New Beta Version - November 9th (11-9)

[Stalker0]

missing from the changelog:

• units with noDefensiveBonus flag still profit from forts & citadels
• walls etc don't count against units with ignoreBuildingDefense flag. default promotions on cannon etc should have been changed to compensate this

So to translate for the non-coders here. I think the first line you are saying horseman and the like (which normally don't get defense from terrain) will get it from citadels and forts. If so, I actually really don't like that change. I thought it was a great niche that you had to use infantry to make the best defensive use of those improvements.

For the second, certain units ignore the buffs from walls, castles, etc. I assume siege units....or just cannons onward? Again...why this change....siege already get a nice hefty bonus against cities, why do they need these weird exception tailoring. Its not like I think modern infantry are really fighting "walls" like old time stone walls in the information era. I just assume those buildings represent some new version of fortification.

 

[Gazebo]

missing from the changelog:

• units with noDefensiveBonus flag still profit from forts & citadels
• walls etc don't count against units with ignoreBuildingDefense flag. default promotions on cannon etc should have been changed to compensate this

Thank you I knew I forgot something.

"Randomness" issues from the last beta that was on Github wasn't fixed.

Spoiler :

View attachment 508231

There were actually a number of topics removed without being resolved. It would be nice if at least a reason was given (like addressed in next version), otherwise it seems like we're uploading bugs for nothing

Anything I closed I fixed. I tagged it all but my tags didn’t save, but I’d already closed them and I was in a hurry.

This issue is still there. When I started a game the icon was ok, but when I loaded exited and loaded the save, I got the "ICON_CITIZEN" thing.

Did you redownload? It is possible I missed a [ in the topppanel.lua - I’m away now, someone can look for for two [[ or side by side and one of them needs to be deleted to make it work.

G

 

[Omen of Peace]

Among the fixes I saw on Github: civ should not become Afraid so easily as they did recently, which in turn should lower the amount of (or plain stop?) unjustified peacetime vassalizations: very nice!

And now I want to try the Huns - never have before.

 

[ilteroi]

So to translate for the non-coders here. I think the first line you are saying horseman and the like (which normally don't get defense from terrain) will get it from citadels and forts. If so, I actually really don't like that change. I thought it was a great niche that you had to use infantry to make the best defensive use of those improvements.

For the second, certain units ignore the buffs from walls, castles, etc. I assume siege units....or just cannons onward? Again...why this change....siege already get a nice hefty bonus against cities, why do they need these weird exception tailoring. Its not like I think modern infantry are really fighting "walls" like old time stone walls in the information era. I just assume those buildings represent some new version of fortification.

re: horsemen. the consensus on github was different. personally i don't really care but i lean towards a ruleset with fewer exceptions. AI and i bet many players didn't know that forts don't work for horsemen.

re: cannon. siege units were very weird. had a given rcs but negative promos against other units and a huge positive promotion against cities. now it's much easier. don't know how g handled it but we could do without any special promotions at all. also the ignoreBuildingDefense flag was there all the time, it just didn't work.

 

[Gazebo]

re: horsemen. the consensus on github was different. personally i don't really care but i lean towards a ruleset with fewer exceptions. AI and i bet many players didn't know that forts don't work for horsemen.

re: cannon. siege units were very weird. had a given rcs but negative promos against other units and a huge positive promotion against cities. now it's much easier. don't know how g handled it but we could do without any special promotions at all. also the ignoreBuildingDefense flag was there all the time, it just didn't work.

I didn’t touch promotions- didn’t know I needed to.

 

[76ers]

Is city bombard damage supposed to be way higher? Spearman got hit for over 30 by a flatland city with 7 combat strength. Pathfinder was destroyed by a city bombard/warrior attacking across river while grabbing a worker on turn 5.

 

[saamohod]

Did you redownload?

I downloaded the 11-9 version several hours after you've posted that the issue has been fixed. I guess I can call it redownload

 

[saamohod]

I think the first line you are saying horseman and the like (which normally don't get defense from terrain) will get it from citadels and forts. If so, I actually really don't like that change.

I'm positive the change is spot on because it corresponds with reality i.e. a horseman or a spearman behind castle walls do get defensive boost from an attacking force for obvious reason. The walls of the castle don't disappear the moment an infantryman gets on a horse.
Horses don't get defensive bonuses on rough terrain for different reasons: they cannot go prone, use trees as cover or fortify themselves in trenches. Dismounted infantry can therefore they get the terrain bonus.

 

[Enginseer]

Just installed the mod. I can't find GAMEEVENT_ConquerorValidBuilding.

Can you say what file it's in? If I am understanding this correctly, I need to list all the buildings Rome shouldn't be able to capture in a lua table? Does this lua trigger once at game startup, every time a city is conquered by anyone, or just by Rome?

GameEvents.ConquerorValidBuilding(iOwner, iCity, iConqueror, iBuilding)

It needs a different name since it's basically a CanCapture from Rome's UA. You have to return true at the end of the function and false for those buildings you don't want(or cities you don't want).

