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

[Thunderbrd]

Perhaps the "Start with no Positive traits" needs to be changed to a "start with no traits" option?

That's already what it means. On Developing Leaders, it makes you start with no traits at all so you can grow into them. However, if you are not playing with DL, you're ONLY starting with no Positive traits and this is how you play with only your negative trait, unless No Negative Traits is also selected so you play with no traits at all. This was how you could play a game with only negative traits on if you wished.

It was how we kept this to the minimum number of options possible. The tooltip explains it, as Sakura Matou said.

 

[Toffer90]

That's already what it means. On Developing Leaders, it makes you start with no traits at all so you can grow into them. However, if you are not playing with DL, you're ONLY starting with no Positive traits and this is how you play with only your negative trait, unless No Negative Traits is also selected so you play with no traits at all. This was how you could play a game with only negative traits on if you wished.

It was how we kept this to the minimum number of options possible. The tooltip explains it, as Sakura Matou said.

Ok, I'll make it work like that again, I interpreted the option names too literary.

Probably not that many who wants to play with developing leaders and start the game with only negative traits anyhow.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Probably not that many who wants to play with developing leaders and start the game with only negative traits anyhow.

That's probably about the only thing you really can't do with the setup here.

I've often debated if we should just call the option, "Start with No Traits" and kill the ability for a non-DL game to be played with only negative traits on.

Reestablished old rule: "Developing Leaders" + "Start with No Positive Traits" = "Start with No Negative Traits"

Remember that it still ALSO means starting with no positive in a DL game. Just being clear.

 

[Toffer90]

That's probably about the only thing you really can't do with the setup here.

Yeah, I too want to keep the number of options as low as possible, so some setup possibilities needs to be excluded, we can't cater for all and have 100'eds of options that would put off the majority from even trying the mod.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

When I updated my SVN I noticed that E:\Games\development\C2C\Assets\Modules\NotSoGood\AnimalPlacing\AnimalPlacing_PythonCallbackDefines.xml was deleted. Does this mean that the Python Callback code in the dll has changed? Koshling did a bunch of stuff to the Python Callback methods in the dll to speed them up a great deal. (If I remember correctly he removed a lot of code that was there to slow it down first then sped it up further.) This required us to have two sets of Python Callback. One for the general code and one for the particular call back linking to the particular python.

 

[raxo2222]

When I updated my SVN I noticed that E:\Games\development\C2C\Assets\Modules\NotSoGood\AnimalPlacing\AnimalPlacing_PythonCallbackDefines.xml was deleted. Does this mean that the Python Callback code in the dll has changed? Koshling did a bunch of stuff to the Python Callback methods in the dll to speed them up a great deal. (If I remember correctly he removed a lot of code that was there to slow it down first then sped it up further.) This required us to have two sets of Python Callback. One for the general code and one for the particular call back linking to the particular python.

@MattCA removed it - I guess he managed to change it so second set of Python Callbacks isn't needed.
This meant this file could be safely removed.

EDIT: Great Farmer doesn't work now - apparently he didn't knew, that Great Farmer worked like that.
That is he could place only such animal/plant resources, that are present in empire.

 

[MattCA]

hit the revert button.

 

[raxo2222]

hit the revert button.

I tried, but too many other changes were reverted too.

EDIT: It appears AnimalPlacing_PythonCallbackDefines removal and such stuff DIDN'T break anything.
Bug is only in github caused by tag renames in AnimalPlacing mofule.

Probably needed to adjust some python code to change
BUILD_BONUS_ -> BUILD_PLACE_BONUS_
IMPROVEMENT_BONUS_ -> IMPROVEMENT_PLACE_BONUS_
Now its fixed in github.

 

[Sakura Matou]

Thank you for the quick fix guys. I ran into another problem though that is unrelated. I have encountered 2 civs that are "Minors" still and I have the "Start as minor civs" option unticked. I think it may have been a barb civ, is this normal and do certain conditions need to be met for a barb civ to become a "normal" civ?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Thank you for the quick fix guys. I ran into another problem though that is unrelated. I have encountered 2 civs that are "Minors" still and I have the "Start as minor civs" option unticked. I think it may have been a barb civ, is this normal and do certain conditions need to be met for a barb civ to become a "normal" civ?

