FfH2 0.33 Bug Thread

I am seeing this in a game I am playing too. I sent a bunch of horse archers into Amurite lands to pillage and destroyed quite a few nodes. After peace was restored, the Amurites refused to rebuild the nodes and instead built mines/cottages/farms on top of the fire/air/law mana that was left behind.

the only thing I can think of is regular mana is class rawmana while an improved(fire/air/law) mana is just class mana and the workers can not improve non-rawmana features???

 

Yes, this was reported in the last version and is still a bug.

If I want to attack any of Charadon's or Jonas Endain's units, for example, with me HN Giant Spider I will not see the Combat Odds when right-clicking the mouse.

I think there is a work around, but I forgot it. Anyone?

Still to be consistent with all the other civs vs. HN units I hope it gets fixed.

 

I have several units that do not have promotions available to be chosen, even though they have plenty of XP to level up. This may be related to the golden hammers that I stole from my opponent because it seems that only units that have been equipped with one have the issue, even if the unit is no longer equipped with it. Not every unit with a hammer has the problem, though, so who knows.
The attached multiplayer save will hopefully demonstrate the problem.

 

Just encountered an odd bug. Playing Calibim I lost the CoE founding city to Tasunke. Using the undercouncil dragged Khazid into the frey who retook it. Happily they were willing to give the city back. Here is the weird thing.

It's still got a dwarven vault in it. The vault is giving me two unhappy faces saying it's empty, even though have over 800 gold in my treasury.

Here is the save in case that helps.

 

obviously you shouldn't have the vault anyhow, but the reason it presumably says it is 'empty' is because the amount of gold you have is modified by the number of cities you have.

 

No, it is just the vault which the Khazad had at the time the city transfered. Vaults are only updated each turn for the Khazad player, so if anyone else manages to gain one it will never change for the entire game.

EDIT:

Hard to do much with a Multiplayer game, and you win the game on the next turn, so there isn't much room to try and test things out. However, the one horse that I looked at did seem to have something odd going on with him. Looked like he was nearly out of promotions possible though, cannot recall if Mounted Units are allowed to get Shock II, but all the other promotion lines he had maxed out already. Course, he doesn't have even Mobility I, so there ought to be at least 2 more promotions available for him.

You were Hippus, right?

 

Sounds like the same issue as before, where if the withdrawal chance gets above the limit (85%?), then no more promotions can be taken.

 

Thanks for looking at this, Xienwolf. I was indeed Hippus. Attached is an earlier save, although it is still multiplayer. Most of the units with the problem still have a ways to go on both the mobility and drill promotion lines. You can see two units with the issue in the southeast corner of the Hippus empire and one more near Dis. The affected units do indeed have maxed out flanking, so if very high withdrawal chances cause a problem, these ones would have it.

 

I had forgotten about that old bug, Pyr0mancer has it correct though. Your issue is that the units exceeded the Withdrawal limit and are thus unable to gain ANY promotions anymore. Rather unique problem to the Hippus, and quite a nuisance. It completely eludes my memory as to how they manage to sneak past the limit in the first place, since the block preventing you from gaining ANY promotion now was designed to prevent you from exceeding the Limit in the first place, and thus only block out promotions which boost Withdrawal (I think it had something to do with having a high withdrawal, then upgrading to a unit which has even MORE withdrawal, since upgrades do NOT get blocked from exceeding the cap)

 

Combat log doesn't seem to work for me. Can someone second this / has it allready been reported?

And yea, the withdrawl-limit is rather annoying and not all to easy to exeed anyways. Should be axed alltogether. Or at least be relocated to 95%. (At 100%+ further promotions are not all that dearly needed anyways, that unit is quite a survivor then. Loki anyone ... And very hard to reach. Without Mutation thats impossible anyways, i belive...)

 

Has been reported. Has been turned off due to reasons that don't come to my mind right now. Can be turned on. Check xien's post #2. It should be item 1 under 4. Reported as Bug but actually a feature.

 

Thanks alot.

