FfH2 0.15 Bugs

[Grillick]

Playing with patch 'f', I was able to rush the Tower of Mastery.

I see nothing in the changelog regarding this in the last two patches.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

So are you saying that Os-Gabella was an AI player and the only upgrades she selected for her adepts were Chaos I and combat promotions?

Yes, this one. Then again, this actually did work out in her favor. I recall very distinctly one of my Malakim (thanks for fixing the adaptive issue in multiplayer, by the way) Swordsmen getting killed by a combat 5 conjurer. Still, I doubt this is the way they're meant to be played.

 

[YohanLeafheart]

Yes, this one. Then again, this actually did work out in her favor. I recall very distinctly one of my Malakim (thanks for fixing the adaptive issue in multiplayer, by the way) Swordsmen getting killed by a combat 5 conjurer. Still, I doubt this is the way they're meant to be played.

What chandra said. Even after some more turns of play, the Sheaim would only choose or combat or chaos I promotions, while the rest of the AIs choose spells wisely. So maybe it is just flavor, but it was weird to see that.

 

[Nimbus]

And I played a hotseat game, there's an issue or two there: The advisors screen displays the tech screen for the previous player (or perhaps always player #1). I'm sure this is a hold over from vanilla, where everyone has identical techs. It also shows his choices, although when you change them for player B, they don't change for player A, as I worried they might, so afaik it's just a cosmetic issue.

A friend and I play the majority of our Civ4 FfH on Hotseat. The tech tree merging what he has researched and what I have researched has been there in every version (0.10-0.15), mentioned it once a few months ago and dropped it since I never saw anyone else bring it up.

 

[QES]

Kael, you might want to note that patch "i" is as yet, unreleased, lest some players search in vain for a download.
-Qes

 

[jselsmark]

Kael, you might want to note that patch "i" is as yet, unreleased, lest some players search in vain for a download.
-Qes

Hehe... players like me that is

Anyway the multiplayer game which I had with my friends brought up the following issues:

1. Aparently the "pillar of fire" still gives +3 fire mana
2. You can't trade druids to the Khazar... but you can if you are trading them while on a ship...

other than that we had a real enjoyable time team-playing the computers and kicking butt

Edit: the "pilar of fire" is called the eternal flame (seem to have mixed up the spells and wonders )

 

[Jono]

Basically, I think we should've moved on to patch 0.16, there were enough additions and fixes to justify this. Then, 0.17, we could probably make it to 0.19 before Fire is released (instead of jumping right to 0.20, which I'm against).

 

[Teg_Navanis]

. . .instead of jumping right to 0.20, which I'm against).

I couldn't care less... honestly ...as long as Kael doesn't introduce random version numbers

 

[Kael]

Basically, I think we should've moved on to patch 0.16, there were enough additions and fixes to justify this. Then, 0.17, we could probably make it to 0.19 before Fire is released (instead of jumping right to 0.20, which I'm against).

Yeah probably. Functionaly there is no meaning to a 0.15i or a 0.16 or a version 4.999b, its just an update regardless of what you want to call it.

I broke my own rules by adding features in the patches (which I typically reserve just for fixes). This is because I know it will be a while until the next version comes out.

 

[QES]

Yeah probably. Functionaly there is no meaning to a 0.15i or a 0.16 or a version 4.999b, its just an update regardless of what you want to call it.

I broke my own rules by adding features in the patches (which I typically reserve just for fixes). This is because I know it will be a while until the next version comes out.

So "fire" .20 should get a "adding into" thread?

Like a changelog for the next phase? It could simply be a wishlist, but it would also be a fun way to make this entire forum druel.
-Qes

 

[Kael]

So "fire" .20 should get a "adding into" thread?

Like a changelog for the next phase? It could simply be a wishlist, but it would also be a fun way to make this entire forum druel.
-Qes

I actually find that to many cooks in the kitchen creates problems during high level design. The design team will do all of that work and come out with a feature list which we will release when we start work.