Yes it's normal. I'm not sure what the conditions are but overall it's at a point where the city has grown and thrived long enough to become more than mere barbarian.

 

[Toffer90]

Thank you for the quick fix guys. I ran into another problem though that is unrelated. I have encountered 2 civs that are "Minors" still and I have the "Start as minor civs" option unticked. I think it may have been a barb civ, is this normal and do certain conditions need to be met for a barb civ to become a "normal" civ?

Civs emerging from barb cities will always start out as minor civs, they will become a full fledged civ randomly, with better and better odds, the more they achieve as a nation, meaning it's based on population points, wonders constructed, number of cities, etc.

P.S. When you play with "start as minors" and without "No barbarian civ", all the starting players will also follow the same rules for how to become a major civ as civs that emerge from barbarian cities do.

 

[Sakura Matou]

Ok good to know it is working as intended, the civs just popped so it makes sense.

 

[Desolator]

Yes it's normal. I'm not sure what the conditions are but overall it's at a point where the city has grown and thrived long enough to become more than mere barbarian.

It is governed by the Caveman2Cosmos\UserSettings\Revolution.ini
It used to be fully configurable in BUG Mod options -> RevDCM tab, but now MinPopulation, NewWorldPolicy, etc. is not there, but changeable only in the Revolution.ini itself. (Ingame changing was more comfortable tough.)

 

[Sakura Matou]

Min City Population and New world Policy options are there with the latest build of the SVN, I know I have the latest build as well because of the recent Trait fix is in my game as well as the changelog being upto date. My only question is now which of the new world Policy settings would get the former barb civs from Minor to major civs the fastest, I have it set to one atm.

 

[Toffer90]

Min City Population and New world Policy options are there with the latest build of the SVN, I know I have the latest build as well because of the recent Trait fix is in my game as well as the changelog being upto date. My only question is now which of the new world Policy settings would get the former barb civs from Minor to major civs the fastest, I have it set to one atm.

The min population setting only determines what minimum population a barbarian city needs to become a minor civ.
If you want them to get from minor to major faster you would be better off at setting min population higher, as the minor civ will then start off with more population points which is an important factor in determining the chance of it becoming a major civ.
Though if you set the min population too high barb cities may never evolve into minor civs as they struggle at getting high population points.

 

[Sakura Matou]

I have min Population set at 3, and New world policy set to 1. Thanks for the explanation for how it works. I Suppose though I'll hold off on my current game though as the next SVN will break saves. One more Question, I am currently playing on A giant Map with C2C world, is the game playable now if I increase it to the Gigantic? I have a really beefy PC running an I 9-9900k so I assume turn times could be better but I would imagine I may hit MAF late game.

 

[Toffer90]

You will likely MAF on gigantic in late game even if you select High water level in Map options.
You could perhaps run a stable gigantic game on the Waterworld earthform with "medium water level" generated by the world mapscript. A lot of water.

 

[raxo2222]

You will likely MAF on gigantic in late game even if you select High water level in Map options.
You could perhaps run a stable gigantic game on the Waterworld earthform with "medium water level" generated by the world mapscript. A lot of water.

Gigantic is ~14000 tiles - it was Huge size originally on your mapscript.
On most of other scripts it was closer to Giant.

This was first pass (to standardize all sizes with your mapscript)
Duel 960 -> 2400 (2); 60x40
Tiny 1664 -> 4704 (4); 84x56
Small 2560 -> 7776 (6); 108x72
Standard 4368 -> 9600 (8); 120x80
Large 6656 -> 11616 (10); 132x88
Huge 10240 -> 13824 (12); 144x96
Giant 16000 -> 16224 (14); 156x104
Gigantic 24000 -> 18816 (16); 168x11

Second pass (apparently game become slower after certain changes as AI could get much more done within single era buildingwise)
Duel - 1536
Tiny - 3456
Small - 470
Standard - 6144
Large - 7776
Huge - 9600
Giant - 11616
Gigantic - 13824

 

[Toffer90]

I have no idea why you are saying what you are saying raxo, do you have some kind of point?

 

[raxo2222]

I have no idea why you are saying what you are saying raxo, do you have some kind of point?

I meant it isn't that big.
Pit's scenario is 2x bigger, and first mafs are by industrial/atomic here era from what I remembered.