New Beta Version - March 12th (3/12)

[ExpiredReign]

Noob question: Where do I activate these logs? Can't find it anywhere..

Tutorial on how to enable logging.

 

[Lynnes]

Tutorial on how to enable logging.

Of course I have logging enabled, I just don't get a chooseproductionAI-log and never heard of it.

 

[ExpiredReign]

Of course I have logging enabled, I just don't get a chooseproductionAI-log and never heard of it.

Apologies.

 

[Gazebo]

Of course I have logging enabled, I just don't get a chooseproductionAI-log and never heard of it.

I fixed the bug, no worries.

You can enable AI logging in the config ini.

G

 

[BenchBreaker]

Why do Galleas take so much damage? In my last game as Japan, Galleas would do like 80 per hit; the lower CS was used to take the hit vs the higher RCS doing the damage.
3/12 Beta btw

because its using ranged attack (25) against melee defense (10), seems like a bug

 

[Gazebo]

because its using ranged attack (25) against melee defense (10), seems like a bug

Not a bug. RCS attacks CS, not RCS.

G

 

[Der_Zorn_gottes]

The bank provides tons of yields from mint-able resources like gold, but yes, otherwise the bank is where you reap reward from gold investments...like a bank!
G

Please consider to add some monetary gains to the bank.
First, it`s bad design if one building of a chain does something entirely different than the others.
Second, it's confusing: In a 4X game you expect a building called bank to generate money. Strong expectations of the player should not be disappointed without very good reasons.
Third, at the time the bank becomes available, it is highly important to have a gold-generating building to counter poverty.

 

[Lynnes]

I just finished a complete game (400 turns, normal speed) with CP 3/12!
It was very stable without any gamebreaking bugs or crashes, and I encountered just a few minor issues:

-gifted units from City States don't come with any XP (even during lategame, when they should at least have barracks). or wasn't this feature implemented yet? I'm not sure atm..
-during the AI turn another civ moved a ship on the same tile where I parked one of my carriers. When the AI turn was over, my carrier was placed to the next free tile. this happened only once during the whole game.
-I still got a few empty deal offers (for open borders and resources), but this happened very rarely (maybe 3 times in 400 turns)

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I've begun to dislike the direction Community Patch is going, with changes becoming incorporated that alter gameplay in significant rebalancing ways. CP was my bugfix mod until recently.

I let the 'damage to garrison' slide because, ok yes, city siege gets ridiculous in the early late game. But the pledge to protection check is the reason I am not currently proselytizing the CP more for multiplayer standardization.

Unless I'm blind and can't find the XML toggle to disable that change...

 

[Gazebo]

I've begun to dislike the direction Community Patch is going, with changes becoming incorporated that alter gameplay in significant rebalancing ways. CP was my bugfix mod until recently.

I let the 'damage to garrison' slide because, ok yes, city siege gets ridiculous in the early late game. But the pledge to protection check is the reason I am not currently proselytizing the CP more for multiplayer standardization.

Unless I'm blind and can't find the XML toggle to disable that change...

The assumption that we're nefariously slipping features into the CP is unwarranted. If you notice something that should be a CBP feature, but is appearing with just the CP, just report that. No need to offer faux threats.

G

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

The assumption that we're nefariously slipping features into the CP is unwarranted. If you notice something that should be a CBP feature, but is appearing with just the CP, just report that. No need to offer faux threats.

G

You are overreacting. How was I to know it was a glitch, especially when you in fact document the change under your CP heading at the relevant Beta update thread?

 

[Gazebo]

You are overreacting. How was I to know it was a glitch, especially when you in fact document the change under your CP heading at the relevant Beta update thread?

You specifically said "I don't like the direction the CP is going in" rather than saying that something is activating in the CP that shouldn't. Which, in any case, the PtP stuff isn't being activated in the CP.

G

 

[Funak]

You specifically said "I don't like the direction the CP is going in" rather than saying that something is activating in the CP that shouldn't.

