Patch 1.21 bugs & problems.
- Thread starter Dinorius R.
- Start date
Pe_Teach_12
Chieftain
I am not for sure that this is a bug.
I have the 1.21 patch installed on a totally clean install of the original game. I was playing with the Americans. When I got later into the game, I could not keep the cities that had built everything needed to be built, from defaulting to building a worker. In city manager I set it to never build worker and it still built them. If I choose for them not to be built at all I dont want them built. I choose to build defensive units and my cities still chose to build workers. I choose to build defensive units OFTEN and they still built workers. I went in a set preferences to build last unit built and it still went back to workers. I dont mind it defaulting to something when everythings has been built but I think it should default to wealth not workers. I dont need 150 workers if I dont want them, ¾ of them are just waiting in cities for something to do, and more come kicking out. This is a waist of my resources and time. Maybe Firaxis could put an option in that if everything is built according to the rules set forth by the city manager then you can choose the default. Maybe have it build units or workers or wealth or what ever the player wants. Please let me know if I am doing something wrong but I have not noticed this in any other patch or the original game.
Thanks
I have the 1.21 patch installed on a totally clean install of the original game. I was playing with the Americans. When I got later into the game, I could not keep the cities that had built everything needed to be built, from defaulting to building a worker. In city manager I set it to never build worker and it still built them. If I choose for them not to be built at all I dont want them built. I choose to build defensive units and my cities still chose to build workers. I choose to build defensive units OFTEN and they still built workers. I went in a set preferences to build last unit built and it still went back to workers. I dont mind it defaulting to something when everythings has been built but I think it should default to wealth not workers. I dont need 150 workers if I dont want them, ¾ of them are just waiting in cities for something to do, and more come kicking out. This is a waist of my resources and time. Maybe Firaxis could put an option in that if everything is built according to the rules set forth by the city manager then you can choose the default. Maybe have it build units or workers or wealth or what ever the player wants. Please let me know if I am doing something wrong but I have not noticed this in any other patch or the original game.
Thanks
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
In my current game, I'm playing as Persia. I had the GL, and as usual, let it get the top half of the Middle Ages tech trees up to Education. Now, at the beginning of each successive age, and after building Theory of Evolution, the message has popped up that our Alchemists/Scientists/Think Tanks (depending on the age) have discovered Education, and showed the brain icon, instead of naming the appropriate tech. A minor bug, yes, but lowers the overall game presentation when you discover Atomic Theory and are told you have discovered Education.
Nomad_Wanderer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2001
- Messages
- 20
I was in the middle of GOTM6 (I usually play them, but don't send them in), when I patched to 1.21. In GOTM6 to my west was another Civ(babylonians), and while I was monarchy, and they were democracy, we got into a war. I captured a few of their cities, and discovered that another civ(persia) doing the same from the other side..
Eventually, Babylon was defeated, leaving me to deal with their city problems(they were pop-rushing/drafting like crazy). I still was only monarchy at this point, hadn't yet converted to democracy....
Well, I gave up with the cities, and had them start pumping out workers. Eventually getting to a point where I could abandon them.
As soon as the 2/3 cities that were giving me trouble were gone, one of MY cities(mine from the beginning), started rioting....and get this, complaining about the draft!
I didn't add any workers to my cities, nor ever switch to democracy, so I'm not sure how I'm now fighting unpopularity due to drafting should be a problem for me...
Anyone else have wierd things with drafting/abandoning cities..?
nw
Eventually, Babylon was defeated, leaving me to deal with their city problems(they were pop-rushing/drafting like crazy). I still was only monarchy at this point, hadn't yet converted to democracy....
Well, I gave up with the cities, and had them start pumping out workers. Eventually getting to a point where I could abandon them.
As soon as the 2/3 cities that were giving me trouble were gone, one of MY cities(mine from the beginning), started rioting....and get this, complaining about the draft!
I didn't add any workers to my cities, nor ever switch to democracy, so I'm not sure how I'm now fighting unpopularity due to drafting should be a problem for me...
Anyone else have wierd things with drafting/abandoning cities..?
nw
Beeblbrox
Warlord
OK, I've been reading backwards through this thread and was incensed by a couple of people who obviously have a very tenacious grasp on historical accuracy.
The chap who mentioned the Trebuchers is completely right - bombardment weapons were and generally are designed for fortification assault - not field combat.
In this respect Firaxis is 100% correct. The greatest use over prolonged periods of bombardments took place obviously in the first and second world wars. Now, please go and ask any expert (or amateur interested person) how effective artillery bombardment and aerial bombardment were at actually destroying combat units
I know for a fact from my admittedly limited knowledge that one particular instance stands out - The Great Push of WW1. Hideous and I mean Hideous amounts of artillery bombardment were employed upon the German lines for a whole week from literally thousands of artillery units day and night. The amount of shells and tons of explosive deployed literally run into the millions
And how far did the push get afterwards? Well I would like to quote the great Blackadder goes Forth series "How much land have we gained? - Uh - the map you are looking at is 1 to 1 in scale"
All the germans did was hunker down and weather the storm. Comparitively they were hardly scratched - and for certain no whole combat unit was destroyed.
