Civ4 BTS v3.19 Patch

[peteraske]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but this was available in v3.17 too...

Dooh. Got all worked up back there :b

 

[stee]

Situations which invalidated Secretary General/AP Resident now force the next vote to be an election?

I don't get this one. BTW great patch

Lastly,

Terrain height no longer affects aerial recon missions

QQ

 

[Duuk]

Situations which invalidated Secretary General/AP Resident now force the next vote to be an election?

I don't get this one. BTW great patch

Lastly, QQ

If I'm reading that correctly, it would be:

You're the Resident of the AP and you change religions (or go Free Religion), thus invalidating you as resident. The next time one of the "Call What Vote?" question pops, it would instead have a new election.

Not sure when that would be the case for the UN

 

[stee]

Yeah I am more concerned about what the UN one means. A full description of this update with APO and UN would be nice.

 

[aaronlk]

Are the changes to barrage now make catapults (and other barrage assaulters) more powerful if you're attacking units that don't have drill?

(There was a long thread in the forum about how barrage bonuses weren't as large/effective as they claim, due to rounding and other issues. Eg. barrage + 100% was more like 50-70%.)

 

[Elkad]

Strange, I got an underpopup, and a 5-10 second page delay w/ "cams" before the civ screenshot displayed.

I got his pic direct the first time, but reloading got me a leading page with "hot girls in %inserttown%"

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Are the changes to barrage now make catapults (and other barrage assaulters) more powerful if you're attacking units that don't have drill?

(There was a long thread in the forum about how barrage bonuses weren't as large/effective as they claim, due to rounding and other issues. Eg. barrage + 100% was more like 50-70%.)

The Collateral Thread of Doom

No - the changes are entirely about the math when a unit with bonus damage attacks a unit with bonus defense.

 

[jdog5000]

Until 3.17 the AI never trades a SS tech, no matter how friendly they are with you ( "We rather win the game" , the thing they say when they lock on any other victory condition, like when we ask them to stop a war with them pursuing Dom )

In 3.19, there's a change so that a vassal is always willing to trade a tech with their master.

 

[lawnboy_civ]

Hi everyone,

I have the Steam version of Beyond the Sword and just patched to 3.19. I want to start a new Pitboss game, but upon running the "Civ4BeyondSword_PitBoss.exe", it just starts the normal game (Videos and then to Main Menu). On 3.17 this file started the Pitboss program, which then allowed me to proceed with a normal Pitboss game.

Is anyone else experiencing this issue after patching?

Thanks,

Lawnboy

 

[Lone Wolf]

In 3.19, there's a change so that a vassal is always willing to trade a tech with their master.

Really? So a vassal can't refuse to trade a tech because he hates you, or refuse to trade a monopoly tech, or WFYABTA you? That makes vassals much more useful.

 

[EmperorFool]

So a vassal can't refuse to trade a tech because he hates you, or refuse to trade a monopoly tech, or WFYABTA you? That makes vassals much more useful.

Indeed. I get so sick of gifting all the back techs to my new vassal in the hopes that they'll finally be willing to trade for their techs only to run out of techs to trade. Given that you can demand resources outright it makes sense that you can force them to trade techs for what they feel is a fair price.

 

[jdog5000]

Not to rain on the 3.19 parade, but in case anyone wants to put together a new unofficial patch (or official one!), here's a list of known bugs which remain in 3.19 which were found in the development of Better BTS AI or reported to me on that forum.

Fixes are marked with UNOFFICIAL_PATCH in BBAI source code, most have been tested and in use for months.

 

[Welnic]

Damn this installer. I just wanted to look at the source code without installing it yet but the installed doesn't ask me where to install itand goes right to the installation, and the cancel button doesn't work. So now if anything (mods etc.) is incompatible I'll have to uninstall all of BTS and reinstall.

Since I still need to run 3.17 for GOTM, I did a dual install so that I have both 3.17 and 3.19. I duplicated the Beyond the Sword folder in the Civ4 game folder, then duplicated the Beyond the Sword folder in Documents:My Games. Those two folders need to have the same name after duplication. Then I ran the installer which updates the original folder. Since I wanted the blessed version to be 3.17 so I can double click GOTM saves, I changed the duplicated folders back to Beyond the Sword and the original folders with 3.19 to Copy of Beyond the Sword. Make an alias to the executable in the 3.19 folder, change one the version's main menu screen so you know which is which without looking it up, and you're good to go.

 

[Pangur Bán]

This looks like making the game harder.

What, btw, does "Fixed cheat where you could apply a free tech from one game to another" refer to. Very curious!

 

[Tholish]

I can't compile the CvGameCoreDLL that comes with the new patch using Refar's instructions for 3.17 and a makefile which I made from his makefile for 3.17, except I added all the new files.

Whenever I try to compile I get complaints about not being able to find windows.h.

 

[~Bamboo~]

Just stopping in to say Thank you for not forgetting us.

Edit: or rather, continuing to support your fans!

 

[Snerk]

A BtS patch out of the blue. Does this mean we can dare hope for a CivRev patch too?

 

[keldath]

hi everyone,

ive made a makefile for 3.19,

ive tested it and it works (use only final release).



***edit - dont forget to change the sdk folder in the file.

 

[ori]

Situations which invalidated Secretary General/AP Resident now force the next vote to be an election?

I don't get this one. BTW great patch

Lastly, QQ

If I'm reading that correctly, it would be:

You're the Resident of the AP and you change religions (or go Free Religion), thus invalidating you as resident. The next time one of the "Call What Vote?" question pops, it would instead have a new election.

Not sure when that would be the case for the UN

The main situation where this occurred is this:
If a new member of the AP or UN emerges on the turn of a vote this breaks that vote. If this happens during a Resident/Sec General election that vote yields no winner and the next vote would only occur on the next scheduled election - essentially meaning that for the normal term of the Resident/Sec General the AP/UN was disabled.
New members for AP occur through religion spread on that turn - new members for both can occur through colony split on that turn.
If I understand this correctly the vote on that turn is still broken (yields no result) - but you only have to wait until the next scheduled vote and not until the next scheduled election.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Going over the patch notes again, I just noticed this one:

Sea patrolling ships no longer attack if they have less than 50% chance of winning the battle

I do know why a change to the patrolling ships attacking was needed. There were some problems with it so that the patrolling ships would attack would-be pillagers in cases where the patrolling ships had virtually no chance of victory and there were further problems with ships repeatedly pillaging and thus repeatedly causing the patrolling ships to intercept.

This change in the patch seems to want to fix the issue where patrolling ships intercept in cases where there is a low chance of victory. However, it will make the patrol order not something that you can rely on: if the pillager arrives with a slightly stronger ship (2+ frigates patrolling some seafood resources while the pillager is a combat 1 frigate), then the patrolling ships will just allow the pillager to pillage the area.

So while this makes the patrolling ships less suicidal, it does result in a patrol function that doesn't protect the resources securely. Note that it is hard to come up with a perfect solution for the patrol function because when you give this order, then you're essentially ordering the units to do something in unknown future circumstances.

I think I would have preferred a chance to intercept for combat-odds lower than 50%, maybe something like odds to intercept = 2 * odds to win. Not perfect, but at least it would make it a chancy business to pillage an area where slightly weaker ships are patrolling.