Single Player bugs and crashes v37 plus (SVN) - After the 24th of December 2016

[tmv]

those promotions are unlocked at mountaineering tech

No, they actually obsolete at that point (they are no longer required).

But it should still be possible to use these resources, especially considering that many map scripts happily place the only stone/obsidian/copper/iron resource there, either on the entire map or in a large area. But that is another topic (why are resources like stone so incredibly rare?).

 

[Toffer90]

No, they actually obsolete at that point (they are no longer required).

Ah, you are right, I was a bit hasty when looking up the <TechPrereq> tag in XML, I didn't notice that the tag actually said <ObsoleteTech>. ^^

Perhaps, but mountains being inaccessible until Medieval is extremely strict (Hannibal, anyone?).

I'll have to rewind the conversation a bit then. Why do you think it's too strict?

But it should still be possible to use these resources, especially considering that many map scripts happily place the only stone/obsidian/copper/iron resource there, either on the entire map or in a large area.

That's why we have "Mountain Mine" for metals in mountains, and stone tool workshop for early Stone/Obsidian access in mountains (and elsewhere). Mining metals at high altitude should be unlocked later than mining metals in hills/flatland.

Pure iron, gold, copper and manganese have been worked from before 5,000BCE or 7,000 years ago. They were hammered into the shape needed. No smelting or refining or casting needed. We discussed this way back before coming to the way it is in C2C.

BtW Pollution from copper working in the region of Spain is detectable in Greenland glacier deposits going back 5,000+ years.

Yeah, and the regular mine is unlocked around that time in C2C; shortly after sedentary lifestyle (10 000 BC). So why let the stone workshop provide those bonuses if it only results in mountain mining looong before the mountain mine is unlocked.
I see two choices, either make the stone workshop not provide metals, or make it impossible to build a stone workshop in the mountain.

 

[Enchanteur]

Using SVN 9651 and Not doing a Re-Calc here is your next turn. It played for me.

Hi, thank, many months later. I was thinking it was over before to see your last message.
So I gave up to play. Now I will retry I think. Looking for the last easy to install version, maybe the one here :
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/update-patches-for-v37.613571/

I don't remember how to use a version from SVN sadly. I forgot many things.
I think I will not continue my previous game, but rather create a new one. for the 12th time.
I'm not sure my save game is always compatible with the release so.
Maybe I will still load your save and see if the game crash with that. Just to see if bug is gone.
I just understand I should not use "recalc".

 

[tmv]

Why do you think it's too strict?

I have to admit I didn't think about mountain leaders when I wrote that, but there are other examples (e.g. Ötzi, but also the Basques, cf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8001912, where it is pointed out mountains were not "barriers to gene flow", which you should expect according to the game model).

Mining metals at high altitude should be unlocked later than mining metals in hills/flatland.

As Harrier already pointed out, a mountain tile might not be high altitude if the deposit is at the bottom of a mountain. It might also be above the ground (one reason why Rome may have been so successful is that Italy was the only place in the area with iron deposits above the ground).

why let the stone workshop provide those bonuses if it only results in mountain mining looong before the mountain mine is unlocked.

To do that you need one of the following:

• Llama worker
• Work mule
• Mountain leader

And for the first two you need Plough (around mid-Ancient) plus the respective animal. In all three cases you should also have a combat unit to defend against birds, perhaps even a non-defensive-only unit in the very likely case that the mountain is already occupied (I don't know if a mountain leader can help you in that case, because the leader doesn't occupy the mountain tile when the combat unit attacks, and the Pack Mule is defensive only, so you might need a culture unit unless you have llamas).

I think that is still quite an accomplishment that shouldn't be nerfed.

 

[Toffer90]

As Harrier already pointed out, a mountain tile might not be high altitude if the deposit is at the bottom of a mountain. It might also be above the ground (one reason why Rome may have been so successful is that Italy was the only place in the area with iron deposits above the ground).

I see it a bit differently, the hill or flatland adjacent to the mountain represent the bottom of the mountain. And the peak plot is in its entirety only terrain that is crazy to traverse for all but the rare daredevils.