Likewise in World War 2 you will find very few if any instances of a combat unit being totally destroyed by long range or high altitude aerial bombardment. Even today its only with great expense and cruise missile technology (or similar) can a combat unit be actually decimated.
I would even go so far as arguing that naval units are also likewise not as vulnerable to such bombardment. The only exception is low-altitude bombardment. High altitude bombers were simply not capable of hitting a target so relativey small. This has been the case right up until literally the past decade - why else did they even bother with battleships in the second world war? I can assure you that if the opinions being espoused here were true then the RAF would have dealt with the Bismark and we would not have bothered sending 5 cruisers and 3 battleships (or whatever the number was) to deal with it. My only suggestion is that there should be a capability to destroy ships by bombardment given to Fighters and their ilk, as they are the only ones who have demonstrated the capacity to do so historically - and even then it was in great numbers.
The attitude being shown smacks of what a lot of our military media has been trying to espouse to us in recent years - 'combat can be resolved purely through remote bombardment and that no direct intervention is required' which they know for a fact is patently untrue, but like to tell us so we don't feel we are going to have to risk anything when we start an engagement. Sadly the fact that every military operation has actually required foot soldiers to go in at the end of the day to finish the job tends to be overlooked, and seems to have been overlooked by a lot of people here.
Oh b.t.w. I expect there may be a few relatively small instances where this is not the case, but I think that as a general rule (and as a large scale game we can only deal with general rules) bombardment is correct now as implemented, and should stay this way. I also expect somebody will pick me up on some historical minor inaccuracies, but the general gist is there and is correct.
Mods: Sorry for being totally off topic but I had to say my piece. Please feel free to start a new thread with this subject if you like (in fact i think it would be a good idea)
The chap who mentioned the Trebuchers is completely right - bombardment weapons were and generally are designed for fortification assault - not field combat.
In this respect Firaxis is 100% correct. The greatest use over prolonged periods of bombardments took place obviously in the first and second world wars. Now, please go and ask any expert (or amateur interested person) how effective artillery bombardment and aerial bombardment were at actually destroying combat units
I know for a fact from my admittedly limited knowledge that one particular instance stands out - The Great Push of WW1. Hideous and I mean Hideous amounts of artillery bombardment were employed upon the German lines for a whole week from literally thousands of artillery units day and night. The amount of shells and tons of explosive deployed literally run into the millions
And how far did the push get afterwards? Well I would like to quote the great Blackadder goes Forth series "How much land have we gained? - Uh - the map you are looking at is 1 to 1 in scale"
All the germans did was hunker down and weather the storm. Comparitively they were hardly scratched - and for certain no whole combat unit was destroyed.
Likewise in World War 2 you will find very few if any instances of a combat unit being totally destroyed by long range or high altitude aerial bombardment. Even today its only with great expense and cruise missile technology (or similar) can a combat unit be actually decimated.
I would even go so far as arguing that naval units are also likewise not as vulnerable to such bombardment. The only exception is low-altitude bombardment. High altitude bombers were simply not capable of hitting a target so relativey small. This has been the case right up until literally the past decade - why else did they even bother with battleships in the second world war? I can assure you that if the opinions being espoused here were true then the RAF would have dealt with the Bismark and we would not have bothered sending 5 cruisers and 3 battleships (or whatever the number was) to deal with it. My only suggestion is that there should be a capability to destroy ships by bombardment given to Fighters and their ilk, as they are the only ones who have demonstrated the capacity to do so historically - and even then it was in great numbers.
The attitude being shown smacks of what a lot of our military media has been trying to espouse to us in recent years - 'combat can be resolved purely through remote bombardment and that no direct intervention is required' which they know for a fact is patently untrue, but like to tell us so we don't feel we are going to have to risk anything when we start an engagement. Sadly the fact that every military operation has actually required foot soldiers to go in at the end of the day to finish the job tends to be overlooked, and seems to have been overlooked by a lot of people here.
Oh b.t.w. I expect there may be a few relatively small instances where this is not the case, but I think that as a general rule (and as a large scale game we can only deal with general rules) bombardment is correct now as implemented, and should stay this way. I also expect somebody will pick me up on some historical minor inaccuracies, but the general gist is there and is correct.
Mods: Sorry for being totally off topic but I had to say my piece. Please feel free to start a new thread with this subject if you like (in fact i think it would be a good idea)
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Sorry you feel that way Beelbrox, but a reasonable and coherent person who had truly experimented with the artillery units could not possibly say that they are currently correctly implemented.
You and "trebuchet"man are correct that bombard units in the Ancient and Medieval ages were primarily "seige machines". Armies of those ages carried some key parts for the seige machines and then set up shop and built the before the fortifications of their enemies in tandem with starving the cities into submission.
WWI is a bad example because trench warfare and the machine gun used at the infantry level altered the balance of power. Make note here of the crappy logic flaw that you have faleen self victim to, and that is failing to recognize that the heavy weapons elements swing the balance of power from age to age as each new technology is developed and implement. Infantry hold ground and territory, but the weapons technologies shift the balance from defensive to offensive advantages as they are implemented.