Technically, saying "You've made a mistake and <insert feature> is active in CP" if you had actually purposely made that change would have been just as rude if not ruder

 

[JFD]

You specifically said "I don't like the direction the CP is going in" rather than saying that something is activating in the CP that shouldn't. Which, in any case, the PtP stuff isn't being activated in the CP.

G

Speaking of, and I mean to open an issue about it when I get around to it, but (in case it's not worth an issue), what would allow me to active the PtP changes (the top percentage of rattata requirement) outside of the CBP? And is the top percentage (40%, IIRC) a value that I can modify - I was interested in putting it up to 60%.

Technically, saying "You've made a mistake and <insert feature> is active in CP" if you had actually purposely made that change would have been just as rude if not ruder

Maybe, but the implication was somewhat accusatory in tone. But what is tone on the internet?

 

[Funak]

Maybe, but the implication was somewhat accusatory in tone. But what is tone on the internet?

Absolutely, he was rude as all hell, but I'm saying there was really no polite way to approach that . Also this is the internet, everyone is rude.

 

[JFD]

Ah, gotcha - I see your point.

 

[Gazebo]

Technically, saying "You've made a mistake and <insert feature> is active in CP" if you had actually purposely made that change would have been just as rude if not ruder

I have a really simple rule, and I come down hard when people don't follow it: be nice. And that means asking questions, not making accusations. I don't do anything out of a desire to be nefarious or 'mess up' the CP. Things slip through, and I respond. Long and short of it.

Speaking of, and I mean to open an issue about it when I get around to it, but (in case it's not worth an issue), what would allow me to active the PtP changes (the top percentage of rattata requirement) outside of the CBP? And is the top percentage (40%, IIRC) a value that I can modify - I was interested in putting it up to 60%.

Rattata? As in that pokemon thing? You'd need to enable variable bullying. Right now it is at top 70%, but I can make it a define (most things I set up as static variables and move to define later).

G

 

[Funak]

I have a really simple rule, and I come down hard when people don't follow it: be nice. And that means asking questions, not making accusations. I don't do anything out of a desire to be nefarious or 'mess up' the CP. Things slip through, and I respond. Long and short of it.

You don't do anything intentionally out of a desire to be nefarious or 'mess up' the CP.
But honestly speaking you do have your G-moments, it could definitely be one of those cases where you thought you were doing everyone a favor .

Also I don't really believe asking questions and making accusations are mutually exclusive. I mean you can phrase it like this: "Did you seriously believe adding <feature> to CP was a good idea?!"

 

[Gazebo]

You don't do anything intentionally out of a desire to be nefarious or 'mess up' the CP.
But honestly speaking you do have your G-moments, it could definitely be one of those cases where you thought you were doing everyone a favor .

Also I don't really believe asking questions and making accusations are mutually exclusive. I mean you can phrase it like this: "Did you seriously believe adding <feature> to CP was a good idea?!"

And I'd find that to be inflammatory. Assume that, if something doesn't look/feel right, that it is an oversight. We're a small team - 2 most of the time, 1 for a lot of the time, and 3 occasionally - and that means that every permutation of the game (your civ install, your other mods, your computer specs) etc. are different than ours. We have no debug team, nor QA squad. We're just 3 modders working to make civ more fun. When people offer statements like this:

But the pledge to protection check is the reason I am not currently proselytizing the CP more for multiplayer standardization.

It feels extremely unfair compared to the work we do. Not only is our work free, but it's also under constant development. I can't think of a time where we've said 'no, we're not going to fix that bug' if the bug in question could, theoretically, be fixed.

I'm much more receptive to questions than I am accusations, and I'm sure everyone else here is as well. We're all on the same team.

G

 

[JFD]

Right now it is at top 70%, but I can make it a define (most things I set up as static variables and move to define later).

G

70% is fine by me, so move to a define only if you please.