Single Player bugs and crashes v40 download - After Oct 2019

I don't think anyone is born agnostic, I think most are born as undecided individuals in every and all ways. Becoming an agnostic is to have made a general realization that there are a certain set of factors that qualifies something as undecidable.

Initially, their beliefs must be based on those of the parents and other family members etc.

It may be, that they become agnostic - when they mature and become more free thinking.
 
The reason I feel this matters is for when I get to the point where the Ideas project is in place and we're needing to pie chart out the % of citizens that believe what religion with 100% fully accounted for. There will need to be a default non-religion differentiated from anti-religious at that point so that all can be categorized.
I would be ok with agnostic being used in that context.
Can't think of anything else that fits.... Neutral/Undecided/"No belief"/Other/"No religion"/Irreligious/"natural state"/Impious all seem out of place in the ideas system.
Atheism is the only natural contender as the default state I think, but then again it has the same problems as I describe with agnosticism when it comes to the question of what is the default state.
Pagan is ambiguous as it can mean a believer of any old religions, or it could mean nonreligious.
 
Last edited:
We can't have the two choices being only agnostic or anti-religious. There are plenty of people who are *just* atheist, not either of those things. They are sure there aren't any gods, but they aren't particularly anti-religious, in the same way you can be sure there is no Santa Claus, but not be anti-Santa Claus.
The problem is that of attempting to put the various beliefs *about* religions in the same category as religious belief itself. The religions themselves are mutually exclusive, whereas people can hold one or more of the various non-religious ideas.
If you want to put them all on a 100% pie chart then that pie chart can really only describe what religion people follow, with a "none" option.
I think this just indicates that having it add up to 100% is not correct, instead you can just say what percent of the population hold various ideas vs don't hold them.
 
Yeah, each idea category could have an N/A (not applicable) percentage, a percentage of the population the idea category simply doesn't apply to.
I don't know much about how you (TB) envision the ideas system to work on the technical side, will ideas even be divided into categories?
I've guessed it will as there are multiple ideological concept that can coexist; that does not conflict.
I'm thinking it rarely is black and white and that categories shouldn't be assumed to necessarily encompass the entire population. unless we include some kind of a neutral/"don't care" stance to each category.
The problem is that of attempting to put the various beliefs *about* religions in the same category as religious belief itself.
It's a trap to easily fall into, to mix what naturally are two categories into one without noticing when designing such systems. Each category should be clearly defined without it being possible to strongly belong to two points within the same category.

Hearts of iron tangent:
The HoI IV ideology pie chart for the population comes to mind as it is divided into fascist, communist, and democrats. This one is seriously flawed and should really have been three pie charts. Without increasing the resolution more than necessary those would be fascist/liberal, communist/capitalist and democratic/(royalist, or loyalist, or totalitarian perhaps). The last one may even be better to drop as a pie chart and simply represent in game as a boolean of the national suffrage situation which may change through game mechanics which may be influenced by the liberal/fascist ideology chart.

Back to C2C and the ideas system:
We however probably want a less dualistic system that that, and the more granularity we allow to each idea category, the more overlap anomalies we must accept may exist within that system, the trick is to strike the balance and split categories when we clearly see that a new category can be justified. It's a tricky design process.
 
Last edited:
Actually one way to do it would be to take the percentages over the total number of held beliefs instead of the number of people. That way you can put all beliefs into the same chart, and have it add to 100%. What it will then show is the relative prevalence of various beliefs, without requiring those beliefs to be mutually exclusive. Some individuals would be represented multiple times. However whether this chart is giving useful representation of the information depends on the underlying system implementation, and how the player interacts with it (I know nothing about the ideas system proposal at all).
 
An agnostic would not find it natural to urge anyone else to adopt their way of thought as there is no way an agnostic can provide sufficient rational grounds to argue that human reason is incapable of deriving truths without rational ground. An agnostic doesn't actively oppose that which cannot be proven, because then (s)he would not be truly agnostic. I don't think what you describe as an active agnostic can exist, it would be a paradox. There's a difference between actively opposing the seemingly un-provable, and to never personally accepting something equally un-provable as the absolute truth.
I think we're more in agreement than not but what I'm saying is that it IS possible for a person to feel that others should also not accept anything that's not fully proven until has been and may argue that it's the stance one should adopt towards religion because we cannot prove anything about religions to be true, which would be an active agnosticism, while a passive one would not feel any need to urge others to adopt the same outlook. Whether you do urge others to your views, in any religious stance, is probably somewhat based on the content of the religious stance. Active religious promotion is more common because religions commonly include the belief that people must be of that religion or they await a terrible afterlife so if you love people, you'll push them into your beliefs, or that people who aren't of your beliefs are a danger to the world and an affront to your deity and thus must be punished.

