Single Player bugs and crashes v36 plus (SVN) - After the 24th of October 2015

[JosEPh_II]

Dang Joe, had ur cup of coffee this morning/afternoon i see, lol

Actually I just had my 1 bottle of coca cola for the day! Sugared up and ready to go!

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

And in a regular C2C game, sans the CM and SM Options, the Arsonist do not get withdrawal promos.

But they do have withdrawal ability. And they should be getting access to selecting withdrawal promotions as all throwing units should - just not the most optimal ones since they are foot units. (If they are not then that warrants taking a look at why.) They don't get access to early withdrawal since that feature doesn't exist when not playing Fight or Flight.

The list of promo that comes up when you build a unit. Arsonist list is much much shorter than axe, spear, archer, etc..

Access to promotions is not a measurement of unit power at all since no unit will ever be able to choose everything at once from their list. One powerful promotionline can be all a unit type needs. As in the case of the rams. The 2 for increasing their chance to breakdown and their damage when they breakdown is really all they need but its interesting to have a few other optional ways to try to improve them.

And the "Need to be stronger" came from them only being allowed to build 5.

Perhaps we should split up a definition for these units such that there's a different definition for the No National Unit Limits option. I cannot stand arbitrary unnecessary unit limits just because they are imbalanced. Why not balance them instead? So I suppose I do try to make them capable of fitting in with abandoning their unit limit at all. If you feel they should be limited super units instead of being brought into balance then I get it and we should have two versions. The problem I have with this is that they then replace the need for swords for the most part.

I'm not at all challenging your move to opening up how many they are limited to. It was an appropriate counterbalance to nerfing them. I didn't bother because my point in nerfing them was to get them to be fitting better for the new positioning of the technology on the tech tree, and to move them closer to not needing to have a limit at all.

And as for "I understood the basis for those decisions, which you did not." How would you really know?

The changes displayed the lack of understanding inherently imo. To be more precise, the initial change of strength at the stone axemen is where you went off track from Hydro's original scaled baseline. The upgrade from the spiked club to the stone axe was intended to be lateral with simply an increase of +25% combat modifier vs melee being the benefit obtained. Everything from there threw off a lot of unit balance calibrations that now need to be even further analysis to get back in line. I don't HATE this change and actually find it more enjoyable... its just something I didn't have and haven't since had time to deal with the fallout of.

And yes, I'm sure Koshling felt much the same way. I could have been a far better team member back then. Of course, learning how to BE a team member and a modder at all will tend to lead to those kinds of rookie mistakes. There is no doubt I bit off a lot more than I could chew right away, not realizing just how involved and patience-demanding re-coding work would be. And I'm NOT blaming you for bugs... just saying that I'm getting impatient with all the bugs I'm working on because I know there's so much XML to evaluate and recalibrate properly and that's where the game is going to really be improved.

I didn't mean to be derisive in saying that but it seems I hit a nerve. Sorry for that.


BTW, back when I took a timeout, it was about 3 months, which seemed like a long time then but in the overall lifetime of C2C isn't much of a percentage of it now. (Hell, Hydro's now taken more time out than I have!) I WAS here after I think the 10th page or so of the first thread otherwise.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The new Fortification I through V get +5% Strength per level, not just defence but for attacking as well, and stay after an attack if not moving after it.
Possibly attacking should remove it, and it should likely be +5% Defensive Strength only, not Strength.

Cheers

Can you confirm that? A buildup should be removed as soon as a unit is selected, and at LEAST as soon as they go to move.

 

[strategyonly]

Perhaps we should split up a definition for these units such that there's a different definition for the No National Unit Limits option. I cannot stand arbitrary unnecessary unit limits just because they are imbalanced. Why not balance them instead? So I suppose I do try to make them capable of fitting in with abandoning their unit limit at all. If you feel they should be limited super units instead of being brought into balance then I get it and we should have two versions. The problem I have with this is that they then replace the need for swords for the most part.

I'm not at all challenging your move to opening up how many they are limited to. It was an appropriate counterbalance to nerfing them. I didn't bother because my point in nerfing them was to get them to be fitting better for the new positioning of the technology on the tech tree, and to move them closer to not needing to have a limit at all..

