Loggi was ennabled, but as I started another game (Normal branch) asap, they are lost. If I see the error again I send the log immidietly. But the problem may be fixed as I used an outdated version.
That's likely. I also checked the improvement pillage code and it worked as intended, so that should also be fixed once you update.
To resolve your issue, it is probably easiest to switch to develop again, then follow this guide to delete the turks branch and afterwards run fetch again and switch back to the restored turks branch.
And it was fun! The first goal is the most challenging, but doable if you don't focus too much on conquering. The second goal is also tight; I managed it only on the deadline (and I wasn't sure that Dunhuang counted as "China"; I'm glad it did because I don't think it's feasible to conquer a core Chinese city). The last goal is easier, but requires some planning, so it's good.
I understand that the Mongol invasions aren't scripted yet against the Turks? I suppose it would make the last goal harder, but not that much. Anyway I won just a few turns after the Mongol spawn.
Bug reports: At 720 AD there is a "first check":
Spoiler:
There's also a "second check" later but I forget which date/turn.
I also got a capital-related python exception on the turns of the UHV deadlines (900 and 1100 AD). Here's the log:
Spoiler:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "BugEventManager", line 400, in _handleDefaultEvent
File "CvRFCEventHandler", line 614, in onBeginPlayerTurn
File "Victory", line 767, in checkTurn
AttributeError: GameData instance has no attribute 'tTurkicCapitals'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "BugEventManager", line 400, in _handleDefaultEvent
File "CvRFCEventHandler", line 614, in onBeginPlayerTurn
File "Victory", line 771, in checkTurn
AttributeError: GameData instance has no attribute 'tTurkicCapitals'
I think a scripted respawn c. 1500 as the Shaybanids would be good, as it would make the Iranian UHV more challenging and symmetrical. (As you would have to wage war against 3 civs for the expansion goal, instead of 2 civs and the indies)
And it was fun! The first goal is the most challenging, but doable if you don't focus too much on conquering. The second goal is also tight; I managed it only on the deadline (and I wasn't sure that Dunhuang counted as "China"; I'm glad it did because I don't think it's feasible to conquer a core Chinese city). The last goal is easier, but requires some planning, so it's good.
I understand that the Mongol invasions aren't scripted yet against the Turks? I suppose it would make the last goal harder, but not that much. Anyway I won just a few turns after the Mongol spawn.
There's also a "second check" later but I forget which date/turn.
I also got a capital-related python exception on the turns of the UHV deadlines (900 and 1100 AD). Here's the log:
Spoiler:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "BugEventManager", line 400, in _handleDefaultEvent
File "CvRFCEventHandler", line 614, in onBeginPlayerTurn
File "Victory", line 767, in checkTurn
AttributeError: GameData instance has no attribute 'tTurkicCapitals'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "BugEventManager", line 400, in _handleDefaultEvent
File "CvRFCEventHandler", line 614, in onBeginPlayerTurn
File "Victory", line 771, in checkTurn
AttributeError: GameData instance has no attribute 'tTurkicCapitals'
Nice! Noted the errors and leftover debug messages.
Some comments:
- Dunhuang does not count as China, but you do not have to control the city where the Silk Route originates.
- Mongol conquerors aren't in yet, that's right.
- Sounds like the third goal could be more challenging, you have apparently met all subgoals long before the deadline. I guess bumping the required levels one each would be way too hard?
Ah, I see. But then does the Mediterranean port has to be controlled by the Turks as well?
- Mongol conquerors aren't in yet, that's right.
- Sounds like the third goal could be more challenging, you have apparently met all subgoals long before the deadline. I guess bumping the required levels one each would be way too hard?
The first subgoal (100 culture) is trivial. The second (1000 culture) was more challenging, I got it only 1 or 2 turns before the deadline because I didn't want to use a Great Artist. The last subgoal (5000 culture) was easy because I used 2 Great Artists.
Bumping the required levels would most probably make the UHV infeasible (especially since the next level after 5000 is 50,000, right?). Generally I think the difficulty level is about right as is. In any case, wait until the Mongol invasions are fully operational before changing anything.
The first subgoal (100 culture) is trivial. The second (1000 culture) was more challenging, I got it only 1 or 2 turns before the deadline because I didn't want to use a Great Artist. The last subgoal (5000 culture) was easy because I used 2 Great Artists.
Bumping the required levels would most probably make the UHV infeasible (especially since the next level after 5000 is 50,000, right?). Generally I think the difficulty level is about right as is. In any case, wait until the Mongol invasions are fully operational before changing anything.
I feel like I'm constantly nitpicking language But the wording of the UHV does not convey the fact that you need to control the Mediterranean port but not the Chinese city.
Reworded:
- The Silk Route: Create an overland trade connection between a Mediterranean port under your control and any city in China, and control 10 cities with the Silk Route, by 1100 AD
Do you also need to control every road tile between the Mediterranean and China? Or is it fine if the road passes through e.g. Arab territory with open borders? For that matter, does the player need to be at peace or have open borders with China?
No, the whole route needs to be controlled, either by the Turks or whoever controls the starting city in China.
It's fine that you nitpick the wording, I usually put it together very quickly or change the underlying rules without updating it. I'll consider your suggestion.
New update:
- added Bumin and Tamerlane LHs
- added basic dynamic names
- added Dawn of Man text
- displayed UHV areas in tile tooltip
- removed debug output
- clarified wording of second UHV goal
Maybe Moghulistan as a Mongol vassal?
