Community Patch - How To Install

[crushboss]

I got a couple of questions regarding the current state of VP. My last games on the recent patch (as of yesterday from this post) had some weird gamebreaking issues for me and I wonder if that is intended or not.
a) AIs will >peacefully< become vassals of another AI even though they are ~equal in almost all categories (military, science, #cities, etc.. ). That has completely ruined two of my games already, since the faction was then way too strong and steamrolled all remaining AIs.
b) Does the player get warmonger points for AIs declaring war on him? In my most recent game my warmonger score keeps snowballing up since two AIs declared on me early on and I took one(!) city of one of them. Now AIs just keep declaring war on me and I sit on ~250warmonger score with some of them, north of 90 with all. I mean.. wth?

This kind of irrational behavior seems wildly broken to me and is no fun to play with at all.

Cheers,
R.

I can confirm the issues with the Vassalage system. I have seen the AI become a vassal to another AI civ very early in the game for no apparent reason. In the Advanced Setup options for a new game you can disable Vassalage. This is what I am doing in all of my games.

The warmonger system is unfortunately a poor design choice by the authors of the game in the way it was implemented. You get war declared on you and then you are penalized for attacking and taking their cities. In my opinion there should be no penalty unless you were the civ to declare war. It would require a major change in game design to fix this so I don't expect this mod to address this issue directly.

 

[vyyt]

The warmonger system is unfortunately a poor design choice by the authors of the game in the way it was implemented. You get war declared on you and then you are penalized for attacking and taking their cities.

Unless something has changed in the very latest version, what you are describing should not be happening. I conquer left and right and rarely get into a situation when everyone would hate me for warmongering. They get concerned after I gobble up a whole civ too quickly, but these concerns decline in time. Have you played enough or was it just a one time experience? If I remember well, what you are describing was how the vanilla Civ worked, no?

And by the way, the authors are the community in this forum, not just 2-3 guys, so the game mechanics are usually well tested and well thought through.

 

[crushboss]

Unless something has changed in the very latest version, what you are describing should not be happening. I conquer left and right and rarely get into a situation when everyone would hate me for warmongering. They get concerned after I gobble up a whole civ too quickly, but these concerns decline in time. Have you played enough or was it just a one time experience? If I remember well, what you are describing was how the vanilla Civ worked, no?

And by the way, the authors are the community in this forum, not just 2-3 guys, so the game mechanics are usually well tested and well thought through.

I believe you are confused. When I say, "the authors of this game" I'm referring to the Civ 5 authors not the Vox Populi authors. Multitudes of players have complained about the Civ 5 warmongering penalties and the AIs willingness to declare war so easily.

What I said was correct. The player does get penalized if they attack a civ that declared war on them. There should be no penalty as the civ who declared war gets what they deserve. In real life if a country declares war on you, you just don't sit back and defend and never attack. This is a poor design choice in my opinion (many civ 5 players agree with me).

I've played Civ 5 for hundreds of hours so I'm not a noob. I've actually rebalanced diplomacy in civ 5 in my game. The core design flaw is still there, I just greatly lessened it's impact. If I feel ambitious I may create a mod with the changes.

 

[ashendashin]

I believe you are confused. When I say, "the authors of this game" I'm referring to the Civ 5 authors not the Vox Populi authors. Multitudes of players have complained about the Civ 5 warmongering penalties and the AIs willingness to declare war so easily.

What I said was correct. The player does get penalized if they attack a civ that declared war on them. There should be no penalty as the civ who declared war gets what they deserve. In real life if a country declares war on you, you just don't sit back and defend and never attack. This is a poor design choice in my opinion (many civ 5 players agree with me).

I've played Civ 5 for hundreds of hours so I'm not a noob. I've actually rebalanced diplomacy in civ 5 in my game. The core design flaw is still there, I just greatly lessened it's impact. If I feel ambitious I may create a mod with the changes.

The penalty is only relevant when you're a threat though. Successful attacks is announcing yourself as a strong military power, so it doesn't matter who attacked first at that point. Taking a few cities is usually just a blip on the warmongering radar, but wiping out several civs is obviously serving a good deal more than justice. Every city that you take puts your successful self closer to everyone else, so a penalty is absolutely necessary. The current one allows a good deal of expansion before any more than the most peace loving civs will take noticeable action, so I don't see the issue. It's smaller if you're not declaring war on everyone left and right after all. I've gone plenty of times with everyone loving me after some successful counter attacks. Diplomacy is just as important for warmongers, regardless of the penalty. No penalty only trivializes success.