To do that you need one of the following:

• Llama worker
• Work mule
• Mountain leader

Fair enough, though I don't feel they are that hard to get, and that the game is made pale if it's too easy to not have to get by without important strategic resources once in a while.
The games I've enjoyed the most are those rare ones where (e.g.) I haven't got access to iron nor copper in late classical era.

 

[tmv]

I see it a bit differently, the hill or flatland adjacent to the mountain represent the bottom of the mountain.

How large do you think is a single mountain? A single tile is an area that is many km to several 10s of km across.

The games I've enjoyed the most are the rare ones where I haven't got access to iron and copper in late classical era.

Try without stone in classical era. Or without copper in industrial / modern era, which can happen if there really is no copper anywhere (happened to me a few months ago, I think I asked for silver wires as an option with much higher maintenance costs).

Does anyone know if I am right with this:

I don't know if a mountain leader can help you in that case, because the leader doesn't occupy the mountain tile when the combat unit attacks

This is quite important here, because in that case an occupied mountain before Medieval is even less usable unless you happen to have llamas, you may have to rely on archers which takes dozens of rounds until the mountain is clear.

 

[Toffer90]

How large do you think is a single mountain? A single tile is an area that is many km to several 10s of km across.

That's a matter of perspective I guess.

I think of each plots size being relative to the plot type. e.g. One water tile is bigger than one flatland/hill tile, and one mountain plot is smaller than Flatland/Hills.
Also I feel that a single mountain is found in a hill or a flatland plot, by that I mean that I think of every mountain plot as a mountain range.

Another perspective: If you have a flatland and a mountain plot side by side and you imagine being on the edge of the flatland tile close to the mountain tile, then you are already at a pretty high altitude (600+ meters), and that the mountain tile represents the cluster of peaks that can be seen when looking towards the peak tile.

Try without stone in classical era. Or without copper in industrial / modern era, which can happen if there really is no copper anywhere.

As I said, that is a challenge that I really enjoy with a strategy game. Take away the possibility of having that challenge and you make the game pale.
If you are a major nation in the industrial era, and still haven't gotten copper, then that may represent a bug/balance issue. too few resources spawned due to bad balancing of bonus XML or the mapscript used.

I think I asked for silver wires as an option with much higher maintenance costs).

I too wish for more alternative-content like this. ^^

 

[tmv]

I think of each plots size being relative to the plot type.

For one, there would be movement limitations if that was the case (and movement modifiers, because smaller tiles should be quicker to traverse). Second, squares as well as hexagons are the favorite tile forms because they can fill an area (unlike pentagons or octagons). That would lose all meaning if these tiles were not meant to be the same size (you can use octagon tiles, you just have to insert small square tiles as well - this would actually be a good solution if you wanted to have two different tile sizes).

Take away the possibility of having that challenge and you make the game pale.

There weren't even any strategic resources in and before (or SMAC, which some people still think was the epitome of civ-like games). Not that I would like to go back there (without or or ), but there were certainly challenges back then.

I too wish for more alternative-content like this.

Yes, this might be a good solution in general to several of these problems (although not so close to a new release). I think these "sub-par" solutions should work but with drawbacks (higher maintenance, or in special cases something like more disease or flammability - perhaps reduced education for lead plumbing).

 

[Noriad2]

While lack of stone in the early game hurts your economy, it is by no means a death sentence for your civ. And lack of copper means you have to rely on other units like war elephants or obsidian special culture units. You can still build forges for the hammer bonus with gold or silver. And the alt-timeline units (megafauna + punks) seem especially made for civs that lack essential resources. Also technically you don't actually need copper or sulphur, just the derived resources produced by buildings. As these buildings can be made in every city, the AI's will probably have many of those in surplus. So you can trade for firearms and ammo with other civs and build your units that way until you have mountaineering and can make use of those mountain top resources. Worst case scenario you have to turtle and suck up to your neighbours for half an age. So what? Plenty of time to find solutions to these problems. It's called a strategy game for a reason. Sometimes diplomacy and trade is a viable way to solve problems of scarcity.

 

[Toffer90]

For one, there would be movement limitations if that was the case (and movement modifiers, because smaller tiles should be quicker to traverse).

