Bug Reports and Technical Issues

Small observation on ancient civ city placement
I've noticed in recent games the Greeks, Carthaginians and Romans to some extent have gotten worse at settling cities.
Before, Greece usually settled Sparta consistently, but now they've taken a liking to also settling Knossos, which only serves to weaken Athens and even Tyros, as well as prevents the Romans from completely killing Greece. Sparta also often doesn't disappear as the Greeks tend to build wonders there. They also inconsistently settle Byzantium and a city in Epirus, which would be historical and serve to strengthen the Greeks a bit.
My concern with Carthage is they consistently settle Carthage on the stone in North Africa, which is not only suboptimal but also prevents the Phoenician core and capital from shifting to North Africa.
Rome was never great at settling cities and the main concern is their love of crap cities in France and North Italy.
Babylon also seems to survive Persia and even Greece a lot, I think it has to do with their tendency to build many north of Babylon, along with the weakness of the Persian army against the horde of Bowmen Babylon has.
One thing I noticed is Egypt and Persia now settle much better cities, so kudos to that!
Also could the spawn of Angola be moved to the north or south? I'm only asking because it appears on top of the Uranium.
Another note: Babylon still builds the Oracle way too often. maybe discourage Babylon from researching priesthood and instead encourage Greece to do so? What usually happens is either Babylon builds the oracle or it isn't built until after Rome spawns (usually by Rome), when Greece should have it by then.
Sorry for this long post haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I also noticed Carthage built on the stone when I last tried Rome, it made me reroll the start.

 

Sparta is in fact good city spot, two food resources, marble, hill. If Greece found Knossos Romans should spawn in Crete. I have seen Carthage on stone only once. Increase settler cost for Babylonians is one way to nerf them.
Make oracle require fish or coastal access. Historically speaking oracle started to be famous for navigation reasons, and the travelers used sea to see the seers.

 

What I'm seeing way too much is an Achaemenid Empire that doesn't die. Greece won't vanquish it, Rome can't do a thing about it, and Byzantines get massacred by it. Yesterday I saw an Achaemenid empire that lasted until Seljuk spawn that had captured Constantinople and Apollonia and was starting to kill Arabia, having taken back the Levant and Mesopotamia when the Seljuks spawned.

Needless to say, this is... somewhat problematic.

 

This is intentional. We want Persia alive. the only problem is the name. It should "Sassanid Empire" in medieval era. Maybe Arabia should recieve more camel Archers, if Persia is alive, due to elephants. (Or remove elephant from persia, persian army isn't known for its elephants anyway).

 

the game crash turn 318 in latest svn when playing with italian civ

 

Well, this is not exactly for Leoreth...some days ago i posted about a bug that make my cores disappear, i discover the problem, its caused by the EDCN mod, something in the modmod of course, but obviously i don't know what, so Hippo, if you read this...

And Leoreth, a lot of time without play doc, but when i played again i feel that thing who make us love you

 

Last night on a Carthaginian game I found that I couldn't build any settlers in Rome or in (forgot the name, city on Sardinia, south of the sheep). Is this supposed to be like this?

 

You can't build settler on a different continent until Astronomy. (Excepion for the Moors, which can build settlers in Europe and North Africa)

 

What counts as a continent then? Because on that same game, having my capital at Carthage, I was able to build settlers in Barcino (which would be in Europe with Rome) and in Cyprus (an island, like Sardinia).

 

What purpose do the continents serve?

 

I see the point of the continents in restricting settler availability (and remember when you guys said that it would prevent colonial civs to build settlers in the colonies too early in the game), but, all the Mediterranean civs should be able to build settlers on both (all three? is Asia a side?) sides of the Mediterranean (and all islands in it). The Mediterranean was never a dividing body of water the way the Atlantic or the Pacific were

In any case, I still don't get why no settlers in Rome while I was able to make them in Barcelona?

 

A couple of issues I've uncovered:

1: The Byzantine Core never shrinks when controlled by a human player. I've tried dropping to 4 cities (which is, last time I checked, the trigger for the shrink), I've tried losing Constantinople, and I've tried losing everything except Constantinople, but the Core always remained constant.

2: A couple more tiles that are flagged as Foreign when they should probably be Historical. This time, it regards the section of Indonesia that becomes Historical for Japan when the Japanese reach the Industrial era:
-The two northernmost settlable tiles on the island Pontianak is located on (the rest of the island is Historical
-The northwest and southwest corners of the island Makassar is on (the rest of the island is Historical)
-The tile Ambon is founded on in the 1700 scenario (the square just south of it is Historical)

 

I came across 2 very random settler map issues, thought I'd mention them quick since they are historical tiles.
-England has no defined city name for the southernmost tile in Ireland
-Italy has no defined city name for Cyprus

 

this spy is definitely ninja. he can fight and intercept aircraft.

 

Tibet needs a soviet vassal name. It becomes my soviet vassal quite often.

Speaking of soviet vassals they should be "X Soviet Socialist Republic" instead of "Soviet X"

And I propose that communist Russia is called "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" if it controls no vassal and become USSR only when it has at least one vassal.