New BETA Version – 4.18.4 (January 21, 2025)

[Recursive]

Thank you for making and testing the new release @axatin, it's a big help.

I made a few edits to the changelog for additional clarification.

I'm super happy about the remapper as it will fix a lot of crashes that are difficult or impossible for the VP team to diagnose, such as those where the user has many additional mods. It will automatically do this in a long list of cases, and being able to safely assume that certain tables in the DLL are free of gaps means we can remove a lot of now-useless checks. Thank you very much for implementing this, you deserve credit for it.

Credit also goes to @azum4roll for helping in setup/testing, and to IanE9 for years ago providing the seed that led to the creation of the remapper, when we discovered (while reworking global defines) that it was possible to modify database values from inside the DLL.


I'm also very pleased with the new system of warning messages we've come up with as it makes it obvious to the user what the problem is, increasing the chances of a bug report to GitHub - especially for people who don't frequent the forum and wouldn't otherwise know how to report a bug. This is an order of magnitude better than silently crashing the game.

Also, the option for less-severe reports will still highlight the error (making it likely it will be reported) while allowing players to continue the game, which is much less annoying.

Much credit to JohnsterID for helping us in implementing this.

Cheers and Happy New Year 2025, everyone!

 

[Solic]

If the game can detect and display things that can cause crashes during gameplay would it be possible to automate the process of sharing github crash information provided consent is given by the user? I'd be thinking of one of those check boxes that allows the game to send information out to developers to increase quality control. It might dramatically increase the number of reports you'd get and even things like the AI games of Vern could expose many bugs.

Happy new year everyone! Love to see the continuous improvement on this grand project.

 

[Anarcomu]

It would also greatly increase the number of duplicate report, whereas in the case of a more classic report, the user can check if their crash report is already provided by someone else.
That would be an argument against it. Now need the point of view of a VP coder.

 

[Cameomeo]

With 4.18 & 4.18.1 and 2 different games: same error 3778 after I commanded my worker to chop a forest. Black screen after that so that I could not continue the game.

 

[Cameomeo]

 

[Solic]

It would also greatly increase the number of duplicate report, whereas in the case of a more classic report, the user can check if their crash report is already provided by someone else.
That would be an argument against it. Now need the point of view of a VP coder.

Would it be though? That'd actually be a signal that that specific duplicate report should be higher priority which I'd say is more of an advantage. I'd think you could also set it up a bit smarter to indeed not have like a 100 of the same report in the same place as the current manually opened issues.

I am curious on the developer perspective. There is seemingly no shortage of open issues as is and I can imagine that the accompanying user feedback can also be more helpful in troubleshooting than a naked automated report. Let alone potential difficulty with uploading something automatically like accompanying mods. There are definitely enough reasons why this wouldn't be top of mind.

 

[skodkim]

With 4.18 & 4.18.1 and 2 different games: same error 3778 after I commanded my worker to chop a forest. Black screen after that so that I could not continue the game.

Report on GitHub.

 

[andersw]

CTD, I've made a post on github.

Spoiler :

 

[skodkim]

Just a general remark and question about the new version.

First of all I think it's fantastic what you guys are doing for the community and I think the new idea with error messages is great!

I've only had the chance to play 5 turns or so so far, and have encountered (and reported) three bugs (non CTD). As the message says these may cause unexpected behavior and although I'm aware that the potential bugs were already (silently) present in the previous version, I kind of feel like I shouldn't continue the game as is. So I guess what I'm trying to say/ask is, how do we users know if we should wait for a fix (not knowing an ETA) or continue?

 

[andersw]

Just a general remark and question about the new version.

First of all I think it's fantastic what you guys are doing for the community and I think the new idea with error messages is great!

I've only had the chance to play 5 turns or so so far, and have encountered (and reported) three bugs (non CTD). As the message says these may cause unexpected behavior and although I'm aware that the potential bugs were already (silently) present in the previous version, I kind of feel like I shouldn't continue the game as is. So I guess what I'm trying to say/ask is, how do we users know if we should wait for a fix (not knowing an ETA) or continue?