There are movement limitations the way I see it.
Crossing one mountain plot should be at least 10 times slower than flatland (if you consider the journey as a high altitude mountain hike the way I do instead of moving around the foot of a mountain like you seem to suggest.), but it's not, and thats imo because the peak plot is smaller than the flatland. Btw, why would one need mountaineering tech/promos to cross mountain plots if it is possible to walk along the foot of the mountain to get past it, well thats because moving along the foot means moving on the tiles that is flatland and hills and is adjacent to the peak plot.
Boats can move real short if compared to Infantry on a paved road, but if water tiles are larger areas then its ok by me that it is like that. Having galleys that can traverse 6 plots by default would make the world seem small, and it would be real annoying (immersion and gameplay) to have modern destroyers that can traverse 46 or so plots (perhaps cross the globe in one turn) by default just to show that they are faster than a person on foot.
Oceans have a bigger movement penalty than coast in C2C and that imo simulates that ocean plots are larger than coastal plots.

Just my perspective on the civ map is all.

Second, squares as well as hexagons are the favorite tile forms because they can fill an area (unlike pentagons or octagons). That would lose all meaning if these tiles were not meant to be the same size (you can use octagon tiles, you just have to insert small square tiles as well - this would actually be a good solution if you wanted to have two different tile sizes).

I don't see the need for them to actually have different sizes on the map for them to conceptually have different sizes. All the tiles are already stretched and warped due the planet not actually being a flat rectangle, it is abstractly represented by a flat rectangle with a strict grid for plots. ^^

There weren't even any strategic resources in and before (or SMAC, which some people still think was the epitome of civ-like games). Not that I would like to go back there (without or or ), but there were certainly challenges back then.

That's irrelevant as C2C does have strategic resources, they wouldn't be very strategic if all of them were easily accessed by players in every game you play.

 

[Harrier]

Btw. how would terrain damage on peaks work if the peak terrain is another terrain that has damage, e.g. Desert Peak.

Would it be possible to change map-scripts? So that if a mountain peak appeared on a plot, regardless of the surrounding terrain. The map generator made the base tile Ice. This would offset the high defense (75%) bonus with the higher terrain damage level.

 

[Thunderbrd]

On this debate about the strategic resources and peaks and the Stone Tool Workshop, I think a lot of good points have been made but I also think we have it right as it is now, which is kinda in the middle of a lot of opinions. The metals are divided at hard vs soft metals. The delay of accessibility isn't that long and makes some sense. Soft metals can be easily gathered and don't require full heavy duty smelting and heavy metals just pounded into shape are unlikely to be done in such a volume that it obsoletes copper weapons and armor long before the bronze age even begins and on flat land, mining comes before iron working anyhow. The iron collection is heavier and requires better infrastructure at the site.

It all seems to make sense to me. And I have only had a few games recently where it's too hard to work peaks significantly before mountaineering. This makes it a major bonus for the South American continent more than anything and that's good because South America lacks in some things too.

 

[glaucus.b]

I am playing with SVN version 9783 and my exile with bounty 1 upgrade cannot carry any military captive (but it can carry a great general and even a tracker). The saved game is attached.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I am playing with SVN version 9783 and my exile with bounty 1 upgrade cannot carry any military captive (but it can carry a great general and even a tracker). The saved game is attached.

I've known we have a problem here so this should help to track it down. Thank you.

 

[tmv]

if you consider the journey as a high altitude mountain hike the way I do instead of moving around the foot of a mountain like you seem to suggest.

In other words: Both interpretations are internally consistent.

why would one need mountaineering tech/promos to cross mountain plots if it is possible to walk along the foot of the mountain to get past it

This is not a single wanderer. The entire tile is difficult terrain, and it takes a large effort not to leave crucial parts of the unit behind. Like other things (e.g. turning), what is trivial for a single person can be a huge pain for a large unit.

if water tiles are larger areas then its ok by me that it is like that

If you compare the coast (water) with the adjacent land tiles, you get a completely warped geometry. Not like "the earth is a sphere", but rather like "Schwarzschild solution". Unless there is a lot of "missing land".

