a -5 stability penalty. But there is no "Ideology" civic (I'm guessing that was an earlier name for one of the fascist civics, but I am unsure which one.)

 

[Leoreth]

Do you also have a save before you capture Tureng Tepe?

 

[Steb]

I don’t have a save, but I noticed a similar bug when playing the Mayans. I lost Tikal to the barbarians and retook it, and then its culture was locked at 12 or maybe 13 for the rest of the game. Even world builder couldn’t be used to add culture, and deleting the city and creating it anew didn’t help either.

 

[Hickman888]

Do you also have a save before you capture Tureng Tepe?

Unfortunately, I do not.. I noticed the bug several turns after I had captured it, and by then my autosaves had disappeared.

 

[JDPElGrillo]

One thing I noticed in my last game as 3000 BC Monarch/Standard China.

When the Mongols spawned, I was shown the prompt about giving them Shenyang (at its usual location) or else risking troop defections. Previously I had always chosen to try and keep the city, but this time I picked the other option and gave the city to the Mongols to try it and see what would happen. When I did this, I noticed that the city kept its previous defenders and did not gain any new ones. As I had pulled most of its defenders out of the city a turn earlier to fight the Mongol's main keshik stack in the hills northwest of Beijing, this ended up being a single archer. As I had founded Beijing SW-SW of Shenyang, I was able to hit it with a 2-move lancer in the same turn, and that was that. I got the city back with barely any unrest and didn't have to deal with the periodic "units are defecting" effect from the alternative option of keeping the city. This doesn't seem to be intended behavior, because it seems clearly better to do it this way, as the Mongol spawn date is knowable in advance. Maybe it has something to do with being automatically at war with the Mongols? I remember that for some other new civs, there's a grace period before you're allowed to declare war on them.