-
Our friends from AlphaCentauri2.info are in need of technical assistance. If you have experience with the LAMP stack and some hours to spare, please help them out and post here.
Bug Reports and Technical Issues
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
To be clear, I'm not trying to gotcha you here. It's just that I have seen multiple people report situations with the explicit expectation to be safe against respawns above shaky, both for scenarios that were intended and those that weren't.
It's not as simple, in any case. First of all, the game determines all cities that can potentially flip. Those are usually those inside their respawn area (sometimes not coextensive with its core), but if it's from a collapse it is limited to the cities owned by the collapsing civilisation. Then, a rule is applied that comes closest to this belief: if you are unstable or worse, the AI will get all of those cities. If you are shaky, the AI will get the city that will become its capital, cities that are in the core of the respawning civ and not in the core of the owning civ, or cities that are colonies of the owning civ. If you are stable, the AI will still get the city that will become its capital only.
Another factor is that before anyone has discovered Nationalism, all those thresholds are lowered by one, so you are safer against respawns. Conversely, respawns that involve only AIs have those thresholds reduced by one, to make the world more dynamic.
This is not the final outcome, however. A respawn can still fail at this stage. If only succeeds if it includes at least two cities, OR all cities that are available to flip (i.e. if only one is possible, one is enough). But, once a civ has cleared this threshold, it will receive all other cities in the respawn area if it is able to flip all but two of them, regardless of the above limitations. This is mostly to avoid cultural bordergore and messy situations where the respawning civ has been controlled by multiple other civilisations. But it can mean that another civ that is nearby and susceptible to a respawn can wind up sweeping some cities you control into the respawn, even if they themselves would otherwise be safe.
So, it's a lot more complicated than a simple stability gate. Why is it that complicated? Experience has shown that respawns need some leeway to be successful, or otherwise they end up being semi-dead, nonfunctioning civs instead, which is not desirable.
The flipside is that the conditions are harder to understand. I see the appeal for an easily communicated catch-all condition, because you would be sure about whether you are safe, or not.
But first of all I would like to make sure that it's not the game documentation itself that reinforces this misconception. Might just be an urban legend that is reinforced on the forums instead, though. Still, not sure how to make this more transparent. Maybe it needs to be communicated more clearly after the fact at least? Maybe the messages should be "China has declared independence from your empire!" and "China has declared independence from the Mongol empire!" etc. to make clear who the weak link was, followed by "Your cities of X, Y, Z have joined China in their independence from Mongolia!" or something. That at least would make it clear that it's Mongol instability that caused this.
I do plan to give a bit more leeway to contesting these city flips, in the same way you can for initial city flips, when I rewrite civ spawns in the Rise and Fall rewrite, by making them share much of the same code and rules. That should make the whole thing less frustrating, regardless.
(I haven't actually looked into this particular case yet, though.)
It's not as simple, in any case. First of all, the game determines all cities that can potentially flip. Those are usually those inside their respawn area (sometimes not coextensive with its core), but if it's from a collapse it is limited to the cities owned by the collapsing civilisation. Then, a rule is applied that comes closest to this belief: if you are unstable or worse, the AI will get all of those cities. If you are shaky, the AI will get the city that will become its capital, cities that are in the core of the respawning civ and not in the core of the owning civ, or cities that are colonies of the owning civ. If you are stable, the AI will still get the city that will become its capital only.
Another factor is that before anyone has discovered Nationalism, all those thresholds are lowered by one, so you are safer against respawns. Conversely, respawns that involve only AIs have those thresholds reduced by one, to make the world more dynamic.
This is not the final outcome, however. A respawn can still fail at this stage. If only succeeds if it includes at least two cities, OR all cities that are available to flip (i.e. if only one is possible, one is enough). But, once a civ has cleared this threshold, it will receive all other cities in the respawn area if it is able to flip all but two of them, regardless of the above limitations. This is mostly to avoid cultural bordergore and messy situations where the respawning civ has been controlled by multiple other civilisations. But it can mean that another civ that is nearby and susceptible to a respawn can wind up sweeping some cities you control into the respawn, even if they themselves would otherwise be safe.
So, it's a lot more complicated than a simple stability gate. Why is it that complicated? Experience has shown that respawns need some leeway to be successful, or otherwise they end up being semi-dead, nonfunctioning civs instead, which is not desirable.
The flipside is that the conditions are harder to understand. I see the appeal for an easily communicated catch-all condition, because you would be sure about whether you are safe, or not.
But first of all I would like to make sure that it's not the game documentation itself that reinforces this misconception. Might just be an urban legend that is reinforced on the forums instead, though. Still, not sure how to make this more transparent. Maybe it needs to be communicated more clearly after the fact at least? Maybe the messages should be "China has declared independence from your empire!" and "China has declared independence from the Mongol empire!" etc. to make clear who the weak link was, followed by "Your cities of X, Y, Z have joined China in their independence from Mongolia!" or something. That at least would make it clear that it's Mongol instability that caused this.
