Using the latest (Dec. 20 2017) SVN and am still getting the error. Attached is my Python error log.
Also I noticed the issue with the "disappearing gold" is still present - any fixes for this on the horizon?
Thanks.
Single Player bugs and crashes v37 plus (SVN) - After the 24th of December 2016
- Thread starter Dancing Hoskuld
- Start date
Using the latest (Dec. 20 2017) SVN and am still getting the error. Attached is my Python error log.
Also I noticed the issue with the "disappearing gold" is still present - any fixes for this on the horizon?
Thanks.
It would introduce new strategic elements, besides, I'm speaking about a huge defense malus here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Roncevaux_Pass). As long as the mountain range is defended on the other side (or by "special forces" who can deal with the terrain), going there is pretty much suicide (Caradhras may be fantasy, but reality wasn't that much better). You need to "open" the path first, perhaps by an amphibious assault going around the mountain range (as soon as logistics get implemented, this will become a lot harder as well). And that isn't even taking wolves or the like into account - especially with the CM options active (animals hiding in the mountain area, defense malus increasing with group size, etc.)
We might have another foreign language issue here: Are you talking about life in general, or about earth-like life?
This could get nasty if these plots are occupied by units of different nationalities, especially if these nations are at war. Are we speaking about guerilla warfare like Vietnam here? So should these units fight each other even if no attack command is given? And what if both units are defensive-only? To deal with this correctly, you now have to introduce units attacking of their own accord, because parts of these units are already in combat range. This is an example of more complex gameplay with reduced strategy.
I much rather like the way I want it to be:
- Peaks should be barriers for most units until tech opens up those areas.
- Peaks should have terrain damage (20% or so).
- 75% defense bonus (attacking a unit stationed at a peak should be a true challenge. A fort built in a mountain should be much better defended than a fort built in flatland.)
I meant what I said, because anything else would be quite irrelevant to C2C.
You are over-complicating, they would naturally keep their distance to each other until an attack order is made.
I'm describing how I interpret the map, and I don't feel it's in conflict with any particular game mechanics found in BtS.
That each plot represent a piece of land that can have an undefined shape, size and content.
That some pieces of land can be said to be represented by more than one plot, think of it as a grey zone between the plots that also are of an undefined size and form.
That there may be mountains present even in a flatland, but the mountain is insignificant to the plot as a whole.
A game is always an abstraction of reality, if it's not, then it's probably the most boring game ever made because reality is not something I would like to play, I'd rather live it.
There's either a misunderstanding afoot, or you are being difficult to have a laugh at my expense. Either way, I have no idea what I should respond to this.
Last edited:
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The error is the "Holy Mountain Quest" error. I thought I had finally fixed it for good. It happens because not all religions in C2C are the same with the same temple, monastery and cathedral style of buildings. I thought I had restricted the quest so that it could only happen for those religions that did have this structure.
edit it means that the quest has not started in your game, so it wont break anything else.
Well, looking at the python code where the errors happen I see one error:
line 176 ▬ localText.getText("TXT_KEY_EVENT_HOLY_MOUNTAIN_PART_3_HELP")
There is an argument missing in that function call. It needs to be changed to:
line 176 ▬ localText.getText("TXT_KEY_EVENT_HOLY_MOUNTAIN_PART_3_HELP", ())
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Disagree. It can already have some from other sources and I've seen how this works in game to be tremendously irritating from a defense perspective. It's already tough to get enough defense on peaks when commanders can help large armies to cross them.
I also tend to think of the strategic part of the map as being very specific with terrain and assumed we are zoomed in a lot when looking at unit interactions, enough to take the terrain shifts as very immediately literal. Otherwise, a 'unit' could take a stand at the base of a peak when on that tile, and that's not how the rules are designed to work with the peak. So access issues are the same to me, even if the scale is too large for a completely logical representation.
You are right about fortifications, but mobile units have a few difficulties to deal with, even after Mountaineering (as long as formations are important, you are not free to form them on these grounds; tactical movement is severely restricted for non-ski units, mounted combat is nearly impossible regardless of the type of mount). Of course, with mobile combat these would be difficulties for both sides, plus an increased likelihood for sneak attacks for either side. In short: permanent fortifications on peaks are very defendable but a unit on the move will have difficulties no matter if it's attacking or defending.