All the tiles are already stretched and warped due the planet not actually being a flat rectangle, it is abstractly represented by a flat rectangle with a strict grid for plots.

As I pointed out, just the "neighbourhood relation" becomes a nightmare that way. Each tile is connected to exactly 8 other tiles (unless you are at a pole). With different tile sizes the way you propose you get a "resulting" map that doesn't resemble anything physically (and perhaps mathematically) possible.

That's irrelevant as C2C does have strategic resources

I know, but the way you expressed yourself it seemed you were implying that getting rid of that particular challenge would destroy any strategy game. Perhaps just a matter of emphasis:

Take away the possibility of having that challenge and you make the game pale. (emphasis mine)

 

[Toffer90]

In other words: Both interpretations are internally consistent.

Correct, glad you agree with me. ^^
The difference is that I feel that the mountain mine is in the game to provide more than just a yield upgrade to the stone workshop. It is there to mark the point where new bonuses can be accessed, bonuses that is located high up in the mountain depths.

This is not a single wanderer. The entire tile is difficult terrain, and it takes a large effort not to leave crucial parts of the unit behind. Like other things (e.g. turning), what is trivial for a single person can be a huge pain for a large unit.

Moving 1000 soldiers along the foot of a mountain is not that hard that you need advanced mountaineering equipment for it to be possible. Hence what you call the foot of the mountain must still be at a very high altitude the way I see it. If I was an xml modder I would have made special units like the wanderer capable of traversing mountain plots a long time ago, and also added an event that sometimes kills wanderer type units on mountain plots so that there is a risk in trying to get through those plots (event would obsolete at mountaineering tech).

If you compare the coast (water) with the adjacent land tiles, you get a completely warped geometry. Not like "the earth is a sphere", but rather like "Schwarzschild solution". Unless there is a lot of "missing land".

You seem to have a very square view of a very abstract representation of the world presented to you in a game like this. To me, none of the plots are really square and all the tiles have different forms sizes and content than what I see with my own eyes on the screen. Just like a unit is not two identical persons but a company of people that all have different equipment, ranks, and roles in the group.
Also, no planet with life can be a perfectly smooth sphere, flatland must have a much bigger area than a mountain to have the same surface area as the mountain.

As I pointed out, just the "neighbourhood relation" becomes a nightmare that way.

What is a nightmare to some is a comfort for others.

I know, but the way you expressed yourself it seemed you were implying that getting rid of that particular challenge would destroy any strategy game. Perhaps just a matter of emphasis:

English is not my native language, I was not aware that about my grammatical fault in that sentence.

On this debate about the strategic resources and peaks and the Stone Tool Workshop, I think a lot of good points have been made but I also think we have it right as it is now, which is kinda in the middle of a lot of opinions. The metals are divided at hard vs soft metals. The delay of accessibility isn't that long and makes some sense. Soft metals can be easily gathered and don't require full heavy duty smelting and heavy metals just pounded into shape are unlikely to be done in such a volume that it obsoletes copper weapons and armor long before the bronze age even begins and on flat land, mining comes before iron working anyhow. The iron collection is heavier and requires better infrastructure at the site.

How the raw materials are processed after extraction was never a topic in this conversation TB.

 

[Noriad2]

copied from another thread:

The biggest threat to the AI (apart from me of course) seemed to be its own Partisan units. In a later stage of the game, whenever any city gets conquered, a large number of Partisan units are spawned in the surroundings. The AI doesn't seem to know what to do with them, so they stack them up in one of their own cities which increases crime suddenly and tremendously. This causes barbarian criminals to spawn in the cities, and it will eventually lead to very high levels of crime. Crime leads to Revolutions which leads to cities changing hands and more partisans spawning. Which the AI also stacks in its own cities in large numbers. It will lead to whole areas going down in crime and revolutions.

Of course it would be best to teach the AI what to do with partisans (like don't!!! stack them up in your own cities) but if v38 is planned for Christmas which is in a few days, I strongly recommend to remove the +crime ability of partisans at least temporarily. The AI does not expect them, it doesn't know what to do with them, and they are killing themselves with them. Since Partisans are patriots, it does not automatically make sense that they increase crime in their own cities.

