Single Player bugs and crashes v40 plus (SVN) - After Oct 2019

[pepper2000]

Regarding the no-trade-across-orbit issue, if memory serves me correctly, the reason I set it up like that is because I wanted to force extraterrestrial cities to produce their own resources. Initially, certain buildings on Mars would produce the same bonuses as on Earth, such as Vegetables, before it occurred to me that I could create dedicated bonuses like Martian Vegetables. In other words, the original rationale for this design decision no longer applies and I think it could be safely changed if desired.

 

[raxo2222]

Regarding the no-trade-across-orbit issue, if memory serves me correctly, the reason I set it up like that is because I wanted to force extraterrestrial cities to produce their own resources. Initially, certain buildings on Mars would produce the same bonuses as on Earth, such as Vegetables, before it occurred to me that I could create dedicated bonuses like Martian Vegetables. In other words, the original rationale for this design decision no longer applies and I think it could be safely changed if desired.

So I could these tags on techs as gates.

<TerrainTrades>
                <TerrainTrade>
                    <TerrainType>TERRAIN_OCEAN</TerrainType>
                    <bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade>
                </TerrainTrade>
                <TerrainTrade>
                    <TerrainType>TERRAIN_OCEAN_POLAR</TerrainType>
                    <bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade>
                </TerrainTrade>
                <TerrainTrade>
                    <TerrainType>TERRAIN_OCEAN_TROPICAL</TerrainType>
                    <bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade>
                </TerrainTrade>
                <TerrainTrade>
                    <TerrainType>TERRAIN_TRENCH</TerrainType>
                    <bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade>
                </TerrainTrade>
                <TerrainTrade>
                    <TerrainType>TERRAIN_TRENCH_POLAR</TerrainType>
                    <bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade>
                </TerrainTrade>
                <TerrainTrade>
                    <TerrainType>TERRAIN_TRENCH_TROPICAL</TerrainType>
                    <bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade>
                </TerrainTrade>
            </TerrainTrades>

Space surrounding objects would act as sea
That is Orbit, Cislunar Space and so on.
Sea of space stops being a thing at Orion Arm zone.
Still they can cut entire map across.

I'll test that if tech gating would work at first place - build tunnel connecting pair of cities trough ocean.
While trade route icons appeared, there is no sign in city, that they are connected (there would be trade with other city).
Barley appeared in city across ocean, so it seems you can't gate space zones with techs...

That is <bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade> just allows trade without routes, and you can't build routes on water tiles until you get tunnels at end of Industrial era.
So this would depend on techs, that unlock space routes instead.

Solar Worker can build Solar Trajectory, that unit and route build are unlocked at TECH_ASTROGATION_CONSTELLATION.
Currently it has no Cislunar mapcategory, Orbit and Cislunar Space have this mapcategory.
So I need to add <bCanMoveImpassable>1</bCanMoveImpassable> and Cislunar mapcategory, then you can connect Earth to space colonies at TECH_ASTROGATION_CONSTELLATION.
This tech is somewhere in Transhuman era, so you are already expanding in outer solar system.
On Earth side you can build tunnels or land routes to connect to space.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Its called "No Barbarian Civs", selecting it disables it.
Just like "No Revolutions" and "No Tech Diffusion" turns off thing if selected.

You are correct. I was not looking at the game setup screen when I posted.

Barbarian spawning and barbarian city spawning were increased recently.
They spawn more on harder handicaps.

Why? Was this even tested 1st to see if needed???

When the barbs take over the mid to late Preh Era and set out against the Human Player the Player can not keep up with their Military production. And Now that their cities grow it's even worse for the sheer number of units they can put out.

The AI is not hindered as much with Barb' cities and Stacks like the Human Player is. And upon looking into WB the major concentration of barb cities is around the Human player starting position.

It would seem to me that just the Allowing of barb cities to grow, I have one right next to my Capitol city (size 10) that is size 8, is More than enough of a barb boost.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I can't be certain but it seems the bug option for dynamic difficulty isn't functional right now. I had it set to change every 50 turns but after getting through the entire prehistoric era and pulling way ahead in tech and number of cities it never did increase. I can post a save if you need one.

Edit: Forgot to mention I'm on SVN 11119

 

[raxo2222]

I can't be certain but it seems the bug option for dynamic difficulty isn't functional right now. I had it set to change every 50 turns but after getting through the entire prehistoric era and pulling way ahead in tech and number of cities it never did increase. I can post a save if you need one.

Edit: Forgot to mention I'm on SVN 11119

Post your save.
And post your user settings too, since this is BUG thing.
It is Flexible Difficulty by the way.
You can update to latest SVN.

