Do they show up as TEXT_KEY_ERROR ? If so, then I probably missed adding back some of those I removed back when.
I'll fix it, holler if you find more of those.
Single Player bugs and crashes v38 plus (SVN) - After the 20th of February 2018
- Thread starter Dancing Hoskuld
- Start date
I'll fix it, holler if you find more of those.
Thank you for giving it a look.
Specs are: 8 GB RAM, i7 920 at 2.67 GHz and Nvidia GTX 650 TI(1 GB).
EDIT: RAM usage is usually around 1.4 GB on this save.
I do find that animal spawn rates get extremely high on Deity for early-game, so I start the game on a lower difficulty and allow it to increase over time with the BUG option.
Same reason I keep unlimited national units on for increased hunter count.
Strategy is usually to hold onto them and dump them later for a rapid culture boost & resources in new cities.
The game did load and go to the next turn fine from your save, so it likely is a hardware limitation rather than a game crash.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
TXT_KEY_CITY_NAME_...
Handicap can't adjust animal spawning rate.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Your crash might have been taking place due to the first problem. Having solved that, I ran your save and had no trouble. I don't think what you have in terms of specs should have difficulty with the game and I didn't see memory use getting all that high. You might also need to turn off combat animations perhaps.
K will fix those two.
Looked at your save btw.
There are some odd things there like the "Fauna Predators" civ that have cities with Peter (Russian leader) as their leader.
I saw that you have unrestricted leaders on, so I guess there's a bug related to that and the NPC split somehow.
How did the "Fauna Predators" civ emerge? Was it through revolution or have they been there from turn 0?
@raxo2222 That python error was actually not related to PPIO, the error would trigger without PPIO too. It was caused by the "Fauna Predators" civ being a player with ID smaller than 40.
The "Fauna Predators" civ in this save have cities but no capital, the error happened because there was some revolution code that expected a civ to have a capital if it had cities, so it didn't check if the capital was real before doing stuff with it.
I fixed the error in PPIO without adding additional code to avoid the error, optimised the entire assimilation code. (not cultural assimilation, this is assimilation in the sense that one civ actually merges with another completely.)
I guess cheeky NPC leaders/civs should be banned from revolutions/unrestricted leaders options.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
It's a breakaway from India. I also had the Beasts under Elizabeth in the past.
I don't suppose you're any closer to why my tech leader stopped teching?
Ok, that's at least a clue to work off.
I think TB may have fixed that in his latest commit, not sure.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
Yes, thanks, I see that now.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
Fixed in 10528 - thank you Tbrd.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
You bet... thank you for the report - sorry I forgot to mention I fixed it here though.Fixed in 10528 - thank you Tbrd.
Barb civs seem to be spawning at somewhat ridiculous rates. I'm about 3/4 of the way through prehistory, large Fractal map (I think it had me + 10 to start with), and the civ count has more than doubled. 475 turns, standard speed, 25000BC. (Numbers may be off slightly.)
It is probably largely related to the bump in culture barb cities get now, but feels a little too high. Some of the barb cities (not a new established minor civ, still owned by barb player) I saw even had expanded culture twice. I also considered the possibility that these cities were spawning as neanderthal cities, accruing culture, and then developing into barb civs as a result. I noticed that sometimes, units owned by the minor civs (while I was still at default war with them) were neanderthal units. Most of them did not have stone, to say nothing of the one-world limit of Neanderthal Culture, so I assume these were neanderthal units produced while they were a neanderthal-barb city that they claimed ownership of when they converted into a minor civ. But not being familiar with the process, maybe they simply claimed a nearby neanderthal unit that wasn't necessarily produced or "owned" by the neanderthal city prior to the conversion.
