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

[Noriad2]

In addition, I cannot use fixed borders to capture tiles adjacent to my city, only further ones

I second that. The capture tile feature (the flag button on a unit) does not show up if your unit is in one of the 8 tiles directly surrounding a city.

 

[JosEPh_II]

In addition, I cannot use fixed borders to capture tiles adjacent to my city, only further ones

Do you have the Option Minimum City Borders On? This would be the case if it Is On.

Also do you Have Realistic Culture Spread On? This also affects Fixed Borders interactions with Culture and how it is spread.

 

[Raledon]

Do you have the Option Minimum City Borders On? This would be the case if it Is On.

Also do you Have Realistic Culture Spread On? This also affects Fixed Borders interactions with Culture and how it is spread.

I have neither on, as far as I remember. The first would mean I always have said tiles, and I didn't like the way the second worked.

Another issue I just encountered: I had a group consisting of medics and a LE unit. When they tried to enter a city, a criminal stopped the LE unit, while the medics entered the city successfully. The party kept being together, however, so clicking on the medics selected the LE unit.

Edit: in regards to cultural borders, it appears that the culture doesn't disappear when a city is taken, causing huge issues with actually keeping a city without complete conquest.

 

[Toffer90]

Alright. It's not a surprising advantage, but that doesn't really make it any less dangerous. You cannot just take the direct path to attack or (in this case) you will face this tactic. So you must take a detour, so that you have more of your guns available for a fight at any moment. You might spend a few minutes less for the planning, and then you take a few hours more for a more convoluted path.

First, that tactic is something that might be used in both the coastal battle and in the sea battle, so it doesn't make a difference between the two cases.
Second, the detour you mention is maneuvering after the decision to engage the enemy has been made so that movement doesn't need to be simulated by having to move closer to the enemy before making the decision to engage.

Are you telling me that an infantry unit takes the entire turn (up to several decades) to travel a single tile? And I thought a construction company rebuilding a canal bridge in 2 years was slow (happening in my hometown right now).

Yes, haven't you looked at the dates displayed in the game, haha ^^.

{ Edit: TB phrased it pretty well in the next post.
One doesn't have to interpret unit interaction literally, units can be seen as simple abstract symbols that convey a complex story of actions and interactions at a more strategical level rather than at a detailed level. }

It should be noted that I've long promoted to remove dates from the game, I removed the date display in the "My take on stuff" modmod (quite outdated atm. needs an update, before I would recommend trying it), so that the player can decide for themselves how much time stuff takes.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I cannot use fixed borders to capture tiles adjacent to my city, only further ones

I second that. The capture tile feature (the flag button on a unit) does not show up if your unit is in one of the 8 tiles directly surrounding a city.

A while back, during a point where I was taking a break from modding, there was a huge argument on the forum. I wasn't reading it but it's archived somewhere around here. Commenters and modders alike were apparently in vast disagreement as to how fixed borders should be handled. Koshling was our lead programmer at the time. I do not know what decisions were made or what coding changes were implemented nor what the intentions of those changes really were but when this was last brought up after I had returned, Koshling explained that what the determinations we fell on were somewhere in the middle of the various camps.

It seems what we have in terms of fixed border rules is a peace accord between those that wanted truly conquerable tiles, temporarily conquerable tiles, and which tiles should or shouldn't be so conquerable by units as opposed to culture itself. Koshling said he didn't want to re-invoke that fight again to make further changes after the debate had played out and I'm loathe to repaint over that myself, even if I find what we have is a bit awkward and hard to intuitively understand for the player as well and I'm not even sure it's not actually buggy.

So no matter whether I agree with you or not, long ago decisions were made, and I'm not looking to necro that subject now. From what I could tell, I would've been in a similar camp to yours, where land should be claimable if you have fixed borders and if someone disagrees with your claim, they can come along militarily to challenge it. This was not satisfactory to those who wanted culture to continue to play a role even when fixed borders becomes a thing. Therefore, the power of a fixed border claim was diminished by quite a margin.

That doesn't do much for ranged combat. And an additional advantage for ranged units is the fact that any direct path is often blocked by the topography. Add to that the fact that you don't have the place for proper formations, and you get a very strong relation for combat classes:

Ranged combat with shield (often Throwing) > Ranged combat without shield > Swords or Axes > Spears (very formation dependent) > Mounted (big target, no direct path for attacking)

What you are saying is more valid for hills, where direct paths are usually available.