Savebreaking one will be clearly marked.

 

[KMRblue1027]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1eg7b5dc738mlp3/Opal BC-10608.CivBeyondSwordSave?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0dki1q9311vxxhb/UserSettings.7z?dl=0

Here you go. I did force it to emperor at some point when I noticed how long it was taking the AI to build new cities (started on the stage above noble, prince I think?). That wasn't enough to get them to catch up maybe I should have done Nightmare with how ahead I was.

Edit again: If it matters I'm on the Steam version and yes it's installed to C:\Steam.

 

[Somebody613]

F5 Military Adviser is dead in the latest SVN (today's).

 

[Toffer90]

F5 Military Adviser is dead in the latest SVN (today's).

My bad, stupid mistake, fix is on the way.

 

[Volgadar]

I played several games on c2c-maps. None of them contained ancient temples as terrain resourse. Is it normal? Maybe it should be revealed in a different way?

 

[raxo2222]

I played several games on c2c-maps. None of them contained ancient temples as terrain resourse. Is it normal? Maybe it should be revealed in a different way?

I guess some scenarios are missing some resources.

 

[Volgadar]

It was c2c map generator. My current game is c2c small continents and it seems to be lack of natural gas and oil, not just temples (like true steampunk scenario). But I can't check it right now: there are no oil/gas/temples on map (early atomic era) and game crushes on launching editor (not enough ram). I'm going to try to do it in ancient saves after solving another problem: last svn update broke local repo and I don't know how to fix it using win gui (always used bash versions of svn/git).

 

[JosEPh_II]

Recurring problem/bug with Young Forest. Can't build farm on it, not by river nor on lush tile. Any where that would allow farm.

See screenshots.

 

[raxo2222]

Recurring problem/bug with Young Forest. Can't build farm on it, not by river nor on lush tile. Any where that would allow farm.

See screenshots.

You need Bronze Working to build farm on forested tiles.

Spoiler :

 

[Toffer90]

Or do slash and burn on the forest first.

 

[raxo2222]

It was c2c map generator. My current game is c2c small continents and it seems to be lack of natural gas and oil, not just temples (like true steampunk scenario). But I can't check it right now: there are no oil/gas/temples on map (early atomic era) and game crushes on launching editor (not enough ram). I'm going to try to do it in ancient saves after solving another problem: last svn update broke local repo and I don't know how to fix it using win gui (always used bash versions of svn/git).

Delete local repo and redownload it.

Also we don't have small continents mapscripts.
Try C2C World mapscript.

 

[raxo2222]

Or do slash and burn on the forest first.

This one could be simplified if possible:

Slash and burn could allow building farm on it (since you can do slash and burn to remove forest and then build farm on it), but those listed techs would give some from removing forests.

 

[Toffer90]

Slash and burn could allow building farm on it (since you can do slash and burn to remove forest and then build farm on it), but those listed techs would give some from removing forests.

I don't think it's possible to have two techs that allows an improvement to be built on a specific feature, where one of the techs gives hammers in the build process and the other doesn't.
Perhaps the code always pick the one that gives the most hammers or takes the least amount of time if you have both techs... I don't know, I've just assumed it doesn't have this capability.
Could you test that for us?

 

[raxo2222]

I don't think it's possible to have two techs that allows an improvement to be built on a specific feature, where one of the techs gives hammers in the build process and the other doesn't.
Perhaps the code always pick the one that gives the most hammers or takes the least amount of time if you have both techs... I don't know, I've just assumed it doesn't have this capability.
Could you test that for us?

It seems you forgot to include one tag here.

                <FeatureStruct>
                    <FeatureType>FEATURE_FOREST_YOUNG</FeatureType>
                    <PrereqTech>TECH_BRONZE_WORKING</PrereqTech>
                    <iTime>300</iTime>
                    <iProduction>30</iProduction>
                    <bRemove>1</bRemove>
                </FeatureStruct>
                <FeatureStruct>
                    <FeatureType>FEATURE_FOREST</FeatureType>
                    <PrereqTech>TECH_BRONZE_WORKING</PrereqTech>
                    <iTime>300</iTime>
                    <iProduction>40</iProduction>
                    <bRemove>1</bRemove>
                    <bCanRemoveWithNoProductionGain>1</bCanRemoveWithNoProductionGain>
                </FeatureStruct>

 

[Toffer90]

Right, nice spot. lol ^^

 

[raxo2222]

Right, nice spot. lol ^^

It seems like you forgot to do so for all worker builds
I added <bCanRemoveWithNoProductionGain>1</bCanRemoveWithNoProductionGain> to young forests if other forests had this in worker builds.

Committed that to release now.