You are right if you are speaking about pre-Medieval times, but there is outer-space content in the mod now, even if there is no mapscript for it.
I have to disagree on that: Say there is a ship on a sea tile, controlling a somewhat large area. There is an adjacent coast tile (per definition of sea tiles) which is much smaller. On the "other side" of the coast tile is another coast tile, which is small as well. On this coast tile there is an enemy ship. Another enemy ship is on a sea tile adjacent to the sea tile the first ship is on. If the coast < sea relation holds with respect to area size, the last enemy ship could be farther away from the first ship, and is certainly on more difficult terrain (sea <-> coast). So which enemy can be attacked immediately if your unit can only move one more tile? Of course the second enemy ship!
You are a Norwegian and you reason about weirdly shaped coastlines. If I was that immature I wouldn't make it so complex.
If the defender see the enemy coming then I would say that the terrain is always a huge bonus for the defender in mountain terrain, remember that the enemy will also have to abandon any formation when attacking in mountainous terrain while the defender will have time to set up a makeshift defensive formation in a terrain that they have a better awareness about than what the attacker that is just arriving the battle location possibly could have.
It might be cool with some special sneak attack promos meant for attacking units in mountains, but I don't think we can differentiate sneak attack combat bonuses by terrain atm.
Additionally, there is currently no way to make it so that forts have more defense bonus when in mountains (e.g. 300%) than what it has on flatland/hills to counteract a (e.g.) 75% defense penalty from the mountain terrain.
Well, those maps that have space terrain support my statement that the map doesn't represent one perfectly smooth sphere, it might represent several spheres and the space in between them which really becomes a clusterf*ck to interpret as a rectangular map. ^^ There may be one perfectly smooth spherical moon or planet in a space map but I would still claim that those plots on that map that represent this smooth sphere is quite irrelevant to C2C as a whole. Anyhow, those plots would probably all be flatland and there is nothing in what I've said that excludes the possibility of plots being of equal size; and if that smooth sphere contains water plots as well, then you are free to imagine that those particular water plots represent the same surface area size as the flatland plots in that particular case.
If you attack the ship that is on the sea tile one tile away, that ship was not farther away than the ship in the coast two tiles away. ^^ If you don't attack the ship in the sea one tile away it could theoretically be farther away.
There are other ways to rationalize this too, coast offer a more difficult battle as there are far more considerations to make in a battle where land outcrops can be used as cover and reefs used tactically. The defender would naturally have an advantage as it would be more aware about such advantages and possibilities than a newly arrived attacker; so the attacker would need more MP remaining to simulate that it has time to scout out the enemy better before charging in like an idiot.
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.
Though, there is one mechanic that I might like changed in C2C that would imo make the game a bit more consistent. e.g. If it cost 2 MP to enter a plot that is 1 plot away from a unit with 1.99 MP remaining, that unit should not be capable of making that trip. It would either have to take a different route or end its turn without spending all its MPs. (Note: if the unit has all its MP remaining it can enter a plot that has a bigger MP cost than what the unit can have at maximum)
I'm not sure it could be done in a way that is not irritating to the player, I don't like changes that may take fun out of the game. Eador genesis is a TBS game that use this movement rule and I liked it there, but that game doesn't have as many units to move as C2C do by far.
Last edited:
I am not so sure that this means a lot for melee units, but I can agree that ranged units (both archers and throwers) should have a high mountain defense.
What about "mountain forts" (like mountain mines)?
Alright, if that is what you meant ...
You mean compared to a defender hiding behind the horizon?
Being the tactical defender might give you a few hours of additional information, whereas being in your own territory gives you years, if not decades. You could rather give a reason for coast in your territory giving you a bonus no matter if you attack or defend in this particular battle.
"The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics." (G. Galilei) I don't think it is necessary to throw out the grid to achieve any of these points.
