new patch is on its way: 1.0.1.275, released April, 28th

[Kerosene31]

Testing for a stability with a mod is a fair test - just a harder one! In this case, the TBC mod doesn't cause crashes anyway... and works just fine as is with the new patch.

Testing a patch should be done with a new game without mods.

Mods will break after patches. It doesn't test anything to prove what is already known.

 

[Txurce]

Testing a patch should be done with a new game without mods.

Mods will break after patches. It doesn't test anything to prove what is already known.

1. Nothing is "known" when trying a patch for the first time.

2. The TBC mod did not break.

3. The patch proved that - and in the process, that it works on its own as well (unless you think TBC is propping it up).

 

[SRG]

1. Nothing is "known" when trying a patch for the first time.

2. The TBC mod did not break.

3. The patch proved that - and in the process, that it works on its own as well (unless you think TBC is propping it up).

I think the question is, when it DOES crash... is it the game (now patched) causing the crash, or is it something in the mod that the patch broke?

Generally when testing things, you want to remove all possible variables except the one you're testing, which in this case, is the patch.

 

[Txurce]

I think the question is, when it DOES crash... is it the game (now patched) causing the crash, or is it something in the mod that the patch broke?

Generally when testing things, you want to remove all possible variables except the one you're testing, which in this case, is the patch.

I think your last statement is right in general... but this particular conversation started with someone commenting on a test with a mod. Everyone who uses that mod will be very curious as to how it works (since it exponentially improves vanilla). That player is entitled to post his observations, and if they're of no use to you, then ignore it.

However, I will note for the third time that the game did not crash for me with the new patch and the TBC mod. Even non-mod users can safely extrapolate something of value from that.

 

[Kerosene31]

1. Nothing is "known" when trying a patch for the first time.

2. The TBC mod did not break.

3. The patch proved that - and in the process, that it works on its own as well (unless you think TBC is propping it up).

Yes, things are known. People make mods based on a version of the game. Patching the game changes things significantly. If a mod continues to work and produce the same results it is nothing but luck.

Let the mod authors check things over before people freak out over mods. This happens in every game out there.

 

[Uniform Sierra]

I'm disappointed that there was no AI tweak for liberating a civilization. Last night I waged an epic battle against Japan as America with Artillery, minutemen, and cavalry. I had no reason to attack him other than his warmongering, he conquered China. So what do I do? I attack him, take back two three cities for China, then strip him bare in a peace treaty and give China the cities I got during my peace treaty.

I - WANT - GRATIFICATION

That stupid woman wasn't grateful that her entire empire was restored to her, and got free workers from myself.

 

[Txurce]

Yes, things are known. People make mods based on a version of the game. Patching the game changes things significantly. If a mod continues to work and produce the same results it is nothing but luck.

Let the mod authors check things over before people freak out over mods. This happens in every game out there.

No one is freaking out about the TBC mod - in fact, quite the opposite. Because it works. Someone posted this, and I seconded it. End of story.

Or should have been. If you don't want to draw inferences from these posts with regard to the vanilla patch, then don't. But don't question others' methodology unless you are sure you understand what they are trying to ascertain. In my case, I only care about how the patch works with TBC. My first test naturally used them together. If there has been problems, then I know how to troubleshoot. But there weren't.

 

[Uniform Sierra]

What does the new interface look like? I loaded up my American game last night and I see no difference in interface.

 

[Valkrionn]

but they keep the key for the text, ie "TXT_KEY_CIV5_OSLO_TITLE" now refer to "Quebec City"

I understand that they can't just replace the key for savegame compatibility, but they could have just added the new CS and add a check to not used the old ones when launching a new game...

That would have required an entirely new mechanic, rather than just changed text.

Possibly a worthwhile mechanic, but still; More time required.

I think I may have been dreaming or something because I remember some sort of mention of adding positive modifiers for diplo. Now I check the patch notes and they aren't there.

Was this mentioned as something coming down the line, the next patch or something? Or am I imagining things?

Liking patch so far.

Next patch.

 

[Kerosene31]

No one is freaking out about the TBC mod - in fact, quite the opposite. Because it works. Someone posted this, and I seconded it. End of story.

Or should have been. If you don't want to draw inferences from these posts with regard to the vanilla patch, then don't. But don't question others' methodology unless you are sure you understand what they are trying to ascertain. In my case, I only care about how the patch works with TBC. My first test naturally used them together. If there has been problems, then I know how to troubleshoot. But there weren't.

I don't know or care about your mod. Test your favorite mod all you want. If it works, great. If not, don't blame the patch.

What I care about is people saying the "patch" crashes, when instead mods are crashing.

You're testing a mod that's fine.

 

[Talim [own]]

Does that means that now I can play a naval game without having 0% chance of losing a city ?

 

[Schalke 04]

I am not a great MOD-User. However, I started to use some information-mods in Civ 5 (like InfoAddict and so on).

Generally, at first I want to see the changes of a patch to the original version of the game. Those infos are much appreciated by me and my mainly interest (I am sure, that the relative modders will take care to adjust their mods to the current built).


On the other hand, I don't mind, if someone states, how a new patch works with a certain mod, as long as it doesn't result in a rant. That is perfectly OK with me, and can give some precious information to the modder in question.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

How do open that file?

Using this method.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

It's a text file, you can open it with Wordpad or Notepad (right click, open with...)

No, he actually meant the Explorer maps & Denmark DLC pub_banners DDS found in the FPK. For lua files you preferably need a dedicated "Multi-Language editor" such as Edit-Plus.

 

[Pouakai]

Ugh, too much work. Could you maybe post them here please??

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I'm not sure what either of these two mean. Can you please explain, Zyxpsilon?

SP background images are overlayed with semi-transparent instead of pitch-black underneath the tree icons.
The main menu splashes pub-stunts for available DLC. I guess we'll have two slots now, Denmark & Explorer Maps.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Ugh, too much work. Could you maybe post them here please??

yep... see below!

 

[Tabarnak]

Quebec City and Sydney replaced Copenhagen and Oslo.

Great! I played only one game so far but i had set only 8 cs for a small map. My city in a civilization game....

In that game, 3 barbs had tried to conquer a city of mine around 2000 BC. The city lost half of hit points. Is that something newly added in the new patch?

 

[dexters]

rEALLY? never seen barbs attack cities before. That is new.

 

[Kerosene31]

I've never seen barbs attack a city either. They just wander around aimlessly while you let the city attack them. I'll have to watch that in my early game strategy, because you never cared about an early city getting attacked as long as it had no tile improvements yet.