What the community is better for is feedback and polish. So once we put out the feature list we will need you guys to evaluate and give course correction if you disagree with what we have done. Typically that has all gone smoothly (you guys usually agree with the team). What is even more benificial is that once the high level is all mapped out you guys begin submitting all sorts of detail ideas to fill in whats missing. Thats usually the greatest feedback we recieve.

So for now it will be closed. But expect to see something down the road.

 

[QES]

I actually find that to many cooks in the kitchen creates problems during high level design. The design team will do all of that work and come out with a feature list which we will release when we start work.

What the community is better for is feedback and polish. So once we put out the feature list we will need you guys to evaluate and give course correction if you disagree with what we have done. Typically that has all gone smoothly (you guys usually agree with the team). What is even more benificial is that once the high level is all mapped out you guys begin submitting all sorts of detail ideas to fill in whats missing. Thats usually the greatest feedback we recieve.

So for now it will be closed. But expect to see something down the road.

's not exactly what i meant, but all of that is good to know.

What i meant is an update on where the development team is DOING in their kitchen. This is not to say that the community should be probed for ideas, instead I just wanted to know that ideas the development team itself had on its OWN wishlist. Sort of like a "what to potentially look forward" to thread. Not idea generating in itself. It may be niaeve of me, admittedly, that even having such a thread would produce what you called appropriately "too many cooks in the kitchen", but im just curious about what potentially might be coming - a sort of "sneak peak" if you will. Or a veritable "preview".
-Qes

 

[BeefontheBone]

I started a random game on a Shuffle map (looked like Fractal in the end) and got Beeri as a leader, and 3 DEBUG Popups were generated behind the Dawn of Man screen - they looked to be connected to traits but I could only see the start of them before they disappeared. I couldn't reproduce it just now so it's probably not important though.

 

[Teg_Navanis]

yep, those debug messages are normal and don't mean that something is wrong. After the traits work, they could be removed though...

 

[vorshlumpf]

There is also an error when calculating the moves remaining for a unit, a fix for which was mentioned in the original mod thread. The problem is said to be in the line 1133 (from your base CvMainInterface file) which is:

fMaxMoves = float(pLoopUnit.baseMoves() + pLoopUnit.getExtraMoves() + pLoopUnit.getExtraMoveDiscount())

Apparently, baseMoves() retrieves all moves, including bonuses and such, so the line should only read:

fMaxMoves = float(pLoopUnit.baseMoves())

Kael, I found another line that initializes fMaxMoves incorrectly. Using the CvMainInterface.py from patch h, I found it on line 1633.

- Niilo

 

[Grillick]

I looked through the Civ4BuildingInfos.xml file to see if I could see why Tower of Mastery is rushable. Near as I could tell, there's no option to remove rushing from a building. There's a line called iHurryCostModifier, or somesuch, the value of which is set to -1. Is this supposed to eliminate the ability to rush entirely? Because in the Civ4UnitInfos.xml file, that same value for the Mercenary says -50, which decreases Hurry cost by half. Did setting iHurryCostModifier to -1 for the Tower of Mastery simply decrease the cost by 1%?

 

[Kael]

I looked through the Civ4BuildingInfos.xml file to see if I could see why Tower of Mastery is rushable. Near as I could tell, there's no option to remove rushing from a building. There's a line called iHurryCostModifier, or somesuch, the value of which is set to -1. Is this supposed to eliminate the ability to rush entirely? Because in the Civ4UnitInfos.xml file, that same value for the Mercenary says -50, which decreases Hurry cost by half. Did setting iHurryCostModifier to -1 for the Tower of Mastery simply decrease the cost by 1%?

Probably, I'll set it up to +100% rush cost like other wonders, thanks.

 

[Kael]

Kael, I found another line that initializes fMaxMoves incorrectly. Using the CvMainInterface.py from patch h, I found it on line 1633.

- Niilo

Thanks, I got it updated.

 

[Sureshot]

still getting the python bug on starting up a new game occasionally

 

[Kael]

still getting the python bug on starting up a new game occasionally

Could you get me a screenshot.