You are debating in a manner that doesn't care to maintain adherence to your own points. Just posts before you personally stated that such a bonus should ONLY apply to ranged units, as we had covered a number of arguments for why that should be. Honestly, there is no cause to try to differentiate this benefit for various unit types because you can explain for each why having higher ground is a benefit. This is a long known fact to military strategists. In peak terrain, you'd have a natural fortress at your benefit no matter where you took a stand, plenty of pinch points, kill boxes, places from which you could easily have cover from below while those approaching have both fatigue and less effective cover against distance fire. Spears may be formation dependent, but they may benefit, as weapons, more than any other for having the superior reach which allows for the upper ground advantage to be leveraged just as powerfully as any other, if not moreso.

Mounted can barrel down on foes and use their weight and momentum to knock any who approach off their feet, in many cases. But I admit it can be a hit and miss kind of thing where it really depends on the topography of the battlefield which is clearly at its most chaotic in a peak environment. However, if you notice, only those mounted that dismount to fight are even given any benefit from terrain defense at all on any plot, so the unpredictable frequency of their ability to utilize an upper ground advantage is mute and entirely based on turning things around into an attack rather than a defense at all. Therefore, no defense modifier is well justified for fully mounted fighters.

But again, there is no cause to go arguing for which should and should not gain a better advantage when defending on peaks in general. The peak has and should have a strong (more than hills) natural defensive advantage and if we wish for some units to reflect better or worse ways of finding advantage on such a tile, the combat class feature combat attack and defense modifiers can be employed to reflect these considerations and we can consider those from a numeric standpoint. Regardless, the baseline is clear that a peak tile would be very difficult to succeed for the aggressor of any kind.

Are you telling me that an infantry unit takes the entire turn (up to several decades) to travel a single tile? And I thought a construction company rebuilding a canal bridge in 2 years was slow (happening in my hometown right now).

Time is analogous in the strategic side of the game. It represents the most significant bits of storyline of interaction throughout the age in which it takes place and cannot be completely compared to the progression rate of the civil sides of the game. This is just how our turn based system must be conceived unless you wish to play a game that is designed and gauged for each turn to reflect perhaps a week, even from the very beginning. Some want this but the length of the game would be prohibitive and the sense of progression extremely skewed. All the problems we have with the longest gamespeeds would multiply by hundreds of times and we'd need a great deal more resolution in many other regions of the game design, such as building construction and unit training times. You'd really need a far more intricate tech tree to make it feel like research is even happening. We'd need a new and far more developed game as a whole. Not only would we have to start from scratch to be able to take advantage of more modern computing power, the kitchen sink would be so large we'd need a new apartment.

Another issue I just encountered: I had a group consisting of medics and a LE unit. When they tried to enter a city, a criminal stopped the LE unit, while the medics entered the city successfully. The party kept being together, however, so clicking on the medics selected the LE unit.

I recently fixed some things regarding this. However, this may have been as designed. Criminals can sometimes have trouble entering a city. Did he become 'wanted' when he attempted it or could he not attempt it at all? If you feel there's a bug there, I'll need a save that shows the behavior and instructions on replicating it. I can take a look with that but movement rules are too complex now to just walk through the code logic visually.

Edit: in regards to cultural borders, it appears that the culture doesn't disappear when a city is taken, causing huge issues with actually keeping a city without complete conquest.

Correct, as designed. Not by me, but as I understand it this is how it is intended to be. The people who call themselves citizens of the other culture are not so quick to stop thinking of themselves in this manner and therefore the old culture lingers. I have to look at if and how this decays soon anyhow so I'll be reviewing how the code handles it, which is something I've never looked at directly.

Yes, haven't you looked at the dates displayed in the game, haha ^^.
It should be noted that I've long promoted to remove dates from the game, I removed the date display in the "My take on stuff" modmod (quite outdated atm. needs an update, before I would recommend trying it), so that the player can decide for themselves how much time stuff takes.

Not a fan of the idea of removing the dates which give a player a feel for where they might be in time. It would be good as an option I think.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Edit: in regards to cultural borders, it appears that the culture doesn't disappear when a city is taken, causing huge issues with actually keeping a city without complete conquest.

This is why you should take some entertainer units along with you. They not only reduce the amount of anger in a city they also add more of your culture reducing the % of the old owner. I can't remember exactly what % you need to get it below to be "safe". 60% or 50% or there abouts, I think.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Not a fan of the idea of removing the dates which give a player a feel for where they might be in time. It would be good as an option I think.

Aforress removed dates for awhile with AND2. But the outcry from those that live by the date was intense. He ended up putting the dates back in. And of course AND2 does not have Prehistoric nor any of the Added Future Eras we do.

Dates are still a WIP now that pepper's modmod is part of the main.