Maybe it is possible to delay barb civs until ancient or classical? (Although I guess the available territory will be mostly filled if that's done). Or change the conditions in which barb civs form based on era? For example, needing to be relatively close to an existing civ in early eras (barbarians learning culture from nearby contact), in later areas needing more space (establishing a new civilization "independent" of existing ones, sort of like Rome being founded by Greek expatriates). Or just altering the amount of culture they accrue, depending on era, or increase the amount depending on how many civs exist for the map size. I don't know what the rate is right now but it could probably be halved with a large random factor to modify the increase. For example, say they currently get 1 culture per 5 turns. Change this to 1 culture per 10 turns, but 25% of the time they get a bonus 1. In this way, the base rate is significantly reduced, but there is a random factor in how quickly they may develop, instead of simply being a straight waiting period with no variation. (I'm not familiar with the normal process, do the cities have the option to "build" culture to accelerate the rate? Not necessarily in the sense of a production conversion like normal civs get.) Of course, some of these options are easier than others, particularly if they require additional processing or to track or produce new variables.
However, given one or both options (Neanderthal Cities, Barbarian Civilizations) were disabled (I did a Play Now to set game settings to default after updating to 10524), I can also assume that these options aren't necessarily supported or intended for a default experience. If that is the case, then feel free not to change anything.
It is probably largely related to the bump in culture barb cities get now, but feels a little too high. Some of the barb cities (not a new established minor civ, still owned by barb player) I saw even had expanded culture twice. I also considered the possibility that these cities were spawning as neanderthal cities, accruing culture, and then developing into barb civs as a result. I noticed that sometimes, units owned by the minor civs (while I was still at default war with them) were neanderthal units. Most of them did not have stone, to say nothing of the one-world limit of Neanderthal Culture, so I assume these were neanderthal units produced while they were a neanderthal-barb city that they claimed ownership of when they converted into a minor civ. But not being familiar with the process, maybe they simply claimed a nearby neanderthal unit that wasn't necessarily produced or "owned" by the neanderthal city prior to the conversion.
Maybe it is possible to delay barb civs until ancient or classical? (Although I guess the available territory will be mostly filled if that's done). Or change the conditions in which barb civs form based on era? For example, needing to be relatively close to an existing civ in early eras (barbarians learning culture from nearby contact), in later areas needing more space (establishing a new civilization "independent" of existing ones, sort of like Rome being founded by Greek expatriates). Or just altering the amount of culture they accrue, depending on era, or increase the amount depending on how many civs exist for the map size. I don't know what the rate is right now but it could probably be halved with a large random factor to modify the increase. For example, say they currently get 1 culture per 5 turns. Change this to 1 culture per 10 turns, but 25% of the time they get a bonus 1. In this way, the base rate is significantly reduced, but there is a random factor in how quickly they may develop, instead of simply being a straight waiting period with no variation. (I'm not familiar with the normal process, do the cities have the option to "build" culture to accelerate the rate? Not necessarily in the sense of a production conversion like normal civs get.) Of course, some of these options are easier than others, particularly if they require additional processing or to track or produce new variables.
However, given one or both options (Neanderthal Cities, Barbarian Civilizations) were disabled (I did a Play Now to set game settings to default after updating to 10524), I can also assume that these options aren't necessarily supported or intended for a default experience. If that is the case, then feel free not to change anything.
Well barbarians couldn't accumulate culture at all before that change.
I guess all those culture boosts to barbarian trait or barbarian culture can be reduced now @Thunderbrd - they didn't work at all before and now actually work.
Or you have to adapt to actually working barbarians now.
I guess all those culture boosts to barbarian trait or barbarian culture can be reduced now @Thunderbrd - they didn't work at all before and now actually work.
Or you have to adapt to actually working barbarians now.
I know but I want to use them before my border expands.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
I disagree Raxxo. They should be left alone for awhile longer.
I have a test game with Barb World On and the barbs are force to be reconded with now. Not a "slave farm" as much as they were before. But an actual impediment to expansion and a source of conflict to be overcome. They are adding excitement/apprehension for the player back into the early game.
EDIT: What may need changed though is the Default Options we have set up for a Play Now game. In fact it is my Concern that they do not properly represent Caveman2Cosmos base play anymore. And that some of the Recommended Options need to be reconsidered and revised.
@Thunderbrd : Does the barbarians use the trait flavour values for their AI at all, wondering if there is any point in the barbarians having any trait... Should be enough that they have the barbarian culture building.
If they need the trait, then we may want to consider removing the barbarian culture building, and move any bonuses from it to the trait instead.... There is little point in having both.