But to say that a person cannot urge others to also adopt a more agnostic approach or wouldn't because its not compatible with agnosticism I think is overlooking how many of us actually are. A scientist or professor is often a great example of an active agnostic, urging others to only rely on that which we can show is likely to be true with solid evidence. The opposition to religions from an agnostic is the opposition they have for anyone adopting views without 'enough' rational cause to. This differs from an active Atheist, who urges that we completely abandon the belief in the possibility that a religion is accurate, whereas an active Atheist would say we shouldn't deny that religions may have some answers, just that we shouldn't assume them correct unless we find proofs to support those claims.

It's a good argument within your definition of agnosticism, but an ism is an ideology, ideologies are not arrived at without relevant deliberate though preceding it.
Whether a person considers something or not doesn't mean they don't have an adopted outlook. They wouldn't have come to that outlook by choice, perhaps, but they still have an outlook, whether they even realize they do or not. I see, in this statement, what you are arguing, but being the adopted belief of being unsure, whether it comes with deliberate consideration or complete ignorance really doesn't make it any different except that deliberate consideration makes it possible to become, as you say, an ideology rather than just a default. I suppose by your constraint that an ism must be an ideology resulting from consideration, then what would you say is the religion of those who don't know because they've never considered it, assuming you MUST be able to label them with an adopted religion? For that's really the only reason that we really do need Agnosticism and Atheism to be actual religions at some point, to reflect 'I don't know' and 'I believe no religion is correct and find religious thought offensive'.

Your example is that someone for the first time in his/her life is forced to choose between multiple complex stories about the world which (s)he has never heard the likes of before that day, and declare one of those stories as part of his/her identity.
Actually, no I'm thinking more of the person that is not even queried, unless you want to consider it that they were mind-scanned to find out what they think. They don't have to be shown their options and in fact, it's likely they would immediately shift their religious perspective if any options were to present themselves, particularly if they'd never given the subject previous consideration. They'd immediately weigh out how they feel about each and make a more informed decision. I'm saying that Agnosticism MEANS undecided and that if nobody ever knew they had a choice to decide on, the default is obviously undecided. It can become an ideology if someone wishes to hold on to that as their state of mind, even after choices have been placed before them, and regardless of your religious viewpoint, you really can't argue against there being some wisdom in that.

I don't think anyone is born agnostic, I think most are born as undecided individuals in every and all ways.
Which, by the definition I'm assigning Agnostic, means they are born agnostic. I see the difference you're making but the distinction between actively choosing (as an ideology) to remain undecided, and being undecided by default, is an insignificant difference in the spectrum of religious definition.

Agnosticism is a mindset that zealots just don't have, and if they got it then they would stop being zealots, no.
I'm not sure I agree here as there are numerous people in the world today actively pushing for us all to adopt agnosticism over the religions we were raised to believe because they believe that those religions have only caused harm and given how committed so many are to them all and yet how antagonistic they can be towards each other and in many ways completely incompatible in sharing the same culture, the aggressively agnostic mindset is on the rise. It could be called the religion of non-partisanism, and it's becoming a major political factor, pushing out all religious terminology from any state level material and trying to mute the religious connotations in public holidays and so on. Some feel very strongly about this and it's not the same as Atheism because it's not saying that religions, any of them, are particularly wrong, just that they have no right to push their beliefs, particularly over the right to be free from religious influence if you wish to be. That can become a strong enough ideology to become a zealot for as well, just less likely since it's usually zealots that this person opposes. But that doesn't mean that the cat doesn't often call the kettle black on every side of a given fence.

Much of all this is just interesting discussion and as an argument is rather silly because I feel we both made our points and they are both conclusive and valid within the differences in our definitions of the term.