So no matter whether I agree with you or not, long ago decisions were made, and I'm not looking to necro that subject now. From what I could tell, I would've been in a similar camp to yours, where land should be claimable if you have fixed borders and if someone disagrees with your claim, they can come along militarily to challenge it. This was not satisfactory to those who wanted culture to continue to play a role even when fixed borders becomes a thing. Therefore, the power of a fixed border claim was diminished by quite a margin.

Also the inclusion of Minimum Borders from AND2, if On, added more "conflict" between FB's ownership of tiles by culture by making the outer 8 tiles of the main 9 city tiles act just like the center tile in regards to culture and ownership.

I was in the argument over FB even being in C2C. I was only a vocal player/tester back then but very much part of the opposition. The mechanics of sending a unit to a tile and "claiming that tile" by being stationed there was rather outlandish to me. And it was diminishing the way Culture normally spread. That was why it was made an Option instead of being made a part of the whole. And yes those arguments were very heated and prolonged. And they also included the "discussion" over making City Limits by Civics part of the Main mod vs being an Option.

 

[JosEPh_II]

This is why you should take some entertainer units along with you. They not only reduce the amount of anger in a city they also add more of your culture reducing the % of the old owner. I can't remember exactly what % you need to get it below to be "safe". 60% or 50% or there abouts, I think.

Yes and before entertainers were introduced you would build a Theater asap in the conquered city.

 

[Raledon]

This is why you should take some entertainer units along with you. They not only reduce the amount of anger in a city they also add more of your culture reducing the % of the old owner. I can't remember exactly what % you need to get it below to be "safe". 60% or 50% or there abouts, I think.

Correct, as designed. Not by me, but as I understand it this is how it is intended to be. The people who call themselves citizens of the other culture are not so quick to stop thinking of themselves in this manner and therefore the old culture lingers. I have to look at if and how this decays soon anyhow so I'll be reviewing how the code handles it, which is something I've never looked at directly.

I Believe I phrased it really badly. My issue is less about a city's citizens keeping their former culture, and thus wanting to rebel, but the cultural borders. Conquering a city only to find out it has 0 tiles to work is quite vexing.
The biggest issue is that I'm in the dark as how to fight the opposing borders without conquest, as enterteinment provide a very low amount of culture, and the buildings doesn't seem to provide that much either.
My issue might be the cultural decay rate being "very slow" compared to vanilla's instant decay, though.

I recently fixed some things regarding this. However, this may have been as designed. Criminals can sometimes have trouble entering a city. Did he become 'wanted' when he attempted it or could he not attempt it at all? If you feel there's a bug there, I'll need a save that shows the behavior and instructions on replicating it. I can take a look with that but movement rules are too complex now to just walk through the code logic visually.

There is a group near Belo Horizonte @ the save. When the the 4 units try entering, the LE will be blocked by the rogue (which will become visible, but otherwise unkill-able), and the 3 medics will enter. If we attempt to click on the medics, it will switch control/group to the LE. Causing the LE to "create a group" will allow us to select the medics, though.

 

[Toffer90]

Not a fan of the idea of removing the dates which give a player a feel for where they might be in time. It would be good as an option I think.

A game option is probably the way to go as people feel strongly about the matter.

I'd like to point out that the tech level of the civs you have met is imo a better pointer when trying to compare your fictional world with historical dates.
C2C is not a history simulator, though it should strive to be informative about history, like a learning tool (Pedia text). That would require accuracy, something that cannot be achieved with the date system.

Compensations idea: Implementing special event's that reference specific historical events with dates could be implemented as a game option.
Those events would have strict rules to trigger, e.g civs involved in the event must exist, have invented this and that, and met this and that civ for the year reference and event as a whole to be somewhat accurate.

 

[tmv]

First, that tactic is something that might be used in both the coastal battle and in the sea battle, so it doesn't make a difference between the two cases.
Second, the detour you mention is maneuvering after the decision to engage the enemy has been made so that movement doesn't need to be simulated by having to move closer to the enemy before making the decision to engage.

You realize that the only reason the coast is considered "further away" is the fact that there is another coastal tile in-between? Otherwise the coast would be closer than the sea tile according to the model. If you were right, coast would simply use up more movement points than sea, which is not the case (and with Maneuvering promotion - I thinkt that was the one - coast uses up less movement points). It could be "equally close" if the ship had the promotion I mentioned, which is why I said this ship should have little movement left for the turn (I think you addressed that point - of fractional movement - as well, but I'm not sure that this can be done with C2C).