The reason I say that an intelligent person could not say that the standard Firaxis Bombardment is properly implemented is based on testing and not just pure conjecture.
In a test game against conscript barbarian warriors, the firaxis default fighters failed to hit the conscript warriors in 9 out of 30 cases even on open ground. In none, of the 30 cases did the fighter aircraft kill the barbarian warriors even though lethal engagement was enabled. When barbarian warriors were in hills or forests on the tundra, the mis rate jumped up to over 50% and again none of the warriors could be killed.
Just use this example as a basis to realize that the firaxis default fighter aircraft cannot even attack and kill the lowest, weakest, slowest and least sophisticated unit in the entire game.
At the higher levels, get your head out of the sand and ask the question:: "If you fire a field artillery piece into a city of population 12, with 6 imporvement buildings, and a defender force of 4 --- What is you chance of hitting something (hitting anything)." In the firaxis default implementation, the number of failed shots with large number of targets is two to three times higher than when there are only a few targets.
The firaxis default implementation turns everyone into the modern day equivalent of Attilla the Hun because Military units are given immunity from being killed by artillery.
Get real, what magnitude of brain damage thought up the concept that military units would be immune from being killed by artillery while all the civilians can get killed straight away.
Stand Off attack is particularly appropriate for naval warfare because otherwise the naval forces just thumb their nose at what would otherwise be overwhelming defenses. If shore guns cannot sink transports, the transports will always be able to land their payloads of evil and in fact they need no defense at all. They just take their two or three hit points of damage and then unload their invasion force and run away.
Don't be drugged into thinking that lethality implies that the cannons or airplanes will kill the targets on the first pass this is false and relects a total lack of willingness to investigate what you are saying.
Using the simplified early air combat and artillery test map, I engaged a large number of spearman with WWII bombers. This is a ridiculously mismatched concept but the results indicate why the default Firaxis implementation is so totally incorrect.
When using the standard WWII Firaxis bomber to engage spearmen and archers that were attacking the cities, it was impossible to kill the attackers even when they attacked out in the open across level ground. Even with Lethality enabled, it takes 5 or 6 bombers (the equivalent of 500 shields of combat power) to destroy two attackers made up of 1 Veteran Spearman and 1 veteran Archer (The equivalent of 40 shields of combat power.) That is a 12 to 1 ratio which is way out of line with BALANCED play.
The default range of Firaxis Default fighters set at 4 tiles does not even exceed the boundaries of my cities when we get to the timing where fighter can be built. Just what am I going to conduct Reconaissance on when the recon range is equal to only what I can already see.
Bomber range is similarly mismatched with the distance between cities. Bombers can only be minimally effective when based in Fronties cities and then they can only reach to the first enemy city in about 50% of the cases.
IN GOTMV (The Americans -vs- Egypt) I had a stack of 26 bombers going against a 15 pop Egyptian city from a captured beachhead city and it took 5 turns and almost 120 sorties of the bombers to reduce the population down to 4 people and weaken the three defenders so that my tank attack force could take and hold the city. Think about the balance there: It took two thousand six hundred (2,600 shields of combat power) to reduce the defensive combat power of 210 shields down to a capturable level.
Without artillery and bombardment capability we get the current "in your face" AI stupidity where the enemies run up against your cities and dump out aggressor units inspite of clear borders and strong defensive conditions.
Your allusion to historical correctness suffers from selective memory loss. The example of Napoleon's artillery has been given, but few people realize that his superior use of the cannons of the field artillery had them arrive on the battlefield as one of the first units after the cavalry. In order to help define a zone of separation between the opposing forces. His standing orders to the Marshalls were to march the troops toward the sound of the guns to determine were the battle was.
If the game is balanced, we will see use of the units and weapons systems in winning game strategies and by the AI players as well. I think the primary reason that the firaxis default bombardment rules have been so limited have had to do with lack of an implementable AI sophistication in many of the combat areas.
Default units like catapults and cannons are so worthless that I disband them as soon as they are captured rather than pay the 1 gold per turn or risk my other units in their defense.
The barbarian hordes have been more sophisticated attackers than some of the AI opponents, but this is because they can randomly spawn hordes of warriors all at one instant and are not subject to resource and support limitations.
Just test out the conditions before you spew forth that things are jus tfine as the defaults. This statement could only be true if you want no one to ever use artillery.
.. more later ... cracker
You and "trebuchet"man are correct that bombard units in the Ancient and Medieval ages were primarily "seige machines". Armies of those ages carried some key parts for the seige machines and then set up shop and built the before the fortifications of their enemies in tandem with starving the cities into submission.
WWI is a bad example because trench warfare and the machine gun used at the infantry level altered the balance of power. Make note here of the crappy logic flaw that you have faleen self victim to, and that is failing to recognize that the heavy weapons elements swing the balance of power from age to age as each new technology is developed and implement. Infantry hold ground and territory, but the weapons technologies shift the balance from defensive to offensive advantages as they are implemented.
The reason I say that an intelligent person could not say that the standard Firaxis Bombardment is properly implemented is based on testing and not just pure conjecture.