The trait does give an experience boost on combat wins for units, which can not be an effect of the culture building, I think.
The barbarian trait removes anarchy time, does barbs even change civics? Anyhow, no anarchy for NPC teams should be hardcoded in the dll.
If they need the trait, then we may want to consider removing the barbarian culture building, and move any bonuses from it to the trait instead.... There is little point in having both.
The trait does give an experience boost on combat wins for units, which can not be an effect of the culture building, I think.
The barbarian trait removes anarchy time, does barbs even change civics? Anyhow, no anarchy for NPC teams should be hardcoded in the dll.
Last edited:
Barbarian trait should be removed as traits can be disabled altogether, things contained in it should be moved to barbarian culture.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
They don't use trait flavors, no. I might take out any cultural boost from the trait, and most anything that isn't purely trait capable but I wouldn't remove it entirely if there's anything that we're taking advantage of that only a trait can give.
I don't know if I would classify them as "working" at the moment. Certainly there are a large number of barb/minor civs but the barbs posed no threat to me before they converted. Likewise, despite being permanent war, the minor civs had only their hunter/scout parties outside their borders (though this is somewhat expected since waging war in the prehistory is a costly affair, let alone before tribalism was discovered by anyone). There was no pressure from any actual-barb (as opposed to neanderthal or minor civ) at any time. A couple stragglers crossed my borders trying to pillage improvements but nothing else. That said, none of the barb cities spawned anywhere near me, so I don't know if maybe other civs had problems with them. Given experience in previous games, though, I would guess no:
In my previous games I always played with Barb World and Raging Barbs, precisely to try and get some action out of them. However, the only result of this seems to be "huge" stacks of barbs that just amble around in culture of their resident city. A stack of 30-50 stonethrowers plus maybe a dozen melee types (clubmen, macemen, etc) that move in and out of the city. They also seem to be very defensive, because when I did try to farm them, they would specifically move most of their units away from my invasion force. It was a bit of a cat and mouse game because I wanted to clear out as many of them as possible before capturing or destroying the city, to avoid leaving stragglers, but they would keep retreating rather than engaging. I would have to rely on units that were fast enough - like dogs, cats, master hunters, or strike teams (ambushers) - to attack from one space away, while also being able to move my attacking units back so the remaining barb units don't flee. Possibly I just vastly overpowered them (which is likely as, like I said, most of them were just stone throwers).
Incidentally, I saw at least two of these stone thrower stacks "orphaned" somehow. That is, they were nowhere near a barb city. I don't know what might have been going on with them. I presume they were defending a barb city that converted but I don't know how they got away from their city far enough that they wouldn't have been claimed by a city converting into a minor civ. Pushed away while fleeing units from an AI civ? I think one of them might have headed toward a new barb city that spawned but I didn't keep track of the stack.
As above, I am not sure whether barbs are a threat yet, even with barb world and raging barbs. They build large stacks to defend their city but don't seem to send out aggressive parties at all. They do act as a blocker to expansion (especially if they bottleneck you from more territory), but not a threat to your city or territory. Likewise, the proliferation of minor civs also makes expansion more time consuming (at least if they spawned near you, in my game I am lucky enough to still have plenty of space for several new cities), but they are less of a problem than if an established civilization had claimed that territory*. I don't think the minor civs by themselves will have enough momentum to ever pose an actual threat to me.
This is on Emperor, it is possible the barbs and minor civs would be more of a threat on Immortal or Deity+Nightmare (or does that still exist?).
(*In my experience, war vs AI never ends with just taking a city or two. If they're the aggressor and they overpower you, you might get away with asking for peace after they take a city. But if you're attacking them and you capture cities, the diplomatic malus will be too large for them to contemplate peace, unless you're so powerful or you've taken so many cities that they are virtually defeated anyway. And at that point, why bother with peace? Might as well finish them completely to get rid of them. Even if the maintenance makes owning more cities costly, you probably have their most valuable cities already and can just raze the rest.)
.
Actually, considering posts elsewhere, it is in fact entirely likely that what I consider to be the "tame" activity of the barbarians and minor-civ AI/AI in general could just be due to Emperor and not Immortal/Deity. So feel free to ignore my feedback in that regard.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