We can't have the two choices being only agnostic or anti-religious. There are plenty of people who are *just* atheist, not either of those things. They are sure there aren't any gods, but they aren't particularly anti-religious, in the same way you can be sure there is no Santa Claus, but not be anti-Santa Claus.
Again, the difference is just between actively pushing a belief and just keeping that belief personal. There are both types of Atheists, just as there are both types of Christians, and even Muslims. Even though the latter two religions actively instruct the faithful to spread that faith and fight for it. Whether people are active or passive about their beliefs is a pivot for all religions and might be something we could track as a separate overlay value.

The problem is that of attempting to put the various beliefs *about* religions in the same category as religious belief itself. The religions themselves are mutually exclusive, whereas people can hold one or more of the various non-religious ideas.
I disagree that it would be impossible to maintain numerous religions as true if you could sort out in your mind how things go where they 'seem' to disagree. Many current world religions are homogenized blends of previous 'pagan' ones as it is, and it's not too hard to blend two faiths together, which only sometimes means another one is born entirely. People can personally believe in all sorts of variations and mixes, just as they can hold one or more of the various non-religions.

I don't know much about how you (TB) envision the ideas system to work on the technical side, will ideas even be divided into categories?
Yes, categorizing ideas is a big part of it... I did go into quite a bit of detail in the ideas project thread which is probably some pages back now - I could try to find it later and bump it up and provide a link.

I'm thinking it rarely is black and white and that categories shouldn't be assumed to necessarily encompass the entire population. unless we include some kind of a neutral/"don't care" stance to each category.
That neutral/i don't care stance is exactly what Agnostic is and thus the reason it would need to be a religion so it can even be on that list of religious ideas in the religion category. I mean we could call it N/A but it means the same thing.

Actually one way to do it would be to take the percentages over the total number of held beliefs instead of the number of people. That way you can put all beliefs into the same chart, and have it add to 100%
That's how the math is assumed to go for religion type ideas. Some ideas are tracked by the population and it's a matter of a linear, how much is this idea adopted here, sort of question. And if the idea is adopted enough than it basically counts as being present in the city. But for competing ideas, like political opinons (civics - at least what the people WANT their civics to be), Religions, Corporation Popularity within various market categories listed by utilized resource, Languages, CULTURES, and possibly more, the battle is expressed as % of acceptance vs the total number of competing ideas in the category. I laid out the math in some detail in that post but this is in a nutshell how it would work.

Some individuals would be represented multiple times.
Actually individuals aren't even really tracked into that picture because one person may have divisions within themselves as well. It's more an overall, this is what the populace measures out to in terms of ultimate % of strength in competition with the other competing beliefs.
 
I think we're more in agreement than not but what I'm saying is that it IS possible for a person to feel that others should also not accept anything that's not fully proven until has been and may argue that it's the stance one should adopt towards religion because we cannot prove anything about religions to be true, which would be an active agnosticism, while a passive one would not feel any need to urge others to adopt the same outlook. Whether you do urge others to your views, in any religious stance, is probably somewhat based on the content of the religious stance. Active religious promotion is more common because religions commonly include the belief that people must be of that religion or they await a terrible afterlife so if you love people, you'll push them into your beliefs, or that people who aren't of your beliefs are a danger to the world and an affront to your deity and thus must be punished.
I'm perhaps being a bit bombastic, I'll admit that. Though agnosticism is just as much about not opposing anything that cannot be rationally dismissed as much as it is about not accepting that which cannot be rationally understood. It is atheism that is all about dismissing that which cannot be rationally understood; well at least in the question about the existence of gods.