It should be noted that I've long promoted to remove dates from the game, I removed the date display in the "My take on stuff" modmod (quite outdated atm. needs an update, before I would recommend trying it), so that the player can decide for themselves how much time stuff takes.

I don't hold a strong opinion there, but since I am already using a modmod (Interface Overhaul), I'm a bit wary about introducing a second one.

You are debating in a manner that doesn't care to maintain adherence to your own points. Just posts before you personally stated that such a bonus should ONLY apply to ranged units, as we had covered a number of arguments for why that should be. Honestly, there is no cause to try to differentiate this benefit for various unit types because you can explain for each why having higher ground is a benefit.

I meant that ranged attackers could actually have it easier against melee defenders, because the topography might prevent the melee unit from closing in, whereas with hills you have the advantage of height without any unusual topography. A spear unit can end up with holes in their shield wall, which a ranged attacker could take advantage of. So ranged against melee could beat any defense advantage. If the battle is melee against melee, it is another matter - in this case the advantage of height would probably win. Ranged with shields against ranged without shields is almost always won by ranged with shields regardless of defense advantage. Of course, in real life you wouldn't try to defend a peak without ranged weapons, and if you "only" have archers, you would probably add a few shield-holders.

Time is analogous in the strategic side of the game. It represents the most significant bits of storyline of interaction throughout the age in which it takes place and cannot be completely compared to the progression rate of the civil sides of the game. This is just how our turn based system must be conceived unless you wish to play a game that is designed and gauged for each turn to reflect perhaps a week, even from the very beginning. Some want this but the length of the game would be prohibitive and the sense of progression extremely skewed. All the problems we have with the longest gamespeeds would multiply by hundreds of times and we'd need a great deal more resolution in many other regions of the game design, such as building construction and unit training times. You'd really need a far more intricate tech tree to make it feel like research is even happening. We'd need a new and far more developed game as a whole. Not only would we have to start from scratch to be able to take advantage of more modern computing power, the kitchen sink would be so large we'd need a new apartment.

I don't mind the timeflow of the game although I know that this is not at all realistic (if you send a unit to attack the enemy on the other side of the continent and get there 500 years later, what soldiers are in this unit when it arrives?), but Toffer used the timeflow in the game to argue about the shape of the tiles.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There is a group near Belo Horizonte @ the save. When the the 4 units try entering, the LE will be blocked by the rogue (which will become visible, but otherwise unkill-able), and the 3 medics will enter. If we attempt to click on the medics, it will switch control/group to the LE. Causing the LE to "create a group" will allow us to select the medics, though.

I'll take a look at this soon. It does sound like a problem spot.

A game option is probably the way to go as people feel strongly about the matter.

I'd like to point out that the tech level of the civs you have met is imo a better pointer when trying to compare your fictional world with historical dates.
C2C is not a history simulator, though it should strive to be informative about history, like a learning tool (Pedia text). That would require accuracy, something that cannot be achieved with the date system.

Compensations idea: Implementing special event's that reference specific historical events with dates could be implemented as a game option.
Those events would have strict rules to trigger, e.g civs involved in the event must exist, have invented this and that, and met this and that civ for the year reference and event as a whole to be somewhat accurate.

I'm really not a fan of taking away the dates but I'd setup an option if it could be done entirely in python.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Or you could just turn them off in the options that come with BtS. (I think)

 

[Thunderbrd]

Or you could just turn them off in the options that come with BtS. (I think)

I think there actually are some display options in BUG that may allow you to hide the dates.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There is a group near Belo Horizonte @ the save. When the the 4 units try entering, the LE will be blocked by the rogue (which will become visible, but otherwise unkill-able), and the 3 medics will enter. If we attempt to click on the medics, it will switch control/group to the LE. Causing the LE to "create a group" will allow us to select the medics, though.

I managed to fix this movement issue I believe. Units shouldn't be allowed to ambush from cities. After revealing itself for the purpose of an ambush, the city kept it from being a fight but new rules took the movement point from the unit trying to move in. So I disabled the ability of an ambush to trigger in a city. It can in forts though which is kinda an interesting facet and shouldn't stop the battle from taking place.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I have seen that problem SO reported awhile ago happening in the latest version.

I have a hunter escorting a bunch of subdued animals back. If I attack a unit and win - no problem the stack stays together and moves into the plot. If the attacker has more moves it sometimes gets detached from the stack.

If on the other hand the unit being attacked withdraws then the attacker moves into the plot leaving all the subdued animals behind with them set to "end move" even though if I click on them and wake them up they can move.