Yes, there is one weakness with this grid, and that is the fact that diagonal movement is treated like horizontal / vertical movement. This is why, although I dislike
![[civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif "Civ5 [civ5]"){kind=icon}
and don't even have Civ6, I actually prefer hexagons. If they hadn't introduced 1UPT and instead offered something like SM (at least as an option) to cater to the more wargame-minded gamers, this could really have been an improvement - they might even have reintroduced multimaps from ![[tot]](/images/smilies/civ2tot.gif "Test of Time [tot]")
- with 64bit, better graphics, secondary tech trees and Great Works, it might have left 
in the dust.Melee unit's would also benefit imo, imagine a scenario: A company of melee units are in the mountains and have sightings or scout reports of a hostile company of soldiers, 5-10 kilometers away, that seems to be advancing for an attack. They will of course have time to set up a proper defense that really takes advantage of the difficult terrain, a terrain that will be far more confusing to the enemy than to the defenders who have had time to study the area they are in.
I agree with you that ambushing someone in a mountain plot should be really advantageous to the attacker, and it currently is too. e.g. You have a unit with good invisibility skills stationed in a mountain with the order to ambush anyone who tries to enter the mountain. You ambusher will be the one that gets the defensive bonus because it is technically the one that is ambushed that is counted as the attacker in C2C.
A mountain fort would be a possibility if we wanted it to be real easy to attack mountain plots, but really hard if there's a fort there. I don't want it that way though.
Behind the horizon or not is irrelevant to the captain of the ship that is going to attack.
What is relevant is that he knows that there is an enemy ship in that direction, and he knows he can catch up to it and attack, and he knows that it is in open waters so the enemy won't have any particular surprising tactical advantage due to its surroundings.
The other enemy ship that the captain knows about is at a potentially closer coast line, but will offer a tactically more complex battle where there are at the time being more unknown variables if compared to the other potential fight.
So therefore it makes sense that the ships must be closer to each other to better evaluate the potential battle situation in the latter case, before a calculated attack order can be given.
Not a bad idea, we would need to program a new tag for units and promotion that give combat bonus if fighting within your own cultural territory, it would fit perfectly with the coastal guard type ships that should know the coastline they guard very well.
@Thunderbrd: what do you think about this? Maybe more unit tags at this point cost more than they are worth...
Thriow out? It is not possible to change the grid for C2C, that is an integral part of the game engine and locked away in the .exe file that is unaccesible to modders. I'm talking about how I interpret the map seen in the game, not what I would like to change about the map in the game.
Hexagon are cool and all, but squares do a decent enough job imo, anyhow this is not something that is possible to change in C2C.Yes, there is one weakness with this grid, and that is the fact that diagonal movement is treated like horizontal / vertical movement. This is why, although I dislike
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I think it's a great idea but qualifies as a future project and would have to get in a long line as a result. I can easily see a line of promos giving such a homefield advantage. Would we want a bonus to all combat within borders, defense within borders, attack within borders, all of the above or just some? These would also be good base tags for units and would find common strong application among the unique units. Wonders could give some promos for these effects for free. Battlefield promotions would commonly award these if you're defending or attacking inside your borders.
One issue with this is that it's supposed to represent familiar territory but a lot of times what I find with the similar Great General points bonuses within borders is that it's quite commonly coming into play when you've just taken a city and are moving around to wipe out the enemy units still fortified around the city that has now become your borders (at least when minimum city border is on which I normally don't play with...) This would make it fit best with Joe's one city tile option perhaps but either way you look at it, the newest owned terrain is usually where most of the fighting that would apply would be found.
Should just make it even harder to attack mts, usually. I like the concept of a mtn fort... there have been a few in history and it evokes the idea of the dwarf fortress or the Rohan castle in the lord of the rings.
Disagree. The higher ground is the domain of the defender in this case and that means boulders and weapons can rain down from above. Try coming at someone with an axe when he stands over you and you just had to climb to get to him.
Other than this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T
That is exactly what I meant. Of course the map cannot be perfect (no tiled map can be), but keeping closer to the presentation should be considered better if it's possible - otherwise you could interpret anything.
I know. I was speaking about the one limitation of squared tiles from my point of view.
