1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. JohanBest

    JohanBest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2018
    Messages:
    24
    And put that at the end of \Community Balance Overhaul\Balance Changes\Units\UnitCombat.sql to catch all units with this unintended property.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  2. pza

    pza Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    365
    i had 5 manowar @ a 55 def city that took many many turns to take it down. so - no, not yet.
     
  3. Txurce

    Txurce Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,146
    Location:
    Venice, California
    Looking back on the recent posts, I think it's the same problem.
     
  4. JohanBest

    JohanBest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2018
    Messages:
    24
    All gunpowder+ range units have the unintended property of ignore building defenses. Use the supplied fix.
     
    vyyt and Txurce like this.
  5. Vastator

    Vastator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    49
    Are these fixes save game compatible? It doesn't seem so for me, i've just loaded a save and my poor jaguars keep getting wrecked by city bombardment. I'm going to start a new game to check if now it works properly.
     
  6. yogiebere

    yogiebere Civilization City Planner

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    406
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Someone on reddit was proposing dropping city damage in addition to removing the ignore ability: change "CITY_RANGED_ATTACK_STRENGTH_MULTIPLIER" value from "50" to "-50".

    Is 50 to -50 too drastic? Not sure how the math is calculated.
     
  7. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    This is only to compensate for the lack of negative sign in the dll formula, so this temp fix achieves the same end result once into the formula.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  8. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,752
    The problem is a sign problem, not a value problem.
     
  9. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    Emued! :D

    Do you know if both "big" bugs affect CP only, or are they VP only and CP is not affected?
     
  10. Questdog

    Questdog Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    With the fix mentioned earlier in the thread for Cannons, this is not an issue. I had Cruisers this past game and they did not tear through cities' defenses with the fix in place.
     
  11. Txurce

    Txurce Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,146
    Location:
    Venice, California
    Yeah, that's what I figured, just wanted others to know it's auniversal sort of thing.
     
  12. documental

    documental Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    I'm getting odd behavior with the proposed fixes. A barbarian brute attacked my city over a river, each doing 11 damage to each other. Okay, a little low on the barbarians end. Next turn they only did 1 damage to each other! Not so okay. My city, with a defense of 12 (was lower before, bought an archer), is listed as 3.5 when launching a volley.

    Edit: Did some testing with IGE and alternative values. Civ damage is normal. Barby damage however is way out of wack. Right now I'm seeing values of -2/-8 at -25 lua city strength attacking over a river/no river (at 12 city strength, the values from before were 10) Curiously their attack animation is also skipped.

    Edit2: Is there something i've missed? I haven't played in quite a few versions (though I always read the patch notes). I did see one instance of a barbarian actually attacking my city (but only 1, despite surrounding my city with barbs 3 times now, 3 of them tend to run elsewhere), and I would say the damage was normal. I noticed that these other damage values always correspond with one another. My city receives X amount of damage, and barbarians receive the same amount. The same amount is also stolen from the city in a random yield. Doesn't happen every turn. Last time I played I don't recall them stealing yields like this.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  13. chicorbeef

    chicorbeef Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,276
    Gender:
    Male
    So defensive buildings don't work against Cannons/Field Guns/Artillery, do I have that right?

    Does this include Arsenals? I suppose this change was made to obsolete Walls/Castles, but Arsenals should not be immune to Cannons etc.

    Also boosts like Fealty/Orders/Constabularies, what about that? They still work, I assume?

    I understand it's bugged, but why was this change made in the first place? Was there some problem before?
     
  14. Rafs

    Rafs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    104
    I think (hope) it's just a bug, as even heavy skirmishers on ungarrisoned cities do very heavy damage to the city.
     
  15. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,705
    It doesn't think the feature is a bug. I think Iteroi wanted to incorporate that flag to be used. But I don't think the various units were updated properly to take it into account.

    That said, I don't like the flag at all. I don't think any units should be bypassing your defense buildings....afterall siege units already get a huge bonus to take cities, they don't need even more.
     
    Mauro Mezzina likes this.
  16. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,752
    To be more precise, that flag was already used, and its effect was "completely ignore forts/citadels/...". (Though few peoples knew about it)

    Iteroi suggested to make this flag be "ignore half of the defense buildings" instead, and remove the anti-city promotions to compensate. Miscommunication with Gazebo lead to the current situation.
     
    Myarta likes this.
  17. pza

    pza Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    365
    1.JPG

    at least its amusing :D
     
    akasha27 and saamohod like this.
  18. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,178
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    To be more precise, I think ilteroi wanted to remove the free promotion that grants +100% strength vs cities. Siege units would ignore walls instead. The promotions vs cities that are earned through experience stay. I'm OK with this part, if the result is similar to what we have now.

    However, I'm not that fond of the change that allows horsemen to benefit from forts. This makes infantry only better than cavalry in defense in rough terrain. It completely breaks the balance among these units.
     
  19. pineappledan

    pineappledan Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,601
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I'm honestly not sure why any of those changes were made. It was my impression that we were in late days for development for this mod. overhauling flanking/siege damage/fort and citadel mechanics all strike me as arbitrary changes that don't necessarily fix anything that wasn't working just fine in its own way before.

    As G might say, these are all changes for changes' sake. They're not necessarily worse, once we iron out the kinks, but I just have no idea why anyone felt the need to overhaul these systems.
     
  20. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,752
    They were changes for debug sake.
    Flanking was overly bugged and needed to be rewritten anyway. And someone said something like "By the way, flanking is the only bonus that isn't additive, but multiplicative, is there any reason to keep this distinction? No?" and someone else in the thread "I'm changing that. Done!"
     

Share This Page