Bug Reports and Technical Issues

[CivEnthusiast]

I cannot reproduce this from the save. Looking at the code, the latest year that Mongol conquerors should be able to spawn is 1500 AD. If you encounter this again, please include a save from the immediate turn before.

Just a theory, but perhaps this is the reason behind me never encountering the Mongol invaders event both as Ruthenia and Muscovy when I had the playthroughs. The Mongols in my games collapsed way before 1500 AD and never respawned throughout XVI Century, when, as claimed by that person, the Mongols respawned early and this is when the Eastern Europe invaders event likely gets triggered, somewhere in XVI Century

 

[mmh]

With new map, Spain doesn't get cores in Cordoba and Barcelona after Renaissance, as before. Is it intented?

 

[Aradziem]

Where is this national park? It's not a bonus from syncretism (I have that civic), because in Quart-hadasht It isn't displayed this way.

 

[Kott]

A field with very densely growing wheat is considered a national park.

 

[Hickman888]

Where is this national park? It's not a bonus from syncretism (I have that civic), because in Quart-hadasht It isn't displayed this way.
View attachment 707584

Merchant Trade gets +1 from Oasis in city vicinity; IIRC, that’s the text that gets used.

On that note, I had an idea the other day: What if Merchant Trade gets +1 from Cape in city vicinity?

 

[urbestfriend]

So I'm not sure how to describe this and I'm sorry if this sounds like a mess. And I'm pretty sure this has actually been a bug for a while, like since 1.16 at least.
But sometimes when a civ spawns or respawns and declares war on you at spawn, their leaderhead will pop up and give the generic peaceful first meeting text instead of "I declare war" text. From this menu, you can click "we'd like to discuss something else" and then "we'd like to make peace"
That takes you to a bugged version of the peace diplo menu with no options for trade on either side. From here you can alternate repeatedly clicking "would you accept this" and "let's stop this fighting" and they will eventually accept a peace treaty with nothing else changing hands.
I have no idea what causes this, I don't think it's reproducible even from an auto save and seems to be completely random.

 

[deadeye943]

For the 3rd Phonecian UHV goal, I believe that lakes in the interior of Africa are counted as part of the African coast. It is also possible to win a historical victory as Phonecia before Rome spawns, which I'm not sure was intended.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

Is the target location of the Khitan barbarians (which I believe represent the Qara Khitai) after the Jurchen spawn incorrect? In my game, they always target China rather than Central Asia. Although the Qara Khitai made attempts to recapture lost territories from Jurchen in history, I believe their first target should be the Seljuk empire(Although it could also be due to Turkic UP, I'm not sure)

 

[Leoreth]

What do you mean by target area? There is no scripting to direct barbarians into a particular direction.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

What do you mean by target area? There is no scripting to direct barbarians into a particular direction.

I'm not quite sure, but I seem to have found the corresponding code in minors.py
Barbarians(400, 900, {iHorseArcher: 3}, ((113, 55), (128, 62)), 9, INVADERS, target_area=((117, 46), (129, 59)), adjective="TXT_KEY_ADJECTIVE_KHITAN", promotions=(iDesertAdaptation, iSteppeAdaptation)),
Barbarians(900, 1200, {iKeshik: 2, iHorseArcher: 2}, ((105, 53), (119, 59)), 8, INVADERS, target_area=((117, 46), (129, 59)), adjective="TXT_KEY_ADJECTIVE_KHITAN", promotions=(iDesertAdaptation, iSteppeAdaptation), condition=is_free_of_civ(iTibet)),
The target areas of the two Khitan barbarians seem to be completely identical, which seems to prove my guess

 

[Leoreth]

I'm not quite sure, but I seem to have found the corresponding code in minors.py
Barbarians(400, 900, {iHorseArcher: 3}, ((113, 55), (128, 62)), 9, INVADERS, target_area=((117, 46), (129, 59)), adjective="TXT_KEY_ADJECTIVE_KHITAN", promotions=(iDesertAdaptation, iSteppeAdaptation)),
Barbarians(900, 1200, {iKeshik: 2, iHorseArcher: 2}, ((105, 53), (119, 59)), 8, INVADERS, target_area=((117, 46), (129, 59)), adjective="TXT_KEY_ADJECTIVE_KHITAN", promotions=(iDesertAdaptation, iSteppeAdaptation), condition=is_free_of_civ(iTibet)),
The target areas of the two Khitan barbarians seem to be completely identical, which seems to prove my guess

Why are you looking at the code?