Just though about a weird scenario: for the sake of the scenario we must assume god does exist, and that an agnostic person one day starts seeing god, talking to god, etc. If god doesn't exist this would of course simply be some kind of insanity. The agnostic person would most likely first assume it is insanity, but the things god says will happen keeps happening, his blind mother gains vision a second after this godly presence says she will be cured, and so on, that in the end the agnostic person would have to consider it rational that it is indeed at least a god that is guiding him/her in life, this person would still be an agnostic even though he believes in god and may even organize a religion about it. The god may tell the agnostic person about some sort of hell, heaven and devil, but the agnostic person would not believe it as it is just as rational that this god he is seeing is lying and telling tall tales. No other agnostic person would join this monotheistic religion the first one organized as this god doesn't want to show itself for any other than the first agnostic person. This scenario is meant to point out that agnosticism not necessarily has much to do with religion.
But to say that a person cannot urge others to also adopt a more agnostic approach or wouldn't because its not compatible with agnosticism I think is overlooking how many of us actually are. A scientist or professor is often a great example of an active agnostic, urging others to only rely on that which we can show is likely to be true with solid evidence. The opposition to religions from an agnostic is the opposition they have for anyone adopting views without 'enough' rational cause to. This differs from an active Atheist, who urges that we completely abandon the belief in the possibility that a religion is accurate, whereas an active Atheist would say we shouldn't deny that religions may have some answers, just that we shouldn't assume them correct unless we find proofs to support those claims.
I would argue that there's a difference in being eager to explain how one think to someone who cares to listen than to actively urge and perform missionary actions. If a person is urging someone to change their way of life, even though rationality cannot point out what is definitely wrong about it, then that person is not agnostic. An agnostic may point out more practical day to day things that the other person should change if there are rational reasons to change it, let's take religious slaughter as an example, where an agnostic may want to actively argue that the methods may be inhumane and urge the other to reconsider the methods. But when it comes to stuff like prayers and doing the cross with your hand on the chest or anything else mystical like this, an agnostic wouldn't have any rational grounds to urge the other to change these things.
I suppose by your constraint that an ism must be an ideology resulting from consideration, then what would you say is the religion of those who don't know because they've never considered it, assuming you MUST be able to label them with an adopted religion? For that's really the only reason that we really do need Agnosticism and Atheism to be actual religions at some point, to reflect 'I don't know' and 'I believe no religion is correct and find religious thought offensive'.
A religion is an organized belief, so before any organized beliefs existed, I would have a hard time to label anyone with an adopted religion. I would have to say family tradition is their adopted religion as it somehow qualifies as a minor organized religion at the extreme end of the spectrum.
I'm saying that Agnosticism MEANS undecided and that if nobody ever knew they had a choice to decide on, the default is obviously undecided. It can become an ideology if someone wishes to hold on to that as their state of mind, even after choices have been placed before them, and regardless of your religious viewpoint, you really can't argue against there being some wisdom in that.
That's where we disagree, agnosticism is to have decided to remain undecided when rationality doesn't seem to hold any value in regards to what to decide.
I'm not sure I agree here as there are numerous people in the world today actively pushing for us all to adopt agnosticism over the religions we were raised to believe because they believe that those religions have only caused harm and given how committed so many are to them all and yet how antagonistic they can be towards each other and in many ways completely incompatible in sharing the same culture, the aggressively agnostic mindset is on the rise. It could be called the religion of non-partisanism, and it's becoming a major political factor, pushing out all religious terminology from any state level material and trying to mute the religious connotations in public holidays and so on. Some feel very strongly about this and it's not the same as Atheism because it's not saying that religions, any of them, are particularly wrong, just that they have no right to push their beliefs, particularly over the right to be free from religious influence if you wish to be. That can become a strong enough ideology to become a zealot for as well, just less likely since it's usually zealots that this person opposes. But that doesn't mean that the cat doesn't often call the kettle black on every side of a given fence.
Sounds more like secularism than agnosticism, sure agnosticism is a prevalent subgroup within secularism, but so is atheism, and there's plenty of religious people who also favour the secular ideology because they are supporters of religious freedoms and realize that a secular society is good at protect religious freedoms. Agnosticism wouldn't be the reason to want to change holiday names though, that would rather be caused by atheism or perhaps by the liberal fascists (a hypocritical group who due to hysterical political correctness needs to forbid or otherwise remove all parts of society that may offend someone, and who usually down-prioritize freedoms to achieve this security from offense and control of the populations thoughts.). Secularism and agnosticism as ideologies cannot explain the renaming of religious holidays or the restrictions of others ability to push their views on others, but atheism and that other ideological group I mentioned can.