In a test game against conscript barbarian warriors, the firaxis default fighters failed to hit the conscript warriors in 9 out of 30 cases even on open ground. In none, of the 30 cases did the fighter aircraft kill the barbarian warriors even though lethal engagement was enabled. When barbarian warriors were in hills or forests on the tundra, the mis rate jumped up to over 50% and again none of the warriors could be killed.
Just use this example as a basis to realize that the firaxis default fighter aircraft cannot even attack and kill the lowest, weakest, slowest and least sophisticated unit in the entire game.
At the higher levels, get your head out of the sand and ask the question:: "If you fire a field artillery piece into a city of population 12, with 6 imporvement buildings, and a defender force of 4 --- What is you chance of hitting something (hitting anything)." In the firaxis default implementation, the number of failed shots with large number of targets is two to three times higher than when there are only a few targets.
The firaxis default implementation turns everyone into the modern day equivalent of Attilla the Hun because Military units are given immunity from being killed by artillery.
Get real, what magnitude of brain damage thought up the concept that military units would be immune from being killed by artillery while all the civilians can get killed straight away.
Stand Off attack is particularly appropriate for naval warfare because otherwise the naval forces just thumb their nose at what would otherwise be overwhelming defenses. If shore guns cannot sink transports, the transports will always be able to land their payloads of evil and in fact they need no defense at all. They just take their two or three hit points of damage and then unload their invasion force and run away.
Don't be drugged into thinking that lethality implies that the cannons or airplanes will kill the targets on the first pass this is false and relects a total lack of willingness to investigate what you are saying.
Using the simplified early air combat and artillery test map, I engaged a large number of spearman with WWII bombers. This is a ridiculously mismatched concept but the results indicate why the default Firaxis implementation is so totally incorrect.
When using the standard WWII Firaxis bomber to engage spearmen and archers that were attacking the cities, it was impossible to kill the attackers even when they attacked out in the open across level ground. Even with Lethality enabled, it takes 5 or 6 bombers (the equivalent of 500 shields of combat power) to destroy two attackers made up of 1 Veteran Spearman and 1 veteran Archer (The equivalent of 40 shields of combat power.) That is a 12 to 1 ratio which is way out of line with BALANCED play.
The default range of Firaxis Default fighters set at 4 tiles does not even exceed the boundaries of my cities when we get to the timing where fighter can be built. Just what am I going to conduct Reconaissance on when the recon range is equal to only what I can already see.
Bomber range is similarly mismatched with the distance between cities. Bombers can only be minimally effective when based in Fronties cities and then they can only reach to the first enemy city in about 50% of the cases.
IN GOTMV (The Americans -vs- Egypt) I had a stack of 26 bombers going against a 15 pop Egyptian city from a captured beachhead city and it took 5 turns and almost 120 sorties of the bombers to reduce the population down to 4 people and weaken the three defenders so that my tank attack force could take and hold the city. Think about the balance there: It took two thousand six hundred (2,600 shields of combat power) to reduce the defensive combat power of 210 shields down to a capturable level.
Without artillery and bombardment capability we get the current "in your face" AI stupidity where the enemies run up against your cities and dump out aggressor units inspite of clear borders and strong defensive conditions.
Your allusion to historical correctness suffers from selective memory loss. The example of Napoleon's artillery has been given, but few people realize that his superior use of the cannons of the field artillery had them arrive on the battlefield as one of the first units after the cavalry. In order to help define a zone of separation between the opposing forces. His standing orders to the Marshalls were to march the troops toward the sound of the guns to determine were the battle was.
If the game is balanced, we will see use of the units and weapons systems in winning game strategies and by the AI players as well. I think the primary reason that the firaxis default bombardment rules have been so limited have had to do with lack of an implementable AI sophistication in many of the combat areas.
Default units like catapults and cannons are so worthless that I disband them as soon as they are captured rather than pay the 1 gold per turn or risk my other units in their defense.
The barbarian hordes have been more sophisticated attackers than some of the AI opponents, but this is because they can randomly spawn hordes of warriors all at one instant and are not subject to resource and support limitations.
Just test out the conditions before you spew forth that things are jus tfine as the defaults. This statement could only be true if you want no one to ever use artillery.
.. more later ... cracker
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Forgot to add that Cleo had 4 fighters in her arsenal against the 26 bombers and every turn she would take out one bomber and wound one other bomber. When she upgraded the fighters to jets, then I lost one bomber every turn in the attack just to tie up the fighter so the rest of the bombers could bash the cities.
I almost gave up because the ratio was going something like One bomber dead, one bomber wounded, 10 bombers miss, 5 bombers hit something I didn't want to hit and two bombers on target.
After I discovered how to deliberately starve the population away in V1.17, I stopped using bombers at all and jus tshifted to warmongering masses of tanks and cavalry.
The artillery bombardment with impunity comes with the price of not being able to move afterward. The units must be well defended to prevent a focused counter attack that could succeed. The sequence is Move One - Shoot One - Then Move one again. Infantry can still outrun the artillery in most scenarios particularly when terrain of mountains, forest and jungle intervenes.