 

[Noriad2]

Addition: I also recommend to temporarily remove the upgrade of Partisans to Guerilla units.

 

[tmv]

Moving 1000 soldiers along the foot of a mountain is not that hard that you need advanced mountaineering equipment for it to be possible.

You form long marching lines in those times (pre-Medieval) at your own peril. Consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

While this isn't in a mountain range, abandoning any kind of battle formation could always lead to sneak attacks, even by inferior foes. You might be able to give a command like "strategic movement", but then you would end up with a huge defense malus as opposed to a bonus in the mountains, so perhaps it is battle formation in the mountains that you'd need Mountaineering for (making the other side of a mountain range an excellent defensive terrain before that point).

To me, none of the plots are really square and all the tiles have different forms sizes and content than what I see with my own eyes on the screen.

That doesn't change too much. You can still end up with one small tile surrounded by eight big tiles. Non-square tiles can reduce this problem a bit, but in the end this is still a problem (especially the fact that these eight big tiles ought to be neighbours to each other in that case, which isn't modeled in the game).

Just like a unit is not two identical persons but a company of people that all have different equipment, ranks, and roles in the group.

That's apples and oranges, sorry.

no planet with life can be a perfectly smooth sphere

Sorry, but other than the fact that pretty much any rocky planet will be scarred by asteroids sooner or later I cannot see support for such a strong claim.

flatland must me much bigger area than a mountain to have the same surface area as the mountain

Maps in these games seem to be inspired by the Mercator projection, which doesn't care for surface area but for angles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection). One degree in any direction is shown as the same distance, no matter the height profile.

What is a nightmare to some is a comfort for others.

See above, there are problems that you cannot get rid of.

English is not my native language, I was not aware that about my grammatical fault in that sentence.

No problem.

 

[Toffer90]

You form long marching lines in those times (pre-Medieval) at your own peril. Consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

While this isn't in a mountain range, abandoning any kind of battle formation could always lead to sneak attacks, even by inferior foes. You might be able to give a command like "strategic movement", but then you would end up with a huge defense malus as opposed to a bonus in the mountains, so perhaps it is battle formation in the mountains that you'd need Mountaineering for (making the other side of a mountain range an excellent defensive terrain before that point).

So you feel the game would be better if we made it possible to always traverse mountain plots and change the defense from a positive bonus to a negative penalty?
I hugely disagree with you there, it would take away a lot of the strategic element that I like about mountains in the game.

I rather prefer to think that a mountain plot is actually, in its entirety, a mountainous area and that the mountain foot (the closest place where it's not crazy to send an army without specialized mountaineering equipments and steady supply lines) is found somewhere inside the neighboring plots (unless they too are mountain plots).
If a mine is positioned at the mountain foot, by that it's so close that people would say that the it is mining the mountain, then the mine would in-game be positioned on the hill or flatland adjacent to the peak plot. If the mine is, I don't know, about 3000+ meters above water, and is working harsh environments with no local population to lean on, then it's positioned on the mountain plot in-game.
If a bonus is positioned on a mountain plot in-game it is located at a high altitude and harsh environment by default, to serve the game mechanics we want in the game. If it were located in a low altitude non harsh environment then it would have to be represented in-game on the adjacent flatland/hill.

Sorry, but other than the fact that pretty much any rocky planet will be scarred by asteroids sooner or later I cannot see support for such a strong claim.

I wouldn't say that it's such a strong claim to say that a planet need terrain to support earth-like life. If a rocky planet is perfectly smooth then it can't have moving tectonic plates, and then it probably doesn't have a hot liquid core and volcanic activity either, such a planet would probably not have what it takes to support earth-like life.

That doesn't change too much. You can still end up with one small tile surrounded by eight big tiles. Non-square tiles can reduce this problem a bit, but in the end this is still a problem (especially the fact that these eight big tiles ought to be neighbours toeach other in that case, which isn't modeled in the game).

Maps in these games seem to be inspired by the Mercator projection, which doesn't care for surface area but for angles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection). One degree in any direction is shown as the same distance, no matter the height profile.

I could also add that I don't think of the plots as having strict borders with it's neighboring plots, they bleed into each other.