I have already conceded that ranged units have an advantage in any case, and melee units better keep their weapons with them. Here I was speaking about a meeting engagement, when both units are on the move (but at different heights perhaps). The topology is the problem here, you don't really have space (as opposed to the aforementioned mountain fort, which gives you a rather large flat area in addition to fortifications with towers for ranged units and clear checkpoints for entry). Both sides might have large units that they cannot really deploy (especially any kind of heavy weapons or any formation is out). Units that rely completely on formations (phalanx) are goners in that case, even if they defend (their shield wall resembles a swiss cheese, if the attacker is a ranged unit, they won't get to close combat). Smaller units or those less relying on formations can cope better, but in these times (Medieval or before) you will hardly find any kind of unit that doesn't use formations at all.
Regarding boulders: With large boulders those soldiers won't be able to defend themselves, so they are in trouble if the attacker is a ranged unit as well. If the boulders are not large (slingers) they can defend the place and can defend it pretty well. As Vegetius wrote (http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/index.php#b114):
Spoiler Vegetius about the sling :
Regarding the axe: I assume the axe belongs to the defender - again, a ranged attacker will take the defender out.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
The defender of a mountain plot (the one who's already there) will always have the higher ground and thus the exertion won't be as much to engage as it is for the attacker, regardless of the unit type. Thus it has every reason a hill has to offer a combat advantage and all the moreso.
Can you explain to me how that tactic utilize any specific features in the surrounding terrain.
Why is it a tactic that the attacker would have no reason to expect in a typical sea battle, to me it looked like a textbook formation that doesn't require special surroundings to be performed.
Why should that tactic mean that the attacker must be better prepared before deciding to engage the enemy? Would moving in closer before engaging the enemy be necessary to understand that such a tactic is something you might potentially be confronted with in what is expected to be an open sea battle?
The map presented in C2C is an extremely abstract version of reality, like the stick figure drawing of a 5 year old.
Interpreting it as close as possible to what is presented makes the game completely lame, one has to fill in the 99.99% blanks that is not presented to you on the map.
It would be like interpreting a metaphor in a totally literal fashion, which is a pointless endeavor by default.
Edit:
Spoiler Brief interpretation while keeping close to what is presented :
Spoiler Another one :
Last edited:
Did I say that? This is more about the fact that the defender has time to get into a "prepared position" - what is exactly your reasoning in the other cases.
Alright. Now you make several false analogies, get very close to a strawman (I said "if it's possible" - I realize that there are limits on this interpretation, but the visuals shouls be a guide), pull a number out of your hat, your secondary conclusion is a (not always valid) premise (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro), you mention "other reflections" that might be cornerstones of your reasoning, and in your clarification you assume a more-or-less constant slope over many tiles which is even more unlikely than completely flat terrain. I have found the following examples for a definition for mountain: The official UK definition (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill), which says 600 m, and the UIAA definition, which says a summit with at least 300 m prominence (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit). Neither would even be a hill according to your definition.I said: the enemy won't have any particular surprising tactical advantage due to its surroundings (post #2210 )
You said: Other than this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T (post #2212)
I said: Can you explain to me how that tactic utilize any specific features in the surrounding terrain. (post #2214)
That if you have an enemy that is located at a more complex battlefield you might need more time to evaluate before deciding to attack. This can explain my view that some plots may be bigger than others and why it to me makes sense that units might have to move in closer to some enemies than others before an attack is possible.
The admiral doesn't need to consult a map for very long to study the battlefield before deciding to engage if the battlefield is open sea.
I didn't really define a hill... If I were to make an earth map that is 2x gigantic map size I might place 1-2 mountain plot in Norway. Most of Norway would mostly qualify as hill terrain imo, some flatland in the south east perhaps.
{ Edit: I feel like I should put some more though into what I just said here.
If Norway was represented by 100 plots, I might have 12 flatland plots in the south east, and 6 somewhere in the north. Perhaps 10 peaks and 72 hills.}
A typical hill terrain in civ contain mountains the way I see it.
Edit: I edited and reduced one of the numbers I used in the previous post, I agree that it was a bit extreme.
The numbers are not that important, but the terrain relativity I'm pointing at in my previous posts is.
What is hill and what is mountain plot must be relative to what you compare it to.
Why exclude the possibility of a flatland that is 1000 meter's above the sea if we are talking about an arbitrary planet (random mapscript), and if the plot adjacent to that flatland is hilly when compared to said flatland, then you have a hill terrain at a high altitude.