Try it before you side with the uniinformed.
I almost gave up because the ratio was going something like One bomber dead, one bomber wounded, 10 bombers miss, 5 bombers hit something I didn't want to hit and two bombers on target.
After I discovered how to deliberately starve the population away in V1.17, I stopped using bombers at all and jus tshifted to warmongering masses of tanks and cavalry.
The artillery bombardment with impunity comes with the price of not being able to move afterward. The units must be well defended to prevent a focused counter attack that could succeed. The sequence is Move One - Shoot One - Then Move one again. Infantry can still outrun the artillery in most scenarios particularly when terrain of mountains, forest and jungle intervenes.
Try it before you side with the uniinformed.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
I should add the artillery (air and naval units) ought to be legit targets for bombardment. Currently they are exempt from damage under the flawed firaxis default logic.
This means you have to kille the defending infantry units and take the city in order to stop the attacks from the bombardment units.
It also means that a stack of 12 artillery pieces on a mountain top defended by one Mech infantry unit are virtually immune to attack by bombers that have an 8 point bombardment power. Even if undefended in a city, a stack of bombers cannot be hit by attacking bombers. You can kill the civilians but the bombers and artillery are immune. (What led someone to think that up.)
Don't get me wrong CIV3 is great and the Firaxians have done a great job. The bombard units however, seem to be implemented with someone from UC Berkely as an advisor.
This means you have to kille the defending infantry units and take the city in order to stop the attacks from the bombardment units.
It also means that a stack of 12 artillery pieces on a mountain top defended by one Mech infantry unit are virtually immune to attack by bombers that have an 8 point bombardment power. Even if undefended in a city, a stack of bombers cannot be hit by attacking bombers. You can kill the civilians but the bombers and artillery are immune. (What led someone to think that up.)
Don't get me wrong CIV3 is great and the Firaxians have done a great job. The bombard units however, seem to be implemented with someone from UC Berkely as an advisor.
Jarvis
Chieftain
Another possible bug/question--I know this had been an issue previously, but I thought it had been fixed. When I discovered Navigation, allowing my caravels to travel on ocean squares, it seemed that my galleys were also able to survive landing on ocean squares. Either that, or I was getting awfully lucky...
God
God
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,354
I like the lethal bombardment but I agree how unbalancing it is. The AI never uses artillery on offense, so that gives the player a huge advantage. But I still like it and put am going to make a little mod for myself with a few of the other newer editor features.
hi
i have two problems.
- i have conquered two french citites on another continent. in one city is a harbour. there are two luxyries (dyes, wines) in that cities. on my own continent i also have a harbor. and there is a visible ship rout. why do i have no dyes and wines on my continent ?
- French has not yet discovered gunpowder ( i can see when i talk with them), but they have lots of musketeers
i attached my sav file
i have two problems.
- i have conquered two french citites on another continent. in one city is a harbour. there are two luxyries (dyes, wines) in that cities. on my own continent i also have a harbor. and there is a visible ship rout. why do i have no dyes and wines on my continent ?
- French has not yet discovered gunpowder ( i can see when i talk with them), but they have lots of musketeers
i attached my sav file
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
CRASHING.
This occurs so commonly if you seriously Edit the game (including changing units) it makes new mods problematic.
FIRAXIS: Tell us in the next Readme exactly what causes crashing and how this can be avoided.
Are you listening, Firaxis??
Yea, right.
That'll be the day.
This occurs so commonly if you seriously Edit the game (including changing units) it makes new mods problematic.
FIRAXIS: Tell us in the next Readme exactly what causes crashing and how this can be avoided.
Are you listening, Firaxis??
Yea, right.
That'll be the day.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Originally posted by ulki13
hi
i have two problems.
- i have conquered two french citites on another continent. in one city is a harbour. there are two luxyries (dyes, wines) in that cities. on my own continent i also have a harbor. and there is a visible ship rout. why do i have no dyes and wines on my continent ?
ULKI13: I checked your save files and the dyes city (besancon) is not attached by a road to the attached to the harbor city. At least not a road that doesnot got through French Territory. The Harbor city has Wines attached to it by road that you control, but you have not yet discovered magnetism which allows trade to occur across ocean tiles. That is my guess at the trade problem.
- French has not yet discovered gunpowder ( i can see when i talk with them), but they have lots of musketeers
I think there is a city out of your view or a trade connection to one of the other civs that you cannot see. France is building Musketeers in almost every city and they are researching Theory of gravity so they long since have the technology.
Doesn't look like a bug.
Everyone that you know on your map hates you!!! Hope things work out OK.
... cracker
sumthinelse
civ investigator
I missed somed of the earlier posts but saw in the later ones that many players were happy because the AI tech trading had been "fixed." So I installed 1.12f, reloaded my game, played about 15 turns (I am a slow player too!) and saw that tech trading was still the same 
. That is, even if you have a lead of 12 techs over a civ with no money and nothing to trade, they still catch up fairly quickly somehow......
Then I found earlier posts and found that it was a heuristic under Difficulty Levels. You have to reduce the "AI to AI Trade Rate." After that all kinds of trading get more reasonable.
