New Beta Version - March 1st (3/1)

[Edaka]

The only reproducible crash I got was when I tried to buy one particular fish tile as Russia. Other tiles didn't cause crashing. But of course, I didn't save a minidump for that, why would anyone need that?

 

[notque]

Watching https://youtu.be/fTqIlnV0fwY?t=17m55s play with the newest patch, he was building a Settler on full production mode, and when the Settler came out, the city starved and dropped a population.

Is that expected behavior, or is that an issue?

 

[Senteliks]

Er, only way that could happen is ,if city's food rate wasn't enough to sustain population of city. If he had built Settler with production focus, he should have reverted back to default or even food focus, that is, if he doesn't manage city's working plots and building slots himself..

 

[notque]

Er, only way that could happen is ,if city's food rate wasn't enough to sustain population of city. If he had built Settler with production focus, he should have reverted back to default or even food focus, that is, if he doesn't manage city's working plots and building slots himself..

Understood, but that's pretty non-obvious behavior. Giving the player a turn of warning, or having it not happen once a settler pops out would be more forgiving and reasonable.

Also, does it happen if another Settler is queued vs. not queued. In which case, it makes it even more complex in the use case. Ideally it should work as seamlessly as possible because that's a very big hit for a very mild mistake if it is intended exactly as that.

 

[Senteliks]

I never had issue like that, this is first one I had seen it. If you take a look at video again, you will see that he got warning but population drop in an instant next turn because city was already starving and population bar was at the very beginning.

If bar was a bit higher he would have 2 turns or so to counter starvation and population loss.So, what he made is uneducated guess or bad tactical decision, not that I blame him though, awkward things like that happen even to veterans.

 

[notque]

I never had issue like that, this is first one I had seen it. If you take a look at video again, you will see that he got warning but population drop in an instant next turn because city was already starving and population bar was at the very beginning.

If bar was a bit higher he would have 2 turns or so to counter starvation and population loss.So, what he made is uneducated guess or bad tactical decision, not that I blame him though, awkward things like that happen even to veterans.

Understood, but if it's something that can be prevented or dealt with so that it is more reasonable behavior, I think it should be. Anything where you have to fail at something harsh to learn about how something works is not ideal.

 

[Lynnes]

I always check his DLL for fixes for his content, but the API stuff related to unit stats will not be included (too many conflicts with our changes). So bugfixes and new API events where possible, but if it conflicts too much, I don't include it.

G

So the new event:

OK, you can have an event

  <CustomModOptions>
	<Update>
	  <Where Name="EVENTS_MINORS_GIFTS"/>
	  <Set Value="1"/>
	</Update>
  </CustomModOptions>

GameEvents.MinorGift.Add(function(iCS, iMajor, iData2, iData3, iFlags, bOpt1, bOpt2, sType)
  -- iFlags will always be 0 and bOpt2 will always be false
  print(string.format("CS %i gave a gift to %i of %i, %i, %s, %s", iCS, iMajor, iData2, iData3, (bOpt1 and "true" or "false"), sType))
end)

can be included?
It is used by a new version of City States Gifts from Serp which is multiplayer compatible!

 

[Forsti]

The approval of AIs in demographics won't change from 60%. It means that either demographics can't get the correct info for some reason or their happiness is 0 and won't increase or decrease no matter what.

 

[BenchBreaker]

The approval of AIs in demographics won't change from 60%. It means that either demographics can't get the correct info for some reason or their happiness is 0 and won't increase or decrease no matter what.

yeah AI's all seems to have 0 happiness and wont change

 

[Gazebo]

yeah AI's all seems to have 0 happiness and wont change

Yep, already fixed.

G

 

[notque]

Okay, a different idea for starvation. Why should you drop a full population level with no food stored? Wouldn't it make more sense and be a little more forgiving to drop a population level, but with the stored food that would be minus whatever your starvation negative was?

