Single Player bugs and crashes v35 plus (SVN) - After the 18th of August 2014

Dancing Hoskuld · Oct 7, 2015

Toffer90 said:
Neither, there is an abatis improvement that provides 10% defensive bonus to a tile and acts as a city which is unlocked at Shelter building.
the palisade gives 15% defensive bonus, and is unlocked at carpentry.

It does not act like a city. That tag is false and I expect that is where the problem lies in the merge of Super Forts and our use of them in conjunction with ZoC. I suspect that some code checks that they have that tag set whereas other code does not, it just assumes that all fortifications do "act as a city".

Toffer90 · Oct 7, 2015

Dancing Hoskuld said:
It does not act like a city. That tag is false and I expect that is where the problem lies in the merge of Super Forts and our use of them in conjunction with ZoC. I suspect that some code checks that they have that tag set whereas other code does not, it just assumes that all fortifications do "act as a city".

From what I've seen the bActsAsCity is by default set to 1 for all improvement unless set to 0 in the xml (if the tag-line is removed/deleted it will act as a city; I tried it on a scavenging camp and the pedia suddenly said it was acting as a city)

For the abatis it's currently set to 1

So I don't really get what you are saying... Is it always false for all improvement that set it to 1 like forts and palisade? What do you mean by false?

Dancing Hoskuld · Oct 7, 2015

Toffer90 said:
From what I've seen the bActsAsCity is by default set to 1 for all improvement unless set to 0 in the xml (if the tag-line is removed/deleted it will act as a city; I tried it on a scavenging camp and the pedia suddenly said it was acting as a city)

For the abatis it's currently set to 1

So I don't really get what you are saying... Is it always false for all improvement that set it to 1 like forts and palisade? What do you mean by false?

I have not had my coffee yet so I may have the wrong tag. I'll get back to you.

edit That explains a lot! they should not have bActsAsCity set as far as I remember as that provides the resource and they shouldn't provide the resource until they upgrade to forts. :confused:

Also they do have bIsZOCSource set to zero/false so they should not be providing a ZoC.

edit 2 OK my coffee is on but not ready for consumption; bActsAsCity is set to 1 but bIsUniversalTradeBonusProvider is not so it does not provide the resource and bIsZOCSource is false.

I repeat my guess, some bit of code is assuming ZoC rather than getting the information from the code. This would have happened when Supper Forts were merged in as before that the only fortifications we had would have provided ZoC.

Pit2015 · Oct 7, 2015

JosEPh_II said:
And still the question you didn't answer, are you using ZOC Option for your game?

JosEPh

I have in scenario on:

Spoiler :

Minimal City Borders is on and do a ZOC, but this cant be the problem because my rogue can move in montezumas city with no problem.

So i tested something by scenario editing, placing all forts arround my rogue, and i can move not thrue:

Abatis, palisade, fort, fortified cave, fortified cave with cache.

but i can move thrue wooden watch tower.

So look the difference up in code between Abatis, palisade, fort, fortified cave, fortified cave with cache and how wooden watch tower ist different from them. Maybe you can track the problem then. Still the question, do we want it to work this way or is it a movement bug?

Also i cant move into command bunker and command center but i can move into stone tower and steel tower.

EDIT:

Ok tested more, spys can move in all, its only criminals, and its only thief, and rogue that cant move in forts, the bandit footpad /Where thief and rogue upgrade to) can move in! So maybe bug in thief and rogue.

Dancing Hoskuld · Oct 7, 2015

I thought that stone tower and steel tower had been turned off due to bugs. They are upgrades to the wooden watchtower so should act exactly the same as it.

The towers have bActsAsCity as false.

The forts have bActsAsCity as true. This means that if they have a route in them they will connect your trade areas across the water plots you have the technology for. They also allow all domain units to enter land, sea and air.

Pit2015 · Oct 7, 2015

Also Assasin cant move in but AMBUSHER can move into forts! So cant be a invisible problem, because the ambusher is also invisible to most other units, only thief, rogue and assasin cant move into the fortification plots as i see now. Its a bug in thief, rogue and assasin or they are different anyhow from the AMBUSHER unit maybe.

(I added the towers in worldbuilder, dont know if they have been turned off)

Edit:

Yeah looks like the ambusher can capture citys, and the thief, rogue and assasin cant capture enemy citys or units, also the ambusher has no crime rising, there is the problem.

That makes sense, because if a fort is not manned and a criminal will move in he will capture the fort... ? Hmm so we have to let it work this way or the units must be changed so that they can move thrue or into forts without capturing it, when the fort is empty. Has to work ecactly as they move into a city, as they can enter the city and dont capture it, but maybe this works because the city of the other civ is never unmanned? One sec, i delete all units from montezumas city and look if the criminal can enter then...

No thief, rogue and assasin can enter a empty city from montezuma but no fort, its a fort bug or a unit bug. Citys work.

Thunderbrd · Oct 7, 2015

Once again - its not a bug. This is a design patch for a bigger problem.