I dont use these units anyway, because the extra cost is killing a civ if they do use them, because of the current change Joe made with the "gold"/science slider. a 2% is alot but then once u take all 15 thats 30% higher, and now when u cant use 100% of the slider any longer from Ancient era on, makes a huge difference, and the extra promo's dont mean a thing to me,or am i doing something wrong here, or not understanding??

 

[Thunderbrd]

I dont use these units anyway, because the extra cost is killing a civ if they do use them, because of the current change Joe made with the "gold"/science slider. a 2% is alot but then once u take all 15 thats 30% higher, and now when u cant use 100% of the slider any longer from Ancient era on, makes a huge difference, and the extra promo's dont mean a thing to me,or am i doing something wrong here, or not understanding??

Arsonists aren't national units like that that have the added cost. However, on that note, I feel the added cumulative gold cost of special national/religious units like those do tend to balance the unit out (provided gold is in balance which it sounds like it generally is thanks to Joe's insights there (yes that was a compliment Joe!)) without need for absolute limits assigned to them.

However, Arsonists do have no limit on No National Unit Limits. And it has been my goal to get them to be balanced enough to not stand out so as to need such a limit. They perform a rudimentary role in their era that no other unit can, both as the strongest throwing unit of that time and as the only unit type that can diminish defenses without actually attacking to do it.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Arsonists are national units but are limited to 5, except you can currently build 10 even though it says 5.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Arsonists are national units but are limited to 5, except you can currently build 10 even though it says 5.

Not what I was saying, however it's interesting that you now make a different point to your original.
Arsonists are not cultural units (that's what I meant to say.) They are national units thus they are limited. But they do not have the cultural unit standard of having incremental increases in cost.

Where does it say you can only build 5? The limit in the xml, as Joe has explained, is 10. Once you've built 5 it should say you have 5 left. But I'm wondering if there's actually a bug being pointed out in the display here.

 

[BlueGenie]

Can you confirm that? A buildup should be removed as soon as a unit is selected, and at LEAST as soon as they go to move.

As soon as selected seems a bit harsh. As soon as woken up I can agree with though, or move, or any action other than simply selecting the unit.
And seems that way in my game. Tested it a few times and even checked the Combat Log just to see if it used the bonus strength from the fortification in the actual combat too. It does.
On moving from the plot they are on the build-up promotion is removed but even when attacking takes them to another plot the build-up Fortification Strength IS counted in the Combat but removed on moving.
Also the Enforcers/Watchmen when arresting a thief keep their build-up promotion too as they stay on the same plot.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

As soon as selected seems a bit harsh. As soon as woken up I can agree with though, or move, or any action other than simply selecting the unit.
And seems that way in my game. Tested it a few times and even checked the Combat Log just to see if it used the bonus strength from the fortification in the actual combat too. It does.
On moving from the plot they are on the build-up promotion is removed but even when attacking takes them to another plot the build-up Fortification Strength IS counted in the Combat but removed on moving.
Also the Enforcers/Watchmen when arresting a thief keep their build-up promotion too as they stay on the same plot.

Cheers

hmm... interesting order of things. It must be that if you hit the icon to wake up the unit is what I pinned that on rather than just selecting. I didn't WANT to make it quite so easy to remove the bonus but I needed to make it possible to change the buildup the unit is using so I just recall making it very easy to lose the buildup. I would not have figured that battle is resolved before the release of the buildup when moving to attack but if you could see how complicated that section of the movement action is coded you'd see why that was left a mystery to me as I set this up.

I'm not sure I'd want to change it actually. I'd rather work with it than against it. The change to defense only on fortify could help (though I'm going to need to do something to get the valuation to be stronger for defense only in this case.) I mean, it could be cool to have a build up that prepares a unit to attack. And it's strategically interesting that some actually do, inadvertently.

And while I wouldn't have figured that would've been the case with the LE units making an arrest, I'm actually quite happy it doesn't get rid of their buildups. That would mean assassinate and ambush actions wouldn't remove buildups either. Ok... that's to be taken into consideration from here on.