I agree and the CTDs are very early.

 

[Tekamthi]

But they all retreated, my city healed back up, I got walls built and now they just half-heartedly move in, shoot, retreat etc.

I had this experience with barbs in 4.17 -- granted it was the barbs and they play different but they took 6 cities from the AI, I recapped one of them for myself with 2 units and held with no other support, eventually adding a scout to assist... They got the city HP to zero many times, and had a melee unit in position to capture at least half a dozen times before I was able to reinforce... Even so they occasionally bombard the city to the point it would likely be lost if they continued pressing, but then pull back as described. It's a tough decision to balance, easy to overcommit and lose units uselessly, but they are missing some key opportunities to capture

 

[axatin]

Hello everyone! I use Community Patch Only and want to ask, can I play this mod as a hotseat? I don't really know how can i to do that. Should I do it trough the menu "Mods" or just link the normal way with "Multiplayer" - "Hot-Seat"?

You can use this mod: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/custom-advanced-setup-screen-and-hotseat-with-mods.458569/

 

[Verius]

You can use this mod: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/custom-advanced-setup-screen-and-hotseat-with-mods.458569/

Oh, thank you! I'll try then!

 

[axatin]

I've only had the chance to play 5 turns or so so far, and have encountered (and reported) three bugs (non CTD). As the message says these may cause unexpected behavior and although I'm aware that the potential bugs were already (silently) present in the previous version, I kind of feel like I shouldn't continue the game as is. So I guess what I'm trying to say/ask is, how do we users know if we should wait for a fix (not knowing an ETA) or continue?

I can't guarantee it but I think it should be okay if you just continue playing, as you said the bugs indicated by the warning messages existed already in 4.17, and they are usually minor (for the potentially major ones we use the CTD messages).
That being said, we try to make hotfixes quickly this version, most of the warnings are quite easy to debug.

 

[Verius]

You can use this mod: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/custom-advanced-setup-screen-and-hotseat-with-mods.458569/

unfortunately this mod doesnt work and while playing together, the money found by barbarians, culture etc. is going to another player. Could you please recommend another mod to play with your great mod in hotseat?

 

[Uncle_Joe]

When using the CP-Only, it looks like the restrictions on Policies based on Era was removed? If you select Advanced View, it allows you to pick any Opener up to Rationalism even as your first Policy in the Ancient Era. Intentional change?

 

[balparmak]

Nope, out of scope for CP. I remember something like this happening waaaaaaaaaaaay before, around CBP times I think, maybe a CP only check got swept up during code cleanup.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Ok thanks, so possibly a recent bug? I do have a few info-only and map script mods running but nothing has changed on those in forever so I'm assuming it's something with the recent
VP update.

 

[msw1]

If the game can detect and display things that can cause crashes during gameplay would it be possible to automate the process of sharing github crash information provided consent is given by the user? I'd be thinking of one of those check boxes that allows the game to send information out to developers to increase quality control. It might dramatically increase the number of reports you'd get and even things like the AI games of Vern could expose many bugs.

Happy new year everyone! Love to see the continuous improvement on this grand project.

This sounds like it would be quite nice if there was a way to separate it from the other issues, since those don't get drowned out. I would opt in.

 

[YoullPay4ThisInTime]

I had this experience with barbs in 4.17 -- granted it was the barbs and they play different but they took 6 cities from the AI, I recapped one of them for myself with 2 units and held with no other support, eventually adding a scout to assist... They got the city HP to zero many times, and had a melee unit in position to capture at least half a dozen times before I was able to reinforce... Even so they occasionally bombard the city to the point it would likely be lost if they continued pressing, but then pull back as described. It's a tough decision to balance, easy to overcommit and lose units uselessly, but they are missing some key opportunities to capture

So overall the AI is much worse at taking cities these days ? They are too scarred to commit and lose units when they have an opportunity ? Any chance this will be addressed before 5.0 ?