The abatis is set to bActsasCity. Therefore, if units that can attack but are set to peacefully enter cities without attacking when at peace with the opponent civ (such as criminals) are allowed to enter forts then forts have no power ever to stop them because even if you can see the criminal and have the fort staffed to defend it against their entry, they would enter the fort just like they would a city in the same situation rather than attack it. This makes it impossible to stop criminals from passing forts with the units in that tile. This was a bigger frustration to many and the ONLY visible fix that doesn't take a major overhaul was to make such units completely incapable of entering forts at all. I'm not sure what was used to create this filter (iirc Koshling wrote that code blurb) but I have seen it before in the code in passing and could probably check again.

I'm looking at making some adjustments to this stuff anyhow so I'll look into it very soon. Perhaps I can find some kind of harmonious solution where forts that act as cities don't always act as a city for this purpose and the filter that's keeping such criminal units from entry at all can then be removed as a fort would, for this purpose, NOT count as a city at all.

Pit2015 · Oct 7, 2015

Ok, maybe just try to add to the criminal units the possibility to enter abatis, fort (Can enter abatis, fort...) and the other buildings if it can work this way, this will be the easyest way. Otherwise we wait for your adjustments. :thumbsup:

(Remember: Also, the criminals cant enter the fort plot when it is empty!) Its ok for criminals to enter the fort without the possibility to attack the fort garrison/staff i think, ok makes the fort staff save form criminal attacks in the fort but thats ok in a fort i think. The fort garrison/staff can move out and attack the criminal there or in the fort if they seen the criminal.

Ok your turn. Tx for the good work.

Thunderbrd · Oct 8, 2015

I know they can't enter when the fort is empty and that doesn't seem quite right either. Still, this was perceived to be better than units in forts being unable to stop rogues from passing through. I didn't agree at the time with the move but we get complaints either way you see.

One thing that was ultra frustrating to those complaining was also that rogues can't be attacked when they were in a fort, just as they can't be attacked in a city. So no, it wouldn't work to move troops out and then move back to the fort to attack the criminal.

I don't plan to quickfix this issue. It will become part of my law/crime units and rule review process to resolve this after release of v36. If I can avoid any further dlls until after v36 release it would be very very nice.

Yudishtira · Oct 8, 2015

Not so long ago I reported a rogue having to fight an outrigger in a palisade rather than passing through. That doesn't prove he could have passed through an empty palisade, but I remember expecting him to be able to, and that was most likely based on experience.

It's just wrong that a Warlord Chief can attack into a fort/etc, but can't occupy an empty one. Yes I know he is 'revealing nationality' if he changes the fort to your culture, but firstly there are alternatives to that (ie. he could change it to barb or neutral culture, or not affect its culture at all), and secondly, the attacker can take that into consideration when deciding whether to attack (unless we're going down the very desirable avenue of allowing HN units to reveal their true nationality).

So two points:
- surely a unit that defeats the last unit in a palisade/abatis/fort should be able to enter it
- if land units are ever expected to fight sea units (on land as in this case), the sea units need to be given a combat strength for fighting on land

Thunderbrd · Oct 8, 2015

Yudishtira said:
Not so long ago I reported a rogue having to fight an outrigger in a palisade rather than passing through. That doesn't prove he could have passed through an empty palisade, but I remember expecting him to be able to, and that was most likely based on experience.

So it's setup like the way a gunship attacks a city I think.

It's just wrong that a Warlord Chief can attack into a fort/etc, but can't occupy an empty one. Yes I know he is 'revealing nationality' if he changes the fort to your culture, but firstly there are alternatives to that (ie. he could change it to barb or neutral culture, or not affect its culture at all), and secondly, the attacker can take that into consideration when deciding whether to attack (unless we're going down the very desirable avenue of allowing HN units to reveal their true nationality).

Sheesh... that's complex even for me. Perhaps I can ponder on a plan for something along those lines. I've been considering some things there for similar situations but what stops me is that 'neutral' would require adding another automatic player like we have with Barbs and that will break save games. I might circle back around to this kind of thing after a while - probably around the time I'm willing to break compatibility so as to establish a margin of autoplayers for things like separating animals out from barbs and such. For all I know it might happen this next version as I'm working on some things that are bordering that sort of project.

- surely a unit that defeats the last unit in a palisade/abatis/fort should be able to enter it

Yeah, but there's complexities a plenty there so we'll see how I find I can sort it out in the end.

- if land units are ever expected to fight sea units (on land as in this case), the sea units need to be given a combat strength for fighting on land

Yeah, this is beginning to be a more important issue looming with the naval review in progress still as well.

Pit2015 · Oct 8, 2015

I rechecked skaka and his 2 superstacks of animals that he is not returning and whats making him bankrupt, all animals healed in the superstack now but he still not returning the animals, so must be other problem, in both superstacks he has units with names, so must be master hunter or something problem or a AI bug in zulu civ? Has every civ its own AI or all civs one AI? If you want to check get the save that i provided some postings before, then load it and go to south afrika, look up shaka. That need to be fixed, otherwise its bankrupting the civs, he looses now 100 gold a turn when i add gold to him and look again next turn its arround -100 gold. I dont see other civ going bankrupt, maybe only zulu civ problem.