 

[strategyonly]

TXT error on newer Hero . .

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

TXT error on newer Hero . .

That image does not show anything

 

[strategyonly]

That image does not show anything

lol, stupid tga screenshots, anyways thx . . here is a better 1. . .

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I'll do something about it as I am about to upload some stuff.

edit There is a great person and a hero with the same name. I could not find the hero definition but I have added in a text entry for it. Soon to update.

 

[strategyonly]

I'll do something about it as I am about to upload some stuff.

edit There is a great person and a hero with the same name. I could not find the hero definition but I have added in a text entry for it. Soon to update.

ahaha i thought it worked before, some new coding probably helped figure errors out like this, but not sure,but anyways, thx as always DH, ur the best . . . .

 

[jatkinson]

I just updated to SVN 9324 and upon starting the game it throws up a bunch of XML errors about the new Myth and Story buildings that Dancing Hoskuld added.

Eg: Tag BUILDING_LYNX_MYTH in info class was incorrect Current XML file is xml\Units\Subdue_Animals_CIV4UnitInfos.xml

I also noted that when the update was downloaded, these two files were deleted :
MythStory_CIV4ArtDefines_Building.xml
MythStory_CIV4GameText.xml

Was this intentional, I don't know as restoring the two files does not change the outcome of the errors on startup.

 

[strategyonly]

I just updated to SVN 9324 and upon starting the game it throws up a bunch of XML errors about the new Myth and Story buildings that Dancing Hoskuld added.

I also noted that when the update was downloaded, these two files were deleted :
MythStory_CIV4ArtDefines_Building.xml
MythStory_CIV4GameText.xml

Was this intentional, I don't know as restoring the two files does not change the outcome of the errors on startup.

Did u just override the changes or did u completely d/l the SVN?? and thats because he moved one from the modules area to the main mod.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I just updated to SVN 9324 and upon starting the game it throws up a bunch of XML errors about the new Myth and Story buildings that Dancing Hoskuld added.

I also noted that when the update was downloaded, these two files were deleted :
MythStory_CIV4ArtDefines_Building.xml
MythStory_CIV4GameText.xml

Was this intentional, I don't know as restoring the two files does not change the outcome of the errors on startup.

You have to synchronize between the SVN version and your playing version. I moved some files around, merging some out of my area and into core. I will be doing a lot more of that over the next few weeks as my area is a test and area for experiment whereas the core area is where the stuff that is working should go.

 

[Niveras]

I'm able to build Stone Tool Workshops on mountains with the Llama Worker, but not with the Work Mule. I'm currently in mid-classical, so long after stone workshops would normally obsolete.
Could be considered a minor bonus for having llama workers given their rarity. Although other workers ostensibly can promote into Moutaineer, it requires combat 3 and guerilla 3, which workers can't select. (I guess it is this way so you don't lose Moutaineer when upgrading from a llama/mule worker, and it being otherwise inaccessible to other workers is intended.)

The symbol for Hellenism in the score display and cities differs from all other references. Buildings, the missionary, the tech tree, and the religious advisor have the lightning bolt, but the score display has some kind of coin? (A grey circle with some kind of embossed head/face, but hard to say for sure what it is).

 

[jatkinson]

I just updated to SVN 9324 and upon starting the game it throws up a bunch of XML errors about the new Myth and Story buildings that Dancing Hoskuld added.

Did u just override the changes or did u completely d/l the SVN?? and thats because he moved one from the modules area to the main mod.

I overode the changes first time round which is probably what caused the issue. Upon redownloading entirely and moving everything accross to my play version (after backing up my old one and deleting the current contents) it loaded up without problems.

Sorry I'm kinda new to SVN updating and previous ones had worked fine where only files were directly changed or new ones added, I guess I'll have to look out when old files are deleted.

Oh and thanks for the new Myths and Stories Dancing Hoskuld . They are much appreciated in this Deity game I'm trying out.

 

[strategyonly]

I'll do something about it as I am about to upload some stuff.

edit There is a great person and a hero with the same name. I could not find the hero definition but I have added in a text entry for it. Soon to update.

OK just looked at a brand new SVN and still have the TXT error??