I don't know if there are examples of flatland that is 1000+ m above sea level on earth { Edit: wikipedia, and also Mongolian steppes at 2000 m }, so the number I used might not be realistic for any planet that can have earth like life. But again the numbers are not important, the relativity is, and the map as presented in a civ game is very relative imo.
Last edited:
Raledon
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 236
A couple of bugs:
1) combat calculation seems a bit off, or atleast how it shows it. Sometimes, the chances do not add up to 100%, and a unit with 0.00% to get defeated dies. This happens more often than expected, as I've noticed a few times that I had close to 100% chance of winning, but still lose a unit.
In the pic below, for example, I expect my axeman to survive. However, he gets defeated, which seems impossible.
Notes- without BUG's advanced combat odds, it's 90+10 win/retreat, which adds up to 100%
Edit: There is a river on the way, which reduces the axeman's win chance slightly. Even if taking that into account, the chances will be 53.3 win, 45.6 retreat and 0.00% lose chances.
2) culture warfare seems to work in a strange manner. One of my cities is being heavily pressured. I tried to counter that by building more culture buildings, and even used a great artist to boost it (should've expanded the borders). None of that seems to have any effect, and I am unaware on how to save the city besides taking over the opponent's source of culture.
1) combat calculation seems a bit off, or atleast how it shows it. Sometimes, the chances do not add up to 100%, and a unit with 0.00% to get defeated dies. This happens more often than expected, as I've noticed a few times that I had close to 100% chance of winning, but still lose a unit.
In the pic below, for example, I expect my axeman to survive. However, he gets defeated, which seems impossible.
Notes- without BUG's advanced combat odds, it's 90+10 win/retreat, which adds up to 100%
Edit: There is a river on the way, which reduces the axeman's win chance slightly. Even if taking that into account, the chances will be 53.3 win, 45.6 retreat and 0.00% lose chances.
Spoiler :
2) culture warfare seems to work in a strange manner. One of my cities is being heavily pressured. I tried to counter that by building more culture buildings, and even used a great artist to boost it (should've expanded the borders). None of that seems to have any effect, and I am unaware on how to save the city besides taking over the opponent's source of culture.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
1) I've noticed a few cases that didn't seem to display correctly. In a version or two, Spirictum and I have agreed to do an audit on that.
2) Some things can depend on options there. Are you certain that you aren't still fighting against more powerful sources of culture there? To keep it from revolting, you can use some entertainer units with the proper promos and buildups to fortify the morale of the city. Great Artists don't really plug out as much culture in comparison to the huge amounts cities can generate as they once used to in vanilla. Not to say they aren't effective, just perhaps drowned out by all the potential sources of culture that exist in C2C. We could probably benefit from going through and nerf some culture sources a bit.
2) Some things can depend on options there. Are you certain that you aren't still fighting against more powerful sources of culture there? To keep it from revolting, you can use some entertainer units with the proper promos and buildups to fortify the morale of the city. Great Artists don't really plug out as much culture in comparison to the huge amounts cities can generate as they once used to in vanilla. Not to say they aren't effective, just perhaps drowned out by all the potential sources of culture that exist in C2C. We could probably benefit from going through and nerf some culture sources a bit.
Raledon
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 236
I believe I disabled all the options that are supposed to affect the cultural borders.
In terms of culture warfare, from my understanding increasing the culture of the city (atleast, getting it to expand its borders) should push back the influence. It seemed like it completely failed to do anything, which is strange.
Another thing that I have just noticed is that after taking over the city I believed to have caused the cultural issue, I had the following sequence of events:
turn 1) I took over the city. A lot of the contested area has lost ownership, turning into free land.
turn 2) I gain control of the free area
turn 3) I lose control of the contested area
The city this area appears to originate is about up to 10 tiles away. This quite extreme, considering my capital (and the contested city) has tile range of 6, leading me to question if it's even possible to contest its cultural borders peacefully. (it didn't appear that bad @ turn 2, though)
In addition, I cannot use fixed borders to capture tiles adjacent to my city, only further ones
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.
Alright. It's not a surprising advantage, but that doesn't really make it any less dangerous. Like with melee combat in the mountains (as I pointed out), 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.
Agreed. This is similar to the UIAA definition, although that takes topographic prominence into regard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence).
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). 
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