It's not a bug; in fact, I congratulate Firaxis on a welcome enhancement. It's just easy to miss, and the explanation under "Help" was a little difficult, although it was technically correct. Hey, under time pressure, I have written Help text in programs that not everyone would be 100% satisfied with. I wonder if someone is reading my text even as we speak, saying "What th' ....." I think they will figure it out eventually.
So, Thanks Firaxis for this wish granted!!!
. That is, even if you have a lead of 12 techs over a civ with no money and nothing to trade, they still catch up fairly quickly somehow......Then I found earlier posts and found that it was a heuristic under Difficulty Levels. You have to reduce the "AI to AI Trade Rate." After that all kinds of trading get more reasonable.
It's not a bug; in fact, I congratulate Firaxis on a welcome enhancement. It's just easy to miss, and the explanation under "Help" was a little difficult, although it was technically correct. Hey, under time pressure, I have written Help text in programs that not everyone would be 100% satisfied with. I wonder if someone is reading my text even as we speak, saying "What th' ....." I think they will figure it out eventually.
So, Thanks Firaxis for this wish granted!!!
Here's my two cents about patch 1.21f.
I belive, it's much better than 1.17f. I don't trade technologies yet (I'm afraid of doing so after long time playing with 1.17f) but I hope, I'll be useing the tech brokering strategy soon.
My comments & suggestions:
1. This patch is extremely slow. However, all the processing between turns has nothing with hard drive so I suppose it's not because of my small memory (256M). I think, Firaxis added additional intellegence to the AI and my rivals get pumped too much units (256x256 map, 7 civs including me). Well, from one side it's good: I can do a lot of other works while AI is moving his pawns but couldn't you guys improve the speed? How about making some movements during player's turn? You know, you can perform some actions while player's thinking, like moving non-combat units, producing shields, commerce, other things? I think a lot of job can be done yet before human player's finished with his boys.
2. Also, while working with other programs during AI's turn, it will be very helpful if the Civ's taskbar button will blink when it needs to know my opinion about world's problem. For instance, when Domestic Advisor needs to know what to build. It will be better, if taskbar button will blink so I can immediately return to playing Civ again.
3. Couldn't you arrange automatic movements so they perform before interacting with the player? It's tiresome to move some units, then screen starts to jump everywhere, then you have to move again, then it jumps again and so on. What about autojumps before manual moves? So we can safely move our fools without fearing to see the jumping screen again?
4. And, how about ordering the units that I need to move? The order of units to move is very strange: I have haunders of unmoved units on the same screen but it jumps to the other side of world and demands to move one stupid galley that I forgot it ever existed! I can't remember what I wanted to with this particular Worker when it junps back. I really need to move all units on a single single screen, then going to the nearest umoved unit and so on. If you guys are playing with 10x10 maps, you can remember all your wishes, but for us, The Big Guys with Bug Worlds, we really need some order whithout jumping allover the world like crazy kangaroo.
5. By the way, about big maps: what about 512x512 map? I'd like to play on this one... But maybe I should buy Cray to play with this map.
6. Another point with units: how to switch off our auto moves? The Show Our Automatic Moves preference doesn't work at all!
7. Suggestion to improve speed: please how can I turn off animation? It's cute and very interesting, but when you have hundred workes working on a single screen (I have 1280x1024 monitor), it's very slow.
8. Thank you very much for adding this autoarchivation feature. All saves now 10 times smaller. However, with my 40GB hard drive with about 10GB free, I can safely save thounsands of unpacked saves without any problem. Can I turn this feature off? If I'll evaluate speed or saving 6M of hard drive, I choose speed.
9. As I noted before, I have 1280x1024 screen. And I use zoom out. Sometimes it's hard to detech, where's active unit is right now. I have to click on the info window to center screen and then I see it. It could be very helpful if you imrove the appearance of active unit. How about this large white circle that appears when I zoom in? The circle of the same size will be very good.
10. To improve game's appearance even more, you can use smooth scrolling instead of simple plain jumping when you need to center new active unit. For example, I just moved one unit and the next one very close to the current screen (but outside of it's borders) it will be much better if you smooth scroll into view of this unit. There's no need to always center the new active unit, you need just to scroll it into view, that's all! I'm sure, this new feature will greatly improve the game experience.
11. Domestic Adviser. I still cannot escape the constant re-asking 'dear sir, what we should build right now right here?', it drives me nut (if it didn't already). What about NOT asking me when there's something in city's queue? With this, I can order a city to build improvement till the next millenium and forget about it! Great!
The same should be with Science Adviser: if I choose several techs to research, he shouldn't re-asking me each time. And I shouldn't lost my money when the tech can be researched for cheaper (usually on last turn of research).
12. Now, what about graft for Advisers? It's good to know military plans of a rival, but I'd like to know latest news from rival's Foreign Advisor (is he in war or what), Military Advisor (of course, the latter should cost more money) and so on!
13. Please couldn't you vertically stretch Advisors' window so it feets a whole monitor? Seemd like you have a regular pattern in the middle, so it wouldn't be a problem to feet the window to monitor's settings. And we will have a greater experience with Adviser (I will love them even more, especiall my Domestic and Trade Advisers -- they're cute!)