I think that would handle the issue far better, and allow you only 1 turn of food growth to make up for the loss/issue.

 

[attorneyatlol]

Watching https://youtu.be/fTqIlnV0fwY?t=17m55s play with the newest patch, he was building a Settler on full production mode, and when the Settler came out, the city starved and dropped a population.

Is that expected behavior, or is that an issue?

This happens to me all the time. I start a settler as soon as I reach the next pop, then when he comes out one pop starves. I think it has to do with food being calculated last, to fix the production trick. But all you can do is not use negative food to speed settlers or switch it the turn before it pops.

 

[Funak]

This happens to me all the time. I start a settler as soon as I reach the next pop, then when he comes out one pop starves. I think it has to do with food being calculated last, to fix the production trick. But all you can do is not use negative food to speed settlers or switch it the turn before it pops.

Guess I'll teach you guys a trick. This is fairly straight forward so you're most likely just going to beat yourself up over not figuring it out yourself.

You see, when you're building a settler, your city is incapable of starving, but the turn that the settler finishes, the city is once again capable of starving. There are two easy solutions to this:

1. First one is change the city production on the last turn, usually it won't make a difference for settler timing and the extra food gained from it isn't lost anyways, as the settler is done.

2 Second thing is even greater, as it deals with those few situations where you can't change your cities workers without delaying the settler another turn.
Anyways, if you queue up another settler after the first one, the city is still incapable if starving once your first settler finishes, and you can easily switch the production again at no lost hammers (as overflow is transferred afaik).

Okay, a different idea for starvation. Why should you drop a full population level with no food stored? Wouldn't it make more sense and be a little more forgiving to drop a population level, but with the stored food that would be minus whatever your starvation negative was?

I think that would handle the issue far better, and allow you only 1 turn of food growth to make up for the loss/issue.

Honestly, only time starvation is ever a problem is when you're trying to abuse the crap out of your cities or when your city is under siege, I don't really see a reason why it would need to be more forgiving.

 

[notque]

Honestly, only time starvation is ever a problem is when you're trying to abuse the crap out of your cities or when your city is under siege, I don't really see a reason why it would need to be more forgiving.

I feel like that argument supports my point that it would be of no great consequence to improve the starving mechanic for the settler instance, because it is so rare regardless.

If you need to know a trick to not screw something up, it's non-optimal for the player.

 

[Funak]

If you need to know a trick to not screw something up, it's non-optimal for the player.

No, you don't.
You need to know a trick to not screw something up when you're going out of your way to lock out food production while cutting corners on growth with the city.
This is not about cities starving when they are on automated management, if it was a change would clearly be needed. This is about people being so attached to a vanilla semi-exploit that they refuse to adapt to how CBP runs.

 

[notque]

This is about people being so attached to a vanilla semi-exploit that they refuse to adapt to how CBP runs.

We fundamentally disagree. Settlers do not utilize food. If you complete one, you should not starve.

If you have 1 queued again, you do not starve. That is simply not functional behavior on any coherent level.

If you want to argue that having one queued up should also have you starve, then at least it's logically consistent.

 

[Funak]

We fundamentally disagree. Settlers do not utilize food. If you complete one, you should not starve.

If you have 1 queued again, you do not starve. That is simply not functional behavior on any coherent level.

If you want to argue that having one queued up should also have you starve, then at least it's logically consistent.

It's the same logic as that you should never queue up a settler after a non-settler as the settler consumes the food generated on the last turn of the non-settler. It's just a part of the game that you need to know and need to work around (only difference being that this is actually a situation you always run into, not only if you lock out food).

 

[notque]

It's the same logic as that you should never queue up a settler after a non-settler.

So you don't build settlers?

 

[Lynnes]

Soo... Can we use the new event with the 3/1 beta?

 

[Funak]

So you don't build settlers?

I build settlers, but I don't queue them up. I let the building before finish and then I switch, that way I don't lose a turns worth of food.