When you ask someone why they distance themselves from religions, or why they don't belong to one in general, then agnostic principles can be an answer, but it is only one of many answers one may get. Not all irreligious people are agnostic the way I see it, some are irreligious because they can't worship evil gods, a personal impression some may get from reading the old testament/koran/torran, while others are atheists, some are just confused, while others again simply couldn't care less about the whole thing.
Only the ones that explain, using the agnostic principles, why they won't commit to religions are agnostic, all who cannot give a definitive answer like that are not agnostic the way I see it. A priest could become agnostic and still stay a priest for many years to come, but it would be a different kind of priest than what one may usually expect to find, one who shares quite a different kind of wisdom with parishioners seeking life advice, one who avoids dogma and scripture that doesn't make rational sense. Agnosticism is not really in the spectrum of religions the way I see it, and that is why I initially said that the original question is a quandary, especially when considering the context of using agnosticism in the religion category of the idea mechanic.
If the category is religion then I would personally set it up so that at the start of the game, the entire population is simply at irreligious or "no religion", or "N/A", because I don't consider agnosticism a religion. The irreligious section of the population would also be represented late game when atheism is on the rise, and I would not let atheism obsolete the irreligious section in that idea category.

This is all very subjective of course, and I would be ok with agnostisism being the default state in the religion category of the ideas system you are working on. I'm just splitting hairs here due to you not agreeing that it was a quandary.
 
Just though about a weird scenario: for the sake of the scenario we must assume god does exist, and that an agnostic person one day starts seeing god, talking to god, etc. If god doesn't exist this would of course simply be some kind of insanity. The agnostic person would most likely first assume it is insanity, but the things god says will happen keeps happening, his blind mother gains vision a second after this godly presence says she will be cured, and so on, that in the end the agnostic person would have to consider it rational that it is indeed at least a god that is guiding him/her in life, this person would still be an agnostic even though he believes in god and may even organize a religion about it. The god may tell the agnostic person about some sort of hell, heaven and devil, but the agnostic person would not believe it as it is just as rational that this god he is seeing is lying and telling tall tales. No other agnostic person would join this monotheistic religion the first one organized as this god doesn't want to show itself for any other than the first agnostic person. This scenario is meant to point out that agnosticism not necessarily has much to do with religion.
I'd think as soon as he comes to believe that the deity is in fact a higher power, he's now adopted a religion. Perhaps not one that is defined, so perhaps this too would fall under agnostic of a sort, though perhaps we need a generalized 'Gnostic' religion to reflect an overall view that there is/are a deity or set of higher powers but who could possibly understand or make sense of it beyond that?

I would argue that there's a difference in being eager to explain how one think to someone who cares to listen than to actively urge and perform missionary actions. If a person is urging someone to change their way of life, even though rationality cannot point out what is definitely wrong about it, then that person is not agnostic. An agnostic may point out more practical day to day things that the other person should change if there are rational reasons to change it, let's take religious slaughter as an example, where an agnostic may want to actively argue that the methods may be inhumane and urge the other to reconsider the methods. But when it comes to stuff like prayers and doing the cross with your hand on the chest or anything else mystical like this, an agnostic wouldn't have any rational grounds to urge the other to change these things.
Except perhaps to point out how irrational it seems to them. They might even come to distrust those who do act in such ways, even oppose it on certain grounds. Some Christian faiths profess that homosexuality is a sin and a lifestyle to punish, whereas I think most agnostics oppose that view just as strongly because they consider it an extreme one that causes suffering to others and unless they can get something of some real proof, would prefer that this hard stance be eliminated. Agnostics don't go around like missionaries do, no, but they certainly urge temperance and a lack of action on religious principles.

A religion is an organized belief, so before any organized beliefs existed, I would have a hard time to label anyone with an adopted religion. I would have to say family tradition is their adopted religion as it somehow qualifies as a minor organized religion at the extreme end of the spectrum.
hmm... I think of a religion more as a set of beliefs and organized religion as something of an effort to combine a certain set of beliefs into a social movement and control/power structure. I can be very religious without having any declared denomination. The religions we have are divided along vague general world view lines rather than the intensely conflicting differences in various organized sects (so far.)

That's where we disagree, agnosticism is to have decided to remain undecided when rationality doesn't seem to hold any value in regards to what to decide.
Yeah I came to understand that it's all about how we personally choose to define the term. For the sake of the game, however, I think it best to simply say that agnosticism should be the whole spectrum of undecidedness.

Sounds more like secularism than agnosticism, sure agnosticism is a prevalent subgroup within secularism, but so is atheism, and there's plenty of religious people who also favour the secular ideology because they are supporters of religious freedoms and realize that a secular society is good at protect religious freedoms.
I suppose so but I would say that secularism is the political stance of the agnostic and they are the main proponents of it.