 

[crushboss]

The penalty is only relevant when you're a threat though. Successful attacks is announcing yourself as a strong military power, so it doesn't matter who attacked first at that point. Taking a few cities is usually just a blip on the warmongering radar, but wiping out several civs is obviously serving a good deal more than justice. Every city that you take puts your successful self closer to everyone else, so a penalty is absolutely necessary. The current one allows a good deal of expansion before any more than the most peace loving civs will take noticeable action, so I don't see the issue. It's smaller if you're not declaring war on everyone left and right after all. I've gone plenty of times with everyone loving me after some successful counter attacks. Diplomacy is just as important for warmongers, regardless of the penalty. No penalty only trivializes success.

We just have a different perspective which is fine. The problem is the penalties add up and add up fast. With the current civ 5 implementation, it is impossible to complete a game without a least one civ declaring war on the players (usually more). Playing the diplomat role in the game is off the table (war will happen and you will be involved). The player is penalized for lots of things but the warmongering penalty is pretty steep. I looked at the code and warmongering is in the top 3 for penalties in civ 5. You have to attack a city state they are protecting or capture their capital to get a worse penalty.

I tested a game with optimal conditions and tried to play the diplomat role and hand picked all Coalition and Diplomat personality civs and still ended up with 4 civs declaring war on me towards the end of the game. The player is penalized for just about everything, including: borders, expansion, warmongering, army strength, victory conditions, wonders, city states, voting against their proposals, differing policies, demands, capturing units and cities, culture, spreading religion, promises, spying, digging, denouncing, war, war with friends, reckless expander, culture bombing, nuking, being neighbors, aggressive military posture, plot buying, economic strength, land dispute, etc. Granted, most of these penalties are valid, it is just impossible to maintain lasting friendships throughout the whole game, start to finish.

Both of our opinions are valid, we just see things differently.

 

[ashendashin]

We just have a different perspective which is fine. The problem is the penalties add up and add up fast. With the current civ 5 implementation, it is impossible to complete a game without a least one civ declaring war on the players (usually more). Playing the diplomat role in the game is off the table (war will happen and you will be involved). The player is penalized for lots of things but the warmongering penalty is pretty steep. I looked at the code and warmongering is in the top 3 for penalties in civ 5. You have to attack a city state they are protecting or capture their capital to get a worse penalty.

I tested a game with optimal conditions and tried to play the diplomat role and hand picked all Coalition and Diplomat personality civs and still ended up with 4 civs declaring war on me towards the end of the game. The player is penalized for just about everything, including: borders, expansion, warmongering, army strength, victory conditions, wonders, city states, voting against their proposals, differing policies, demands, capturing units and cities, culture, spreading religion, promises, spying, digging, denouncing, war, war with friends, reckless expander, culture bombing, nuking, being neighbors, aggressive military posture, plot buying, economic strength, land dispute, etc. Granted, most of these penalties are valid, it is just impossible to maintain lasting friendships throughout the whole game, start to finish.

Both of our opinions are valid, we just see things differently.

I don't see how the game could work otherwise... There isn't anything to support that sort of play, since all acquisitions are almost entirely limited to individual civs. The only way to consider it a core design flaw is if you disagree that war should be represented throughout millennia, or maybe if the current victory conditions and wide vs tall mechanics are too poor.

 

[Gazebo]

I believe you are confused. When I say, "the authors of this game" I'm referring to the Civ 5 authors not the Vox Populi authors. Multitudes of players have complained about the Civ 5 warmongering penalties and the AIs willingness to declare war so easily.

What I said was correct. The player does get penalized if they attack a civ that declared war on them. There should be no penalty as the civ who declared war gets what they deserve. In real life if a country declares war on you, you just don't sit back and defend and never attack. This is a poor design choice in my opinion (many civ 5 players agree with me).

I've played Civ 5 for hundreds of hours so I'm not a noob. I've actually rebalanced diplomacy in civ 5 in my game. The core design flaw is still there, I just greatly lessened it's impact. If I feel ambitious I may create a mod with the changes.

1914. Germany invades Belgium. Secret Belgian army defeats German army, marches into Germany and proceeds to raze all German Cities to the ground and claims Berlin for Belgium. Rest of world doesn't care at all?

G

 

[crushboss]

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/756x680q90/922/LGWYSa.jpg
Red civ complains about my aggressive posture?

They think I'm preparing to attack them or something.

 

[crushboss]

Where can I find a list of all the WHoward's Pick'N'Mix Mods that are included with Vox Populi?