I do plan to give a bit more leeway to contesting these city flips, in the same way you can for initial city flips, when I rewrite civ spawns in the Rise and Fall rewrite, by making them share much of the same code and rules. That should make the whole thing less frustrating, regardless.
(I haven't actually looked into this particular case yet, though.)
I'm having a hard time finding the reason for this. I have asked for help, but otherwise I will not further debug it considering the game is over and you lost by score.
So here it's the Dutch respawn (forgot that element when writing up the above essay). I guess the "capital spot even flips on stable" and "one city is enough to respawn if that is all the possible cities" rules kind of unfairly combine in those cases because it essentially means that civs like the Netherlands are always able to respawn on stable.
I will push a change that disables the "capital spot even flips on stable" rule if the potential capital is the only city.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Why so, what is the reasoning behind this being unfair? I would say the fairness (if you view it as that) lies in 'no civilisation can respawn if I am stable', not in 'no one-city civilisation can respawn if I am stable'. I.e. a blanke rule earlier posters were talking about (and to be sure, we are talking about respawns in specific, not historical spawns).
Because for respawns that include more than one city, you need at least two cities for the respawn to succeed. In other words, just being able to flip the capital (which is possible even at stable) is not enough in those cases, and the respawn fails, barring other factors. One city restarts are different because they always succeed on stable.
hnrysml
Warlord
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 273
I decided to play for the first time in a while, redownloading both the main installer and the recent patch. I installed with all modules and everything went without error including extracting and applying the patch, but when loading for the first time it didn't run bc there were a whole bunch of xml errors, the first of which i will link an image of. I will try reinstalling now in case there was some undetected error in that process but it seems like a problem with the corporation xmls not matching their schema according to the error message.
Edit: Reinstalling then running the full game with modules from the installer without applying the patch also resulted in this same xml error
Edit: Reinstalling then running the full game with modules from the installer without applying the patch also resulted in this same xml error
Attachments
Last edited:
Oh, I see. Will provide a fix soon. In the meantime, it should work as long as you do not install any modules.
By the way, you don't need to apply the patch after a fresh install. The installer is up to date with the latest code. I provide the patch only for people who already have the mod installed and don't want to download it again entirely.
By the way, you don't need to apply the patch after a fresh install. The installer is up to date with the latest code. I provide the patch only for people who already have the mod installed and don't want to download it again entirely.
I'm also trying to play again for the first time in a while, and I'm having the exact same error messages. The first time I installed the modules, but then I uninstalled CivIV BtS and reinstalled and installed DoC without modules, and got the same errors concerning the XML. I even tried downloading Dawn of Civilization Core instead of the other installer, and had the same problem. I get the error about Civ4CorporationInfo.xml, then an error the CORPORATION_TRADING_COMPANY in info class was incorrect, then messages that all the civic info classes are incorrect (e.g. CIVIC_MONASTICISM, CIVIC_DESPOTISM, CIVIC_CLERGY, etc.).
Last edited:
I tried again now, after uninstalling the mod and downloading the installer fresh from the link on the "Welcome to Dawn of Civilization" thread. I still get the same errors.
Here are some of the errors I get:
Here are some of the errors I get:
Attachments
Yes. Those are exactly the errors I fixed before I reuploaded the installer, and I did exactly the same steps when I tested it yesterday. Are you sure you are not using a cached installer?
Does anyone else still have the same error?
Does anyone else still have the same error?
hnrysml
Warlord
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 273
Sorry I haven't replied promptly about my experience with the error, but I went to install like you suggested without any modules, and have a notification saying that "Components exist" and all the modules are already installed on my computer. I find this strange as I have no duplicate copies of RFCDoC, and my understanding is that all files of relevant components should be entirely within the folder for the mod.
However, as you indicated the game loads perfectly now that i have installed it without any modules.
However, as you indicated the game loads perfectly now that i have installed it without any modules.
That happens with the Windows registry sometimes. That is, the registry believes the mod is installed when you have manually deleted it. You should be able to properly "uninstall" it using the installer or the uninstaller that comes with the mod directory, but it shouldn't make a difference.
Feel free to install the additional modules now, it should work with the latest installer.
Feel free to install the additional modules now, it should work with the latest installer.
stillblackadder
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2019
- Messages
- 88
For me the error is fixed, everything works with all modules. Thank you!
Thanks for confirming.
@Methodius I really don't want to shift this problem to you but I don't think I can help you right now.
@Methodius I really don't want to shift this problem to you but I don't think I can help you right now.
I tried again just now, and I got it to work. Apparently I had a copy of BtS in another folder in which I guess I installed DoC the first time and didn't realize, and then the game was running the mod from that folder and not the one in the steamapps folder. Sorry I confused the whole problem. I appreciate your help, though.