Agnosticism wouldn't be the reason to want to change holiday names though, that would rather be caused by atheism or perhaps by the liberal fascists (a hypocritical group who due to hysterical political correctness needs to forbid or otherwise remove all parts of society that may offend someone, and who usually down-prioritize freedoms to achieve this security from offense and control of the populations thoughts.). Secularism and agnosticism as ideologies cannot explain the renaming of religious holidays or the restrictions of others ability to push their views on others, but atheism and that other ideological group I mentioned can.
As I mentioned previously, the fear of religious thought and policy being a source of irrational decisions for people that can cause damage and harm to others is enough for many agnostics to oppose anything that would impede on the sense of human rights for others. Therefore, the some agnostics would urge that society only rely on that which we can prove as a guideline for how to live and actively oppose falling under the sway of an unproven faith because this is the problems that it causes, would point out that genocides and wars have been fought over nothing more than sets of incompatible beliefs. They are not saying that they KNOW what's true, only that we should ALL stop acting like we think we know based on shaky evidence at best because look at all the harm it causes. Therefore, as long as the government does not openly support any religious beliefs, they will feel much more comfortable. That's not necessarily atheist, nor is it in any attempt to suppress anyone - at least beyond the ability of those people to influence others to cause harm with their religious outlooks (even potentially just spreading those outlooks.) An agnostic may believe that everyone should have the right to believe what they wish, but not the right to impose or perhaps even promote that belief on/to others in any way at all. I don't see how that would be incompatible with agnosticism, since it's not based on a firm belief that anyone is clearly 'wrong' here, just a belief that since we should all admit we don't know, we should play by rules that agrees we don't really know.

This is all very subjective of course, and I would be ok with agnostisism being the default state in the religion category of the ideas system you are working on. I'm just splitting hairs here due to you not agreeing that it was a quandary.
From your perspective on your definition of agnosticism, I certainly see your point.
 
Some smaller bugs I noticed on my current v40 playthrough (giant, epic, immortal)

Water pipes bug
Building the department of Water seems to give free pipes in existing cities, but not new cities. This is regardless of city size. Secondly, in my current play-through, somewhere in the late middle ages (on epic giant immortal), I suddenly have tons of messages popping up that my commons / shanties etc housing is not working because water pipes have stopped working. Nothing has changed; I still have all the resources and territory I had before this this turn. Access to water pipes in some cities, including my capital where the Department of Water is located, is still working, just not in most other cities. This surely seems like a bug where a condition has been randomly checked.

Suggestion: I think the way this should work is this: on reaching size 6, the city should get free water pipes, iff there is a fresh water tile in its radius (making fields important) and the Dept. of Water has been built, or alternatively the option to build the pipes manually. The cost of the Water department could scale with the number of cities connected to the grid.

Diplomacy tech trading enabled on new load:
When tech trading is enabled, civilizations that will normally not tech trade with me (because they don't like me or because they think "don't want to trade away the tech just yet" WILL trade after a reload. After the first trade, further trades are properly disabled again, i.e. set to where they should be.

Other impressions:

- I really like the unhappiness incurred from expansion now, it is an effective check to spamming cities and conquest.
- I like the tweaks to the civics; there are now fewer trade-offs, and all civics become attractive, including those that I never used previously, such as Theocracy or Feudal.
- Anarchy times are painful now and Golden Ages really matter
- Still think that Slavery or Human Sacrifice are not worth the pain, especially since there seems to be no way to restrict the amount of slaves (and hence the crime and disease penalties) the AI will assign.
- There is still too much money; I have 34 cities and I'm pulling in 3-4k each turn. I haven't even researched banking yet. My current traits do support trade however, so maybe that's the reason. But currently, there is no challenge managing cash with caravans, ships, or plundering how it used to be, taking out a fun aspect of the game.
- The AI is also respecting the expansion limits; there is still lots of unsettled land with barbarians, as is proper for the Middle Ages.
- No properly separated continents, although that may be just a fluke of this particular map (planet generator 0.68)
- Very few larger animals, mostly small rodents and birds. Crucially important animals from map resources (such as Bison or Horse) don't seem to be spawning at all.
-Overall much improved turn times!
 