Edit:
Germany has also a hunter group superstack in kamtschatka (NE russia) far away from its homecity, about 50-200 movement turns, also with 4-5 caribou's in it and some more animals, germany starting to loos gold now. So looks like if they get more efficient at hunting they hunt fast and dont butcher surplus animals in the wilderness, thats what maybe drive the AI civs bankrupt... remember the AI should remove animals efficent to there citys to build myths, they suck a bit on that making them fall behind in research a lot.

Dancing Hoskuld · Oct 8, 2015

What they build will probably depend on their leader traits and the flavor of the buildings. I don't know if we have set the flavor on all the early buildings. Aggressive should be building animal standard and other military buildings first, while scientific should build the myths first and expansive the food buildings.

Noriad2 · Oct 8, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
Woohoo!

Found the problem with buildings doubling up after capture. Fixing now. It has been with us for a VERY long time.

Yes! I wasn't able to test doubling of XP yet but I did check out the other stuff and from what I can see the problem seems fixed. Thank you very much!

strategyonly · Oct 8, 2015

I believe i have a infinite loop, i am supposed to be overrun here, but it just keeps "doing something" then it says it is not responding??

Thunderbrd · Oct 8, 2015

strategyonly said:
I believe i have a infinite loop, i am supposed to be overrun here, but it just keeps "doing something" then it says it is not responding??

K. Will look into it.

Thunderbrd · Oct 8, 2015

Noriad2 said:
Yes! I wasn't able to test doubling of XP yet but I did check out the other stuff and from what I can see the problem seems fixed. Thank you very much!

All of the doubling will correct itself. All building values were being double processed when cities were captured.

Toffer90 · Oct 9, 2015

I wouldn't click on the above link, looks like spam.

Noriad2 · Oct 9, 2015

Unfortunately the doubling of building output in conquered cities was not the only bookkeeping error. I checked the numbers myself and they still don't add up correctly.

Case study: my current capital Copenhagen (see attached screenshot production.jpg).

Hammers:
It gets 20 hammers from buildings, 7 hammers from special buildings and 19 from worked tiles. Checking the map and buildings myself, these values confirm ok. This totals to 20+7+19 = 46 base hammers.

However, in the city base production is 48 hammers, and with a production bonus of 65% this totals 85 hammers. However, 48 hammers (which is already wrong) x 165% = 79.2 hammers, not 85.

Food:
It gets +18 from buildings, +3 from special buildings, +8 from worked tiles for a total of 29 food. However the screen total says 28 food.

I've included the save game as evidence.

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Investigating the causes.

Food: the culprit seems to be the Wild Herbs building. It gives +1 food from cooking, but this bonus is not added to the total food produced. Deleting the Wild Herbs building with CTRL-A does not change the total base food.

Hammers: the culprit seems to be the stone tool maker.

Copenhagen - stone tool maker test. Numbers are hammers produced.

start with recalc (shift-ctrl-T)

production: 48 base -> 85 total (bonus is 65%, from +25% buildings, +10% resources, +30% from civics) wrong bonus calculation, should be 48 * 165% = 79.2 . Also should be 46 base.

delete stone tool maker (5 hammer, 4 money, 5 science) with CTRL-A

result:
47 base -> 77 total (bonus: +25% buildings, +10% resources, +30% from civics) note: bonus calculation is now correct for 47 base. But 48 - 5 is not 47. And base should be 41 anyway

perform recalc with SHIFT-CTRL-T

result:
41 base -> 67 total (+25% buildings, +10% resources, +30% from civics) note: Base is now correct. bonus calculation is now correct.

Conclusion:
The stone tool maker which should give 5 base hammers secretly gives 7 base hammers. Aside and above from that it also gives way too much bonus. Based on +65% bonus that should give 7*0.65 = 4.55 bonus hammers for a total of 11.55 hammers. But instead it gives even more: 85-67=18 hammers.
Which corresponds with an hidden extra hammer bonus of (18 - 7 - 4.55)/48 = +13% of base production (including rounding errors).

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

This is still very early in the game (just researched Sedentary Lifestyle) and
I have only investigated hammers and food, not money, science or other production.
Since I already found 3 bugs, there are likely more. A full audit of the
bookkeeping of all city production should be done but that is a time-consuming
project. Certain leader traits and possibly difficulty level also influence production
level, these should be included in such an audit.

Thunderbrd · Oct 9, 2015

Interesting observations. There's obviously some things to look into there.

Single Player bugs and crashes v35 plus (SVN) - After the 18th of August 2014

Deity

C2C Modder

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

C2C War Dog

Emperor

C2C War Dog

Spiritual/Creative

C2C War Dog

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

C2C Supreme Commander

C2C War Dog

C2C War Dog

C2C Modder

Emperor

Attachments

C2C War Dog

Similar threads