Bug Reports - Post Here!
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
It is intended, actually. I set it that way to test the mechanic, and left it because I forgot about it. 
G
G
Ooh that's a good point, Funak Stalker, are you turning off support for CivIV Diplomacy in the options.sql file? That will really mess stuff up (if you aren't turning them off).
G
It is intended, actually. I set it that way to test the mechanic, and left it because I forgot about it.
G
So it wasn't a bug, but it was still something I should have reported? =D
I guess I'm going to notice this as the game goes on, but how is the extra gold on traderoutes from tourism scaled? 1(3), 2, 3, 4?
Edit: Actually pretty cool, it started of at +3gold at exotic, going to +2 at familiar, +1 at popular all the way to +0 at influential. Guess Tourism was bad for your traderoutes after all =D
Yep. My initial test was "hey, wouldn't it be cool if 'exotic' trade routes were worth more, as the goods being sold are more rare?" This punishes continued tourism, though, so I intended to change it but failed to do so.
Is the trade route tooltip working correctly?
G
Is the trade route tooltip working correctly?
G
The traderoute tooltip is working correctly, the Tourism screen tooltip is working correctly for every state except exotic(for some reason)
There's no existing 'drop' for exotic (as bonuses in vanilla start after exotic), so I'd have to add one if we want/need it.
G
I don't see a reason why you shouldn't. Even if the bonus is minimal, progress is progress.
Well, it depends on whether or not we want exotic to have a bonus AND it is yet one more modified LUA file. I'll hold off for now, until we see how tourism pans out.
G
G
Alright I may have had a breakthrough!
I tried the game with Civ IV diplomacy on. And I went for the gusto, played Ghandi vs every war civ in the game!
I got next to Monte too. I wound up killing every military unit I had, making me the most tempting target in the history of man.
It still took him till turn 167, but he finally pulled the trigger!
I still consider that pretty damn passive considering how vulnerable I was, but its better than what I have seen in every other game.
I will keep the Civ IV diplomacy on for my next test games and see if I see an uptick in aggression.
I tried the game with Civ IV diplomacy on. And I went for the gusto, played Ghandi vs every war civ in the game!
I got next to Monte too. I wound up killing every military unit I had, making me the most tempting target in the history of man.
It still took him till turn 167, but he finally pulled the trigger!
I still consider that pretty damn passive considering how vulnerable I was, but its better than what I have seen in every other game.
I will keep the Civ IV diplomacy on for my next test games and see if I see an uptick in aggression.
That's better, at least.
Do you keep your logs running when you play normally? I ask because, if I recall correctly, one of the logs records AI approaches towards other civs. The problem seems to lie in one of the three categories:
1.) The AI isn't registering threats/insults/negative modifiers correctly, and thus never enters a 'war stance' (or only in extreme circumstances).
2.) The AI is picking out players as threats, but isn't able to resolve a clear target (thus it can never pull the trigger).
3.) The AI is picking out players as threats, but doesn't think it can win the war (when it most likely can, due to differences in manpower).
If you see or notice anything related to these elements in your gameplay and/or logs, that's probably where I need to look.
G
Do you keep your logs running when you play normally? I ask because, if I recall correctly, one of the logs records AI approaches towards other civs. The problem seems to lie in one of the three categories:
1.) The AI isn't registering threats/insults/negative modifiers correctly, and thus never enters a 'war stance' (or only in extreme circumstances).
2.) The AI is picking out players as threats, but isn't able to resolve a clear target (thus it can never pull the trigger).
3.) The AI is picking out players as threats, but doesn't think it can win the war (when it most likely can, due to differences in manpower).
If you see or notice anything related to these elements in your gameplay and/or logs, that's probably where I need to look.
G
That's better, at least.
Do you keep your logs running when you play normally? I ask because, if I recall correctly, one of the logs records AI approaches towards other civs. The problem seems to lie in one of the three categories:
I don't normally change any defaults, so if those logs normally run I would imagine they are there. What log should I be looking at?
The AI is random aswell, you might have just lucked out with monty randomly rolling a lower agression value, or decided upon meeting you that you are his BFF (have seen that happen before and it's hilarious)
Anyone? Please?
I looked at the crashdump and forgot to report back. It looked like a pathfinding error, probably just one of the crashes that can happen in vanilla if there's a conflict of pathing or a unit repeatedly tries to path to the same area. Unfortunately there's not much I can do about that.
G
G
So, I think I've got the warmonger bugs worked out. Here's my proof:
and
Here's to hoping!
G
and
Here's to hoping!
G
What did you find...was it something to do with my lack of Civ IV diplomacy?
No per the changelog, I adjusted a few Army muster and target functions that had a high failure rate. If the AI can't organize an army to attack, it won't declare war. That, I think, fixed the 'lack of aggression.' More testing needed, obviously, but the evidence above is pretty clear.
G
G
Just updated to the latest version, getting a CTD the second I hit the build city on my first building. I was using classical era start.
MiniDMP log is attached.
Update: Confirmed the bug two more times with other races, and with ancient starts as well.
MiniDMP log is attached.
Update: Confirmed the bug two more times with other races, and with ancient starts as well.
- Status
Similar threads