Water pipes bug
Building the department of Water seems to give free pipes in existing cities, but not new cities. This is regardless of city size. Secondly, in my current play-through, somewhere in the late middle ages (on epic giant immortal), I suddenly have tons of messages popping up that my commons / shanties etc housing is not working because water pipes have stopped working. Nothing has changed; I still have all the resources and territory I had before this this turn. Access to water pipes in some cities, including my capital where the Department of Water is located, is still working, just not in most other cities. This surely seems like a bug where a condition has been randomly checked.
That's certainly something to look into.
Suggestion: I think the way this should work is this: on reaching size 6, the city should get free water pipes, iff there is a fresh water tile in its radius (making fields important) and the Dept. of Water has been built, or alternatively the option to build the pipes manually. The cost of the Water department could scale with the number of cities connected to the grid.
Some of that is currently unfeasible and some of it should be exactly how it works. It will take some code analysis to see why new cities aren't checking to add such free buildings.
Diplomacy tech trading enabled on new load:
When tech trading is enabled, civilizations that will normally not tech trade with me (because they don't like me or because they think "don't want to trade away the tech just yet" WILL trade after a reload. After the first trade, further trades are properly disabled again, i.e. set to where they should be.
I know that there's something about the game taking a round to fully evaluate diplomatic positions properly and that it has some loopholes. I don't really work with trade negotiation matters.
- Very few larger animals, mostly small rodents and birds. Crucially important animals from map resources (such as Bison or Horse) don't seem to be spawning at all.
This would be appropriate since small game should outnumber large game and predators by quite a lot. I've seen bison and horse but they are a bit more limited if you don't have many of the resources on the map since it is where those resources exist, whether you see them or not, that they are provided with a place to spawn.
 
Found another bug, with a new game playing as minor. (Immortal, giant, perfect world). I like the map with this generator , which has great mountain ranges and deserts that effectively keep civilizations apart.

The bug is as follows: I have just researched sculpture and am ready to build the Pyramids. So I am trying to build Sculpture Workshop, but it is not showing up. Checking the building menu reveals it is missing a trading post! I have built trading posts already in all my cities (6 so far); but now they all seem to be gone, and I can't seem to build any new ones. My civics are City States, Metal, Caste System at the moment. Very strange. Saving and Reloading doesn't help. What happened here? This effectively means I can't
build the Pyramids ...
 
Settled my first mountain city pretty late in the game. It is next to a fresh water lake, but it has no fresh water (I can't build water pipes or water tower, and the city tile isn't marked as having fresh water when you hover the cursor over it). I even built an aqueduct, but still no fresh water.
 

Attachments

  • Crake March 9, AD-1872.CivBeyondSwordSave
    8 MB · Views: 66
Settled my first mountain city pretty late in the game. It is next to a fresh water lake, but it has no fresh water (I can't build water pipes or water tower, and the city tile isn't marked as having fresh water when you hover the cursor over it). I even built an aqueduct, but still no fresh water.
I think you posted in wrong thread - this seems to be recently introduced bug (SVN).
 
I just took quick look. Each city has an int to represent fresh water. That int is changed in one spot in the code - during the CvCity:: processBuilding() method.
 
I just took quick look. Each city has an int to represent fresh water. That int is changed in one spot in the code - during the CvCity:: processBuilding() method.
Code:
bool CvPlot::isPotentialIrrigation() const
{
//===NM=====Mountain Mod===0X=====
    //TB Debug: Why should it be necessary for cities to require Not being on hills or alternative peak types (like volcanoes) for them to be potentially irrigated?  Seems to be a strange requirement for wells to function.
    if ((isCity() /*&& !(isHills() || isPeak2(true)*/)) || ((getImprovementType() != NO_IMPROVEMENT) && (GC.getImprovementInfo(getImprovementType()).isCarriesIrrigation())))
I have added this comment in this function as well as the next where this rule was oddly applied.

Does anyone know what the intention of this change was?

EDIT: Doesn't look like that was recent so it may not be the correct diagnosis fully though I'm still not sure why that rule is in place.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure? I haven't updated since downloading the initial V40 release.
Well then this bug got worse recently.
Now it affects all cities, not just ones on peaks.

That is rivers don't provide fresh water anymore too.
 
Top Bottom