(Speaking of the Mongols, they have Timurid Empire as a name when their capital is in Persia or when they're Muslim with a capital in Central Asia. If the Turks represent the Timurids, then the Mongol names should be changed. Let Chagatai Khanate cover Central Asia even when they're Muslim, and put Ilkhanate as a name for them in Persia. "Ilkhanate of X" is used for several civilizations X when they're vassal of Mongolia, but that's not a big deal I think.)
Various names for the region around Samarkand can be found here:
- Transoxiana (Greek/Roman)
- Mā warāʼ an-Nahr or Bilād al-Turk (Arab)
- Turan or Fararud or Sogdiana (Persian)
So we can make up things like "Satrapy of Turan" or "Province of Transoxiana" if we can't find names of actual polities.
Also, are you going to add some Renaissance/Industrial/Modern names? E.g. Khanate of Bukhara, Emirate of Bukhara, Republic of Uzbekistan, etc.
Lastly, I was looking at the DynamicCivs files and I think there's a mistake in this bit of code (should be Khazaria coordinates, not Anatolia):
Code:
if utils.isPlotInArea(tCapitalCoords, tAnatoliaTL, tAnatoliaBR):
return "TXT_KEY_CIV_TURKS_KHAZARIA"
Vassal of China: Tributary Tujue State (could also have Anbei Protectorate aka Protectorate General to Pacify the North, but that's inconsistent with other Chinese vassal names)
Vassal of Communist China: Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (maybe)
Vassal of Persia: Fifteenth Satrapy (replacing the old Persian Mongolia vassal name)
Vassal of Rome: Province of Scythia
Vassal of Tibet: Khrom of Liyul
Vassal of Fascist Germany: Reichskommissariat Turkestan
Vassal of Russia: Turkestan Krai
Vassal of Communist Russia, capital in west Central Asia: Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
Vassal of Communist Russia, capital in east Central Asia: Uyghur Soviet Socialist Republic or East Turkestan (Soviet Socialist?) Republic
Vassal of Communist Russia, capital in Persia: Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic
Vassal of China: Tributary Tujue State (could also have Anbei Protectorate aka Protectorate General to Pacify the North, but that's inconsistent with other Chinese vassal names)
I personally think that the Chinese vassal names are rather lame at the moment with their uniform "Tributary State" style, so I would advocate moving away from consistency. And the Tang dynasty really did have these badass-sounding vassal names, so I would make it:
- Turks: Protectorate General to Pacify the West
- Korea: Protectorate General to Pacify the East
- Mongolia: Protectorate General to Pacify the North (although this is anachronistic since Mongolia spawns later than the Tang dynasty)
- (if Vietnam is added: Protectorate General to Pacify the South)
They could also be respectively Anxi, Andong, Anbei, and Annan, but these names are literally Chinese for "Pacify the West/East/North/South". The English names sound cooler.
Vassal of Persia: Fifteenth Satrapy (replacing the old Persian Mongolia vassal name)
I personally think that the Chinese vassal names are rather lame at the moment with their uniform "Tributary State" style, so I would advocate moving away from consistency. And the Tang dynasty really did have these badass-sounding vassal names, so I would make it:
- Turks: Protectorate General to Pacify the West
- Korea: Protectorate General to Pacify the East
- Mongolia: Protectorate General to Pacify the North (although this is anachronistic since Mongolia spawns later than the Tang dynasty)
- (if Vietnam is added: Protectorate General to Pacify the South)
They could also be respectively Anxi, Andong, Anbei, and Annan, but these names are literally Chinese for "Pacify the West/East/North/South". The English names sound cooler.
Well, I chose Anbei instead of Andong because the Anbei Protectorate was formed directly out of the destroyed Eastern Turkic Khaganate, so it seems to make more sense thematically. Of course Mongolia is also a great geographical fit, but that's to be expected given that they practically covered the same areas anyway. The other reason I preferred it is because the Tarim Basin wasn't Uyghur/Turkic (rather Saka/Eastern Iranian) when the Anxi Protectorate existed; obviously that's not a deal breaker if we look at the current standard of dynamic names, but I thought it would be better to have an ethnically appropriate name. If Leoreth does end up going this way Mongolia could get the Chanyu Protectorate name instead; Anxi Protectorate is probably better for if/when the Kushans/eastern Iranians are added, IMO.
If I'm reading that correctly, the Sixteenth satrapy would have included several areas that are still Persian even today (e.g. Parthia aka Khorasan, Aria aka Western Afghanistan, Sogdiana), and only a few areas that would have become Turkic only long after the Persian empire anyway (IMO it would be better for an eventual Kushan/Eastern Iranian civ). The Sixteenth satrapy fits much better, referring to (it looks like) what is now northern Central Asia and to the steppes beyond (those areas became Turkic earlier), and at least part of the area was Turkic from pretty much when the Turkic civilization spawns. The 16th would be better for representingMongolia doesn't really make much sense for the 15th satrapy anyway - there isn't really any sort of ethnic, cultural, or geographical tie to it, especially now that the Turks have been separated out (previously you could kind of justify it by saying that the Mongols kind-of-maybe represented the Chagatai, Timurids, etc.).
All very good points. I'll note that I picked the Anxi Protectorate for the Turks because the Anxi territory corresponds better to the core area of the Turks in game, and I think less likely that they will be based in the East when they're a vassal of China. (see this map) My first idea was also Anbei, though. Doesn't matter either way.
As for the satrapies, the numbering system is based on the Achaemenid Empire and doesn't really make sense for any civ spawning in the Common Era, so it might be a good idea to come up with better Persian vassal names anyway.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
But the problem may be fixed as I used an outdated version.
