New Beta Version - March 23rd (3/23)

[shaglio]

Whoops, that Corporations TXT_KEY might be my fault. As I replace the Civilopedia and because sections are hardcoded, I have to keep a copy of the replacement copy of the Corporations and Monopolies string. This is fine unless I don't have a reference, and I forgot that Corporations is in its own component now. Checking CID AFTER Corporations will fix the problem for now, but I'll add a reference for the next update.

Well, that's a problem that'll arise in any case, even if it's not applicable here.

I just started a new game without CiD and I'm still getting the TXT_KEY issue with Corporations in the Economic Overview.

 

[Senteliks]

Quick question.Did something changed regarding barbarians, some change that I might have overlooked, or this could be consequence of using E&D CBP compability v7 ( I have latest beta version of CPP and aside from E&D CBP, nothing else). ?

Spoiler :

Edit: In case people wonder what is that I am pointing on SS, it's barbarians units which are way more advanced, like Classical and Medieval era units in Ancient era (turn 12)

 

[hokath]

Don't forget that it's more helpful to post things that are clearly bugs here: https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues

(I posted BenchBreaker's stuff because I'm getting that too, I think)

 

[Senteliks]

Don't forget that it's more helpful to post things that are clearly bugs here: https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues

(I posted BenchBreaker's stuff because I'm getting that too, I think)

Trust me, If I was 100% certain this is a bug , related to CPP, I wouldn't bother posting here. I lean towards impression that this is issue with Enginseer's mod but it could be also, something that I overlooked in changelog, which is unlikely .

 

[hokath]

Yeah I was just making a general comment.

If you got to the E&D thread, IcyAngel reported your issue also.

 

[Funak]

I don't know if this has already been reported in this thread, and I'm too lazy to check, but it seems like third party AI can negotiate peace on your behalf when you're ahead in warscore once again, fairly annoying to be honest.

 

[Tomice]

Balance feedback:
I'd consider lowering the policy requirement for the Great lighthouse to 4.
The way it is now (5 SP's) a player rushing naval techs (e.g. water luxury start) usually gets there at 3 SP's. He feels forced to build a lighthouse earlier. And he might easily be beaten by a strong AI not focusing on water but being generally strong in techs and policies.

IMO the great lighthouse should be a reward for focusing on maritime gameplay early on / rushing sailing.

 

[Funak]

Balance feedback:
I'd consider lowering the policy requirement for the Great lighthouse to 4.
The way it is now (5 SP's) a player rushing naval techs (e.g. water luxury start) usually gets there at 3 SP's. He feels forced to build a lighthouse earlier. And he might easily be beaten by a strong AI not focusing on water but being generally strong in techs and policies.

That's just life, I'm usually like 5 polices from being able to build the slater mill by the time I research industrialism, meaning the wonders main goal of unlocking an earlier factory is pretty off.

 

[Gazebo]

I don't know if this has already been reported in this thread, and I'm too lazy to check, but it seems like third party AI can negotiate peace on your behalf when you're ahead in warscore once again, fairly annoying to be honest.

I can't replicate this – I'll need more reports of this before I consider it to not just be a fluke.

G

 

[Iamblichos]

I can't replicate this – I'll need more reports of this before I consider it to not just be a fluke.

G

I've seen this too, but the deal has been brokered to me every time, but I've been up on warscore in all those instances. I'm afraid this might have to wait though.

 

[Funak]

I can't replicate this – I'll need more reports of this before I consider it to not just be a fluke.

Happened to me 5 times in one game, might honestly have been that game that's faulty, but I don't know.

 

[Gazebo]

I've seen this too, but the deal has been brokered to me every time, but I've been up on warscore in all those instances. I'm afraid this might have to wait though.

If you are up on warscore, that's normal. 3rd Party Peace deals are always valid to warscore leader, but not to the warscore loser.

G

 

[Funak]

If you are up on warscore, that's normal. 3rd Party Peace deals are always valid to warscore leader, but not to the warscore loser.

I was up on warscore, but not enough to actually have him give me stuff, but that shouldn't matter, right? Like +7 or so.

 

[Gazebo]

I was up on warscore, but not enough to actually have him give me stuff, but that shouldn't matter, right? Like +7 or so.

Haven't looked at in awhile, but the I believe the Warscore difference has to be greater than 10. One player has to have an appreciable difference over the other for the logic to take place. So if, theoretically, you are at a Warscore of 15 and they're at 6 (this can happen – Warscore isn't necessarily always the inverse), it would allow either party to do it.

G

 

[Iamblichos]

Haven't looked at in awhile, but the I believe the Warscore difference has to be greater than 10. One player has to have an appreciable difference over the other for the logic to take place. So if, theoretically, you are at a Warscore of 15 and they're at 6 (this can happen – Warscore isn't necessarily always the inverse), it would allow either party to do it.

G

I was up about 50 points or more in another instances. I like the feature. It seems to be working as intended.

 

[Borussia]

I don't know if this has already been reported in this thread, and I'm too lazy to check, but it seems like third party AI can negotiate peace on your behalf when you're ahead in warscore once again, fairly annoying to be honest.

Had this too.



Also the trade bug is still there.
You still export some ressources although the trade deals are no longer active.
There is no way to get them back.

 

[IcyAngel]

Unrelated, and -I assume- not a bug... a City-State settler wandered by my warrior on turn three, and for the kicks I decided to declare war and capture it!

The City-State is still "in the game", although its destiny is quite doomed.

At least now I know what happens!

 

[ExpiredReign]

Unrelated, and -I assume- not a bug... a City-State settler wandered by my warrior on turn three, and for the kicks I decided to declare war and capture it!

The City-State is still "in the game", although its destiny is quite doomed.

At least now I know what happens!

What sort of advanced settings, ie. # of CS, map size, # of mountains etc. do you have?
Very odd that a settler can't a location after 2 turns. (only 2 turns for the CS as you start first each round and if you didn't capture it it may have founded a city)

 

[IcyAngel]

What sort of advanced settings, ie. # of CS, map size, # of mountains etc. do you have?
Very odd that a settler can't a location after 2 turns. (only 2 turns for the CS as you start first each round and if you didn't capture it it may have founded a city)

Standard map size, 8 civs 16 city-states, everything else untouched.
Not the first time it has happened with CBP tbh (they settle on spot in vanilla IIRC).

 

[regenshine]

It happens to me several times, that an AI declares war but doesnt attack nor sends units to my borders. So there's war for turns but no fighting.