 

Horse Archers are 35%, +50% for Flanking I-III, +10% for Horselord, +10% for Homeland will do the trick. All one needs to do is obtain Hippus cavalry as a Defender-trait leader, via either Domination or Command.

 

I was playing as the Balseraph and I discovered that after joining my Gibbon Goetia unit with a Great Commander unit, I could create Puppets and split Great Commanders from the puppets. I was able to crazily mass produce great commanders with this especially after moving the newly created commanders to other Arcane units. I'm sure it wasn't intended.

Just thought I'd bring this issue up since it seems it hasn't been caught yet.

 

i've reported the withdrawal bug over 10 times now in previous bug threads. It's created when upgrading a horseman (25% withdrawal) to a horse archer (35% withdrawal), thus pushing the unit "over the edge". It doesn't need to be 100%, 95% is good enough for the bug to activate (35% horsearcher, 50% flanking, 10% horselord as stated, which can be reached at exp 10).
The easiest fix is to deny horsemen to the flanking 3 promotion, thus making it impossible for units to hit the 95% during upgrades

 

Yup, that's what happened. I had horsemen with 25% withdrawal (base)+50% (max flanking) + 10% horselord = 85% and then upgraded them to horse archers which have a 35% base withdrawal, putting me over the cap that I did not know existed. (beaten by above poster, but leaving for posterity) Since flanking 3 has some benefits beyond just the withdrawal chance, it would be cool if there were a solution that still let units have that promotion.

Ok, different issue, in tonight's game we always got an out of sync when my friend playing the Infernals captured a city and chose not to raze it. We're pretty sure it is in the code for him to get the free buildings, since if we saved and reloaded, the free buildings were gone. I just looked at the python code for this, and it is weird, because it is the same code as when he builds a city with a settler, which was working fine.

The attached save was made when he had the capture or raze dialog open. Hopefully it will still be there to chose when the save is loaded.

 

Adept use of Sanctify states that it will remove a city ruin and lower the AC - city ruins are indeed removed, but the AC remains the same. (tested both within and outside of cultural borders, same result).

Maybe the AC -is- lowered, but by only a marginal amount (i.e., less than 1%)?....

 

the AC that is shown in the main interface is not the same one that you modify by playing. it is a percentage based on factors like number of civs and map size. so if you're playing on a big map often the number you see in the main interface is unchanged.

 

goytcha...........

though it must be -really- small then... only playing on a standard sized map, five other civs (including mercurians) (i already wiped out one other starting civ and the infernals). knocked out a total of 4 city ruins using sanctify over about 6 turns and the interface AC remained unchanged (at 28). but, it's of course good to know that something's happening behind the curtain

 

I'm getting an assert which appears to stem from CvGame::addPlayerAdvanced. Essentially, wars are apparently supposed to be reflexive, but the code in CvGame::addPlayerAdvanced doesn't do this.

Suggested fix below.

Spoiler :

Code:

        if (bValid)
        {
            GET_TEAM((TeamTypes)iNewTeam).init((TeamTypes)iNewTeam);
            for (int iJ = 0; iJ < MAX_TEAMS; iJ++)
            {
                if (GET_TEAM((TeamTypes)iJ).isBarbarian() || GET_TEAM((TeamTypes)iJ).isMinorCiv())
                {
                    if ((TeamTypes)iNewTeam != iJ)
                    {
                        GET_TEAM((TeamTypes)iNewTeam).setAtWar((TeamTypes)iJ, true);
						[B]GET_TEAM((TeamTypes)iJ).setAtWar((TeamTypes)iNewTeam, true); // Wiser Orcs - assert fix[/B]
                    }
                }
        	}
        }

In the Hyborem creation code, the following lines are incorrect; they do nothing; they are asking the founder team to make an open borders agreement with itself, and the same for the Hyborem team.

Spoiler :

Code:

						eFounderTeam.signOpenBorders(iFounderTeam)
						eInfernalTeam.signOpenBorders(iInfernalTeam)

Suggested fix:

Spoiler :

Code:

												eFounderTeam.signOpenBorders(iInfernalTeam) # Wiser Orcs - open borders fix