14. When clicking on scrollbars in the Advisor screen (I click on a patterned fast-scroll area between the arrows and scroll button), it should scroll on a whole page, not just for two cities!
15. Good idea: to manage production queues right from Advisor screen. It's very easy to change production there, so it will be better to add something to the queue from the same screen, too.
16. And why did you place close button at the right-BOTTOM corner? I cannot get used to this position. Please move!
17. When trading with other civs: add more options! Like 'Please increase your offer' or something, just like they asking me. They should add more money first, and World map, tech, and other stupid stuff only at the last, when they cannot pay more money. It's very tiresome when I have to add cent by cent (gold by gold) trying to sqeeze some more money from a greedy civ. They should add money by themselves!
18. Terrain Info window should be closed without click on a close cross, just by clicking outside of it.
19. Will you please add task queue to Workers? I need to order them Irrigate, then build Road, then Railroad and so on. This will be very helpful.
20. Please improve the wonderful Jump command: of Shift+J (Ctrl+Shift+J) it should move ALL units on this very cell to the specified direction.
21. And what about multiplayer games? I think it will be very exciting!
Now about some bugs and problems.
1. In my Science Advisor I cannot click on Advanced flight -- it always selects Amphibious War. I can send you a screenshot (500K) or the save (800K) with the problem. Also please note that floating hint floats far away from the actual box: seems like you guys have been testing this new feature with 1024x768 monitors, not with the real ones.
Do you need a screenshot?
2. How to turn the suggestive city border around a settler back on? I think I accidentialy turn it off and onw I cannot find how to get it back. Please help!
I think, that's all my cents for now. Thank you for reading and thankl you for the great game! I love you since Civ1!
Good luck!
Sincerely, Andrew.
I belive, it's much better than 1.17f. I don't trade technologies yet (I'm afraid of doing so after long time playing with 1.17f) but I hope, I'll be useing the tech brokering strategy soon.
My comments & suggestions:
1. This patch is extremely slow. However, all the processing between turns has nothing with hard drive so I suppose it's not because of my small memory (256M). I think, Firaxis added additional intellegence to the AI and my rivals get pumped too much units (256x256 map, 7 civs including me). Well, from one side it's good: I can do a lot of other works while AI is moving his pawns but couldn't you guys improve the speed? How about making some movements during player's turn? You know, you can perform some actions while player's thinking, like moving non-combat units, producing shields, commerce, other things? I think a lot of job can be done yet before human player's finished with his boys.
2. Also, while working with other programs during AI's turn, it will be very helpful if the Civ's taskbar button will blink when it needs to know my opinion about world's problem. For instance, when Domestic Advisor needs to know what to build. It will be better, if taskbar button will blink so I can immediately return to playing Civ again.
3. Couldn't you arrange automatic movements so they perform before interacting with the player? It's tiresome to move some units, then screen starts to jump everywhere, then you have to move again, then it jumps again and so on. What about autojumps before manual moves? So we can safely move our fools without fearing to see the jumping screen again?
4. And, how about ordering the units that I need to move? The order of units to move is very strange: I have haunders of unmoved units on the same screen but it jumps to the other side of world and demands to move one stupid galley that I forgot it ever existed! I can't remember what I wanted to with this particular Worker when it junps back. I really need to move all units on a single single screen, then going to the nearest umoved unit and so on. If you guys are playing with 10x10 maps, you can remember all your wishes, but for us, The Big Guys with Bug Worlds, we really need some order whithout jumping allover the world like crazy kangaroo.
5. By the way, about big maps: what about 512x512 map? I'd like to play on this one... But maybe I should buy Cray to play with this map.
6. Another point with units: how to switch off our auto moves? The Show Our Automatic Moves preference doesn't work at all!
7. Suggestion to improve speed: please how can I turn off animation? It's cute and very interesting, but when you have hundred workes working on a single screen (I have 1280x1024 monitor), it's very slow.
8. Thank you very much for adding this autoarchivation feature. All saves now 10 times smaller. However, with my 40GB hard drive with about 10GB free, I can safely save thounsands of unpacked saves without any problem. Can I turn this feature off? If I'll evaluate speed or saving 6M of hard drive, I choose speed.
9. As I noted before, I have 1280x1024 screen. And I use zoom out. Sometimes it's hard to detech, where's active unit is right now. I have to click on the info window to center screen and then I see it. It could be very helpful if you imrove the appearance of active unit. How about this large white circle that appears when I zoom in? The circle of the same size will be very good.
10. To improve game's appearance even more, you can use smooth scrolling instead of simple plain jumping when you need to center new active unit. For example, I just moved one unit and the next one very close to the current screen (but outside of it's borders) it will be much better if you smooth scroll into view of this unit. There's no need to always center the new active unit, you need just to scroll it into view, that's all! I'm sure, this new feature will greatly improve the game experience.
11. Domestic Adviser. I still cannot escape the constant re-asking 'dear sir, what we should build right now right here?', it drives me nut (if it didn't already). What about NOT asking me when there's something in city's queue? With this, I can order a city to build improvement till the next millenium and forget about it! Great!