Without a save it's hard to say what the problem is exactly. However, can this be explained by the subdued animals/captives not being able to move into those spaces at first because they are unable to 'reveal/explore'? It was driving me nuts that these would sometimes disconnect and get left behind unless you went back to go get them and send them to catch up to the unit protecting them until I realized they couldn't come along with the unit because he was entering a spot where he would reveal new plots and that's what was holding the other units back. This is a result of the new pathing logic Koshling put in place a while back and there are a few other issues I've seen as a result that I'm still considering how to eventually resolve.

 

[Toffer90]

You realize that the only reason the coast is considered "further away" is the fact that there is another coastal tile in-between? Otherwise the coast would be closer than the sea tile according to the model. If you were right, coast would simply use up more movement points than sea, which is not the case (and with Maneuvering promotion - I thinkt that was the one - coast uses up less movement points). It could be "equally close" if the ship had the promotion I mentioned, which is why I said this ship should have little movement left for the turn (I think you addressed that point - of fractional movement - as well, but I'm not sure that this can be done with C2C).

I realize that, and understood the scenario you laid out as a challenge to my interpretation of the map, that different plot may represent different sizes of land area. That's why I, when defending my map interpretation, laid out an explanation for why a unit might need more movement points (Time and capacity) when attacking the theoretically closer unit than what it needs for the one that theoretically could be farther away. The key point in my explanation was that terrain considerations may weigh in.

I want to say that it is not about being right or not when interpreting something in an abstract game, there is no right, or wrong, in such matters, and I pointed out quite early in the conversation that this is highly subjective.
{ Edit:

I understand why you feel it's inconsistent, but I feel it makes the game more consistent, immersive and realistic. We have different perspective on the matter, such things can be highly subjective.

}

 

[Thunderbrd]

View attachment 481501
Here's a sample city with the city's production tooltip. Base production says 388.
Below that, under Total Production, there's a list of contributing buildings that includes many I haven't built in this city and some that I haven't built anywhere (like Oil Derrick and the two dynamos).
Below are tooltips for several different production-enhancing buildings currently in the queue for the same city.
Steam Crane and Construction Firm both appear to have funky math.

Now that I had some time to look at this deeper, I see what's happening here. The total +/- amount of production given in these tooltips is a total predicted amount and where unit production modifiers are in the picture, it is counting towards that predicted total. Therefore, the ones that have negative offset amounts for unit production are showing accurate values for the totals. If you aren't training a unit, you'd be getting a lot more production.

On the first one it also interacts with the 50% construction benefit towards a skyscraper. The game, assuming you're building a skyscraper and training a unit at the same time, tallies everything together into that odd conclusion, further odd because one modifier applies before the other. This is just a display matter and isn't really bugged, just part of the quirk of how it works.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Hello here

It's my first message in this forum !

Firstly sorry for my bad english from french guy. I hope you understand me

My mod folder is : Caveman2Cosmos

Just do the turn and waitttttt a long time ( 15 min ).

At the end of the turn, it's back directly to the desk.
I think it's around babarian somewhere in the map.

I hope it's ok for the zip. I have winrar by default in my computer, and i save in zip file.

I use last SVN number 9669.

My last word is to say very big congratulation for this advanced mod in history of civ.

Thx u for reading me and i hope you can to do something.
I try to post more bug if i found more later !

Felange ( john )

I can run through this turn now without a hang. Something must have already been fixed here.

 

[tmv]

I realize that, and understood the scenario you laid out as a challenge to my interpretation of the map, that different plot may represent different sizes of land area. That's why I, when defending my map interpretation, laid out an explanation for why a unit might need more movement points (Time and capacity) when attacking the theoretically closer unit than what it needs for the one that theoretically could be farther away. The key point in my explanation was that terrain considerations may weigh in.

I guess that this is possible, especially since timeflow in the game can make any tile size "right" - the downside to this is that there is no really good way to transform a real map into a C2C map.

I want to say that it is not about being right or not when interpreting something in an abstract game, there is no right, or wrong, in such matters, and I pointed out quite early in the conversation that this is highly subjective.

I wouldn't go that far. I still think that tiles should be distinct from each other, otherwise you would need to rethink the entire tactical part of the game, and they should represent the entire map (no void on the map, and I don't mean the feature), otherwise you'd ask yourself why nobody ever goes to a certain place (and with there being completely useless tiles on the map, this is even less likely). As long as these two constraints are valid (which also means that "connectedness" between tiles is kept), this is the limit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphism . This can also serve as a "sanity check": You couldn't have a tile the size of Russia on a giant map of earth, since this tile would certainly need more than 8 neighbours.