I downloaded several from his site and don't want to duplicate mods. Also, are you using his DLL as a base and adding to it or is the DLL in Vox Populi not compatible with his mods that require it?

Thank you!

 

[Jordan Benjamin]

Where can I find a changelog for 8/23?

 

[Sundance Kid]

Where can I find a changelog for 8/23?

Here it is: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-august-23rd-8-23.621571/
Next time just search "new version" in the forum search. The newest thread should be at the top.

 

[Soupy Delicious]

Right. This is one of the biggest complaints I hear in regards to civ 5 in general, the warmongering business. Basically culminating in a bunch of kids thinking that its perfectly chill to kill a person because he socked you in the mouth.

 

[DeityJ]

I have tried a fresh install but still can't get this to work without crashing. I have nothing else installed for mods and I used the auto installer. The mods in the list are 1-5 and 6c (43 civ). I noticed the UI looks different on whether 6c is checked or not. It shows how many units the civ can support at the top if 6c is checked. I have tried playing with 1-5 enabled with and without 6c checked. Still crashes the same at various times in the game.

I don't know how to post an error log for someone to check. Can you instruct me how to do that?

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I was thinking about the /LUA folder deletion step in the steps to get CBO running, and was wondering if there could be a programmatic solution.

Lua scripts are added with an overwrite to anything with the same file name, right? So couldn't the CP put one Lua file that has an include() of all the other CP Lua files, to have the same behaviour on its own, and then the CBO could have a Lua file that overwrites the CP one and replaces it with nullity?

Something that doesn't work here? Or is a civ5mod not that convenient?

 

[Gazebo]

I was thinking about the /LUA folder deletion step in the steps to get CBO running, and was wondering if there could be a programmatic solution.

Lua scripts are added with an overwrite to anything with the same file name, right? So couldn't the CP put one Lua file that has an include() of all the other CP Lua files, to have the same behaviour on its own, and then the CBO could have a Lua file that overwrites the CP one and replaces it with nullity?

Something that doesn't work here? Or is a civ5mod not that convenient?

LUA overwrites based on the most recent mod put in the folder. Not reliable.

 

[DeityJ]

I did another fresh install and played the non-EUI version...which is painful...but it didn't seem to have any errors. When you use the auto installer do you still have to delete the .lua? The directions allude to only doing that if you are checking all the mods.

 

[vyyt]

I did another fresh install and played the non-EUI version...which is painful...but it didn't seem to have any errors. When you use the auto installer do you still have to delete the .lua? The directions allude to only doing that if you are checking all the mods.

1) If you use the autoinstaller, you don't need to delete anything - it is done automatically. Just install and play.

2) I don't play with EUI myself, but from what you are describing, I gather that you have Steam in a non-standard folder/drive and the autoinstaller installs EUI in the standard one (which is non-existent, so it creates the new standard folder structure for it), but the game is looking for it in your non-standard one. What you have to do is copy the EUI from the wrong standard folder to the correct non-standard one. I am on my cell, but the standard structure is something like this: C:/Program Files (x86)/steamapps/common/... Civ5/... DLC/bc_ui_1

(the bc_ui_1 is EUI)

 

[Jordan Benjamin]

I'm experiencing 2 issues in game which I don't suspect are bugs but rather suboptimal configuration on my side; perhaps someone could help.

The mausoleum of haulicar... Isn't giving the 100 gold bonus when I use a great person and I'm not getting a free settler in the progress branch as it says although I have read that progress no longer grants a settler so I guess the text is messed up here. Anyone know whats going on?

 

[crushboss]

I have tried a fresh install but still can't get this to work without crashing. I have nothing else installed for mods and I used the auto installer. The mods in the list are 1-5 and 6c (43 civ). I noticed the UI looks different on whether 6c is checked or not. It shows how many units the civ can support at the top if 6c is checked. I have tried playing with 1-5 enabled with and without 6c checked. Still crashes the same at various times in the game.

I don't know how to post an error log for someone to check. Can you instruct me how to do that?

The last version didn't work for me either. There were some bugs in the DLL that caused me to CTD. The new version released a few days ago resolved the issue for me. I'm now using the latest version without problems.

 

[RichardB]

Constructing a citadel does not raise the supply cap in my game.

Also, is it intended that my empire can barely support an army a little bigger than a garrison per city? Puppeted cities do not seem to prioritze buildings generating unit supply, even if the empire is clearly lacking them and suffering a non-negligible penalty from it!..