The same should be with Science Adviser: if I choose several techs to research, he shouldn't re-asking me each time. And I shouldn't lost my money when the tech can be researched for cheaper (usually on last turn of research).
12. Now, what about graft for Advisers? It's good to know military plans of a rival, but I'd like to know latest news from rival's Foreign Advisor (is he in war or what), Military Advisor (of course, the latter should cost more money) and so on!
13. Please couldn't you vertically stretch Advisors' window so it feets a whole monitor? Seemd like you have a regular pattern in the middle, so it wouldn't be a problem to feet the window to monitor's settings. And we will have a greater experience with Adviser (I will love them even more, especiall my Domestic and Trade Advisers -- they're cute!)
14. When clicking on scrollbars in the Advisor screen (I click on a patterned fast-scroll area between the arrows and scroll button), it should scroll on a whole page, not just for two cities!
15. Good idea: to manage production queues right from Advisor screen. It's very easy to change production there, so it will be better to add something to the queue from the same screen, too.
16. And why did you place close button at the right-BOTTOM corner? I cannot get used to this position. Please move!
17. When trading with other civs: add more options! Like 'Please increase your offer' or something, just like they asking me. They should add more money first, and World map, tech, and other stupid stuff only at the last, when they cannot pay more money. It's very tiresome when I have to add cent by cent (gold by gold) trying to sqeeze some more money from a greedy civ. They should add money by themselves!
18. Terrain Info window should be closed without click on a close cross, just by clicking outside of it.
19. Will you please add task queue to Workers? I need to order them Irrigate, then build Road, then Railroad and so on. This will be very helpful.
20. Please improve the wonderful Jump command: of Shift+J (Ctrl+Shift+J) it should move ALL units on this very cell to the specified direction.
21. And what about multiplayer games? I think it will be very exciting!
Now about some bugs and problems.
1. In my Science Advisor I cannot click on Advanced flight -- it always selects Amphibious War. I can send you a screenshot (500K) or the save (800K) with the problem. Also please note that floating hint floats far away from the actual box: seems like you guys have been testing this new feature with 1024x768 monitors, not with the real ones.
Do you need a screenshot?
2. How to turn the suggestive city border around a settler back on? I think I accidentialy turn it off and onw I cannot find how to get it back. Please help!
I think, that's all my cents for now. Thank you for reading and thankl you for the great game! I love you since Civ1!
Good luck!
Sincerely, Andrew.
thanks cracker,
but with the musketeers i still have my problems. it seems tha in the diplomatic screen you are only shown two tecnologies you dont have ( see screenshot). after i make peace and got monotheism and engeneering from france, and i talk again, they show me invention and theology. So my question is. how can i see how many tecs the ai is advanced ?
thanxs
but with the musketeers i still have my problems. it seems tha in the diplomatic screen you are only shown two tecnologies you dont have ( see screenshot). after i make peace and got monotheism and engeneering from france, and i talk again, they show me invention and theology. So my question is. how can i see how many tecs the ai is advanced ?
thanxs
Attachments
The greatest patch so fare. The Ai seems to work better now with the territory improvements, and he builds roads faster than ever. Because of that I believe the Ai economy it's better and he has more money to build up a larger military. Anyway, it was the first time I was beaten by him, when I attacked him with my 170+ modern armours 
In f 1.17 it was an easy mach but now it was really tough.
Anyway it is still some bugs that I have discovered:
The German navy sucks. It is too weak, and sometimes he has no ships at all. It was the same problem in f1.17 and it has not been solved. So I hope fixaris can look at the German Ai, and do some improvements.
It is also a huge bug with the city government. When I set him to train attackers only, he still produce defenders like riflemen and infantry, no matter what your setting is. If you changed the setting to only produce defenders, he started to build explorers. I believe this bug appeared after I had discovered military tradition. The bug also disappeared after I got the modern armour. So something happened between those technologies.
In f 1.17 it was an easy mach but now it was really tough.Anyway it is still some bugs that I have discovered:
The German navy sucks. It is too weak, and sometimes he has no ships at all. It was the same problem in f1.17 and it has not been solved. So I hope fixaris can look at the German Ai, and do some improvements.
It is also a huge bug with the city government. When I set him to train attackers only, he still produce defenders like riflemen and infantry, no matter what your setting is. If you changed the setting to only produce defenders, he started to build explorers. I believe this bug appeared after I had discovered military tradition. The bug also disappeared after I got the modern armour. So something happened between those technologies.
Anyone else seeing a problem with great leaders???
Like the game does not give them out with this patch. I am playing a the Romans (militaristic Regent level) I have been at war with one nation or another since the start of the game and have not gotten a GL out of any of the battles. To give an idea of how long this is, I now have cavalry. Has anyone else run into this??
Like the game does not give them out with this patch. I am playing a the Romans (militaristic Regent level) I have been at war with one nation or another since the start of the game and have not gotten a GL out of any of the battles. To give an idea of how long this is, I now have cavalry. Has anyone else run into this??