 

[SOVNARKOM]

Why are you looking at the code?

Oh, sorry, I thought this was in the game file so it could be viewed. Is this prohibited?

 

[Leoreth]

It isn't, I am just trying to understand your feedback. It seems you are just looking at it and then making assumptions on what it means, and use that to give feedback to me. That's hard to follow, I would prefer feedback based on actual experiences in the game.

It's not bad to review my code, and people have pointed out errors or design flaws this way before. But then please actually look into the code and what it does instead of guessing based on the name, especially without giving context that this is what you are doing.

To explain what this actually does, the target area is part of the conditional spawning of barbarians. By default, barbarians only spawn if there are non-minor and non-barbarian cities in their spawn area. The purpose of this is to avoid needlessly spawning barbarians in areas that have either not been settled yet, or that have already collapsed into barbarians/independents, because those barbarians would either pointlessly roam around, or migrate to somewhere else on the map and cause unintended barbarian pressure there just because another civ collapsed in another part of the world.

The target area only exists for to allow this condition for barbarians whose spawns are outside of the areas they are supposed to end up attacking. For example, nomadic barbarians north of China generally spawn outside of areas that China usually settles but I still want their spawn to stop when China has collapsed. By defining China as their "target area" their spawn becomes conditional on the situation in China rather than the area they actually spawn in.

None of this has any impact on what barbarian units decide to attack once they have been spawned (I have looked into this btw, it is not easy to control or script). Barbarians whose spawn is conditional on China existing can still end up attacking e.g. the Middle East.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

It isn't, I am just trying to understand your feedback. It seems you are just looking at it and then making assumptions on what it means, and use that to give feedback to me. That's hard to follow, I would prefer feedback based on actual experiences in the game.

It's not bad to review my code, and people have pointed out errors or design flaws this way before. But then please actually look into the code and what it does instead of guessing based on the name, especially without giving context that this is what you are doing.

Sorry, I do lack understanding of the code's effects, but I also noticed in the actual game that the Khitan barbarians after the Jurchen would ignore the Seljuk Turks and turn to China. Now it seems more likely that this is due to the Turkie UP causing the barbarians to leave them in search of other targets.
However, considering the historical performance of Qara Khitai, I believe their target area may need to be changed to be related to Central Asia instead of China.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, due to the Turkic UP they will not be attacked by barbarians anyway, so it is kind of pointless to make barbarian spawns conditional on their existence.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

Yes, due to the Turkic UP they will not be attacked by barbarians anyway, so it is kind of pointless to make barbarian spawns conditional on their existence.

In that case, perhaps the target area of the Khitans during this period can be directly removed (although I still tend to make them pose the same threat to the Seljuks as history, but barbarians are allies and recruitable armies to the Turks, and the AI of independent city is too foolish,it seems that there is no good solution for this)

 

[AOS9001]

or migrate to somewhere else on the map and cause unintended barbarian pressure there just because another civ collapsed in another part of the world.

Good for historicity, I say. Raging barbarians option for DOC when?

 

[AOS9001]

Double posting with an actual bug(?) report. I was taking Arabia for a test run with the new modifiers. If you end the turn and decline to play as Iran, they will spawn with nothing, no cities, no units, no state religion, and will have a score of 0 on the scoreboard. The next turn, they will spawn a few militia and then flip their capital and get their starting units. I doubt this is intended behavior.

 

[Leoreth]

In that case, perhaps the target area of the Khitans during this period can be directly removed (although I still tend to make them pose the same threat to the Seljuks as history, but barbarians are allies and recruitable armies to the Turks, and the AI of independent city is too foolish,it seems that there is no good solution for this)

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve with this change.

 

[SOVNARKOM]

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve with this change.

Well, sorry, my idea is that since they were spawn in Central Asia, the situation in China seems meaningless to them (barbarians may target other civilizations,like Persia or Arabia,which maybe control central asia area)