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Why did you incrase the population based need modifier to compensate the happiness by luxuries? Why not simply increase the base need modifiers so it hit everyone and not only growth related civs?
Was something done to smoothen the median calcuations? It was always delivering wrong values at uneven number of civilizations.

 

[nekokon]

I'm positive the change is spot on because it corresponds with reality i.e. a horseman or a spearman behind castle walls do get defensive boost from an attacking force for obvious reason. The walls of the castle don't disappear the moment an infantryman gets on a horse.
Horses don't get defensive bonuses on rough terrain for different reasons: they cannot go prone, use trees as cover or fortify themselves in trenches. Dismounted infantry can therefore they get the terrain bonus.

Horsemen can only get the bonus in reality because they can just hop off their mounts (which account for their much higher CS in the first place). If you can make horsemen got their CS reduced to spearmen level while defending inside fort/citadel or remove their ability to fortify then we're game, but right now they're really strong at holding choke points. This plus the lack of bonus dmg due to new flanking mechanic make defending a lot cheesier (2 horsemen/elephants in forts with medic archers behind can defend against anything for eternity)

 

[Rekk]

re: horsemen. the consensus on github was different. personally i don't really care but i lean towards a ruleset with fewer exceptions. AI and i bet many players didn't know that forts don't work for horsemen.

To me, improvement bonuses are considered part of terrain bonuses. The horseman now has an exception that it doesn't get defensive bonuses from terrain, and another exception that it gets defensive bonuses from certain improved terrain.

It also seems weird to me that the go-to fort holders are now cavalry instead of infantry, but it's already like that for cities under assault.

 

[Questdog]

Is city bombard damage supposed to be way higher? Spearman got hit for over 30 by a flatland city with 7 combat strength. Pathfinder was destroyed by a city bombard/warrior attacking across river while grabbing a worker on turn 5.

It is definitely a lot stronger, as least for beginning cities. My Capital used to do 10 points of damage to Brutes at the start of the game and now it is doing 27.

 

[YukiN]

It is definitely a lot stronger, as least for beginning cities. My Capital used to do 10 points of damage to Brutes at the start of the game and now it is doing 27.

Is your city on a hill? Is your city garrisoned? Did you take Tradition? Just trying to nail down some common suspects.

 

[Moi Magnus]

To me, improvement bonuses are considered part of terrain bonuses. The horseman now has an exception that it doesn't get defensive bonuses from terrain, and another exception that it gets defensive bonuses from certain improved terrain.

It also seems weird to me that the go-to fort holders are now cavalry instead of infantry, but it's already like that for cities under assault.

The debate should have probably been moved on the forum before implementation, but here are the reason why it was changed: https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/4839

Is city bombard damage supposed to be way higher? Spearman got hit for over 30 by a flatland city with 7 combat strength. Pathfinder was destroyed by a city bombard/warrior attacking across river while grabbing a worker on turn 5.

It may be a bug fix, since I've seen multiple report of city bombard being lower than what the computation should have given in the previous versions.

 

[Questdog]

Is your city on a hill? Is your city garrisoned? Did you take Tradition? Just trying to nail down some common suspects.

City is not on a hill and it is before any policies have been chosen and before any unit is built. In previous builds, the City Bombardment would do 10 points of damage to Brutes and now it did 27. My pathfinder witnessed a City State do 67 points of damage to a Barbarian Archer.

 

[Omen of Peace]

I think I like that cavalry can benefit from citadels now; we'll have to test it (note ilteroi's remark that the AI didn't know that it didn't work before!).

The city damage sounds like a bug though. I like that it had been made stronger recently (as of August or September) but the figures given seem by 76ers much too high.

 

[Gazebo]

Why did you incrase the population based need modifier to compensate the happiness by luxuries? Why not simply increase the base need modifiers so it hit everyone and not only growth related civs?
Was something done to smoothen the median calcuations? It was always delivering wrong values at uneven number of civilizations.

It doesn’t punish growth. It punishes reckless play.

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Ger sucks less now that it doesn't cost Maintenance (patch note doesn't contain it but it is there), the rest seems solid. It's worth it to Surrender a CS if there's a quest, I think I got a free classical era tech + 1/3rd of Trade for surrendering a military CS. Since it was at war with a very generous mercantile one, I also gained an Ally and some nice Gold/GA points. Sweet in this particular situation. A bit inflexible of an ability, but the reward for 'here and now' is great and it helped me ball. I do like it.
)))

A shame Veneration remains unpickable. I don't think any human wants it in it's current shape, so I will yet again say that since AI cannot be balanced around Faith per pop beliefs, it should be changed into something else so as to ensure it isn't a "noob trap" which no one experienced will take, but someone new might burden himself with. With how good buildings are with harsher religious divisions, Veneration appears to be useless.

 

[John.B.C]

City is not on a hill and it is before any policies have been chosen and before any unit is built. In previous builds, the City Bombardment would do 10 points of damage to Brutes and now it did 27. My pathfinder witnessed a City State do 67 points of damage to a Barbarian Archer.

Hmm, I might w8 trying this patch then, seems like a bug?