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

[ecawilson]

in vanilla, there were no gold costs for work actions or improvement upgrades, but there were similar effects in the form of events that cost gold to improve (or prevent losing) an improvement

 

[Thunderbrd]

in vanilla, there were no gold costs for work actions or improvement upgrades, but there were similar effects in the form of events that cost gold to improve (or prevent losing) an improvement

That's what I thought I remembered as well. Thanks for confirming.

Oh and if you want to see if you can get a help hover working on the improvement upgrades, by all means please do.

 

[Toffer90]

Curious, since I don't recall - does this cost go back to vanilla or was it introduced in RoM or something?

It's been in C2C a long time, but it's not from vanilla.
Currently it can charge the player for their worker building an improvement that is a possible upgrade for what's already there, so that e.g. a worker building a farm on top of a seed camp or the like would cost money when building the farm on an unimproved plot would be free.

To fix the issue I need to add a new intermediate function (upgradeImprovementTo(eImprovement)) that the upgrade code paths call instead of calling the final setImprovementType function directly; and move the upgrade cost into that intermediate function.
It's easy to fix, but I'm wondering if we need this truly insignificant gold cost factor... There are many ways to increase cash expenditure in C2C, but I feel this one is more annoying than it's worth atm.

 

[Toffer90]

Looking into it deeper, the upgrade cost is based on the gold cost of the most expensive worker build definition for that improvement, and it's not even scaled by gamespeed.
Most of them are free however, so most improvement upgrades will be free too.
The highest gold cost I could find in our core worker build definitions is 100 gold.
This may be a significant amount on blitz while it's nothing on eternity.

 

[Toffer90]

I guess I am just voting to comment it out with a note to fix someday, instead of throw away completely.

I decided to comment it out for now.
https://github.com/caveman2cosmos/Caveman2Cosmos/commit/81045c9ee2936923eadaafe623adc2e59a8f60af

Workers pay for building improvement the first turn they start building said improvement, meaning if you change your mind you have already paid in advance and will lose the cash.
I'm thinking the systems for charging for the build and charging for imp upgrades should be combined into one system that triggers only when the improvement is finished. That way both building and upgrading can subtract the cost of the current improvement on the plot if the new one is an upgrade to the old one. Currently, only building routes have the feature of subtracting the gold cost of the old route from the new one when commencing the new route construction.
The whole system needs a rethink anyway, currently almost all worker builds, and therefore upgrade costs, are free, cost zero gold, so the system was barely in use before my changes today.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Currently it can charge the player for their worker building an improvement that is a possible upgrade for what's already there, so that e.g. a worker building a farm on top of a seed camp or the like would cost money when building the farm on an unimproved plot would be free.

Yeah, I guess I can see how that's problematic. If a worker does it you'd think that the directed labor shouldn't cost anything further - at least if it's not charging you to build the improvement originally especially (which is debate-worthy as to whether all improvements should cost a bit to put in place for spending on the materials - the unit cost is the labor cost. The main reason I might not think it could be good to do that is at the beginning of the game it could be much more impacting than it would be later, lending to a major redesign of costs on that sort of thing across the board. Which appears to be what you later said as well...)

I suppose it all depends on how and what we really want to model these expenses to mean. Whatever happens there, it seems to me that it should be heavily civic dependent to represent that at times the state had to pay to make things happen whereas in other systems it really didn't need to and a wide variety of gray zones between the most extreme examples there depending on free market vs socialism vs tribalism etc...

As far as it being more annoying than it's worth at the moment, I get that, particularly with some of the logic flaws in the whole thing. I translated existing design into what the upgrade system improvements I made do but had some of these same questions and observations when I was looking at it then - I just was doing what I needed to so as to address some problems and did NOT want to get too stuck on that project, which proved to be a far more difficult project than I had intended at the time as it was

Looking into it deeper, the upgrade cost is based on the gold cost of the most expensive worker build definition for that improvement, and it's not even scaled by gamespeed.

Does gamespeed not scale the build cost directly? Or does it just scale the worker production value?.

Workers pay for building improvement the first turn they start building said improvement, meaning if you change your mind you have already paid in advance and will lose the cash.

Yeah that's kinda a problem, though it can be honestly how some projects go in the modern world too, though usually not invested in full.

Currently, only building routes have the feature of subtracting the gold cost of the old route from the new one when commencing the new route construction.

I do hope this doesn't get removed. Later in the game it can get meaningful. Do we have any kind of constant upkeep on routes? For most modern governments, that's a very very big ongoing expense that leads to why we don't put the most advanced road systems in place everywhere we own for frivolous reasons. I've always thought we should have a better upkeep system for infrastructure.

 

[Toffer90]

Does gamespeed not scale the build cost directly? Or does it just scale the worker production value?.

Gamespeed scale the time it takes to build it, but not the gold cost it costs to start building it, well, now it does as I changed it so today. Most improvements have a cost of 0, so the cost is irrelevant to the time it takes to build it.

I do hope this doesn't get removed. Later in the game it can get meaningful. Do we have any kind of constant upkeep on routes? For most modern governments, that's a very very big ongoing expense that leads to why we don't put the most advanced road systems in place everywhere we own for frivolous reasons. I've always thought we should have a better upkeep system for infrastructure.

I agree, would much rather have a gold cost per turn for routes (and some improvements that don't pay for themselves... Forts?) than any form of expense to get them in place, the units upkeep covers the cost of the job the unit does in my opinion.
If you fail to pay their upkeep the may fall in disrepair (downgrading to a lower type perhaps) similar to how they upgrade over time, could actually expand the upgrade mechanic to handle the opposite direction.

 

[Divizor]

Hello. In my city there are two slingers with the task of city defense, next to an animal that they can easily defeat. However, they do not do this on this or the next move. The Can leave city option is enabled. Is it something that doesn't work for me, or is it supposed to? I remember in older versions of the units themselves kill enemies close to town and engaged in a comfortable place for the defense around him.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Gamespeed scale the time it takes to build it, but not the gold cost it costs to start building it, well, now it does as I changed it so today. Most improvements have a cost of 0, so the cost is irrelevant to the time it takes to build it.

So since you stated that the improvement gold cost is not scaled and is based on the comparison between the improvement to the next, apparently only the worker and actual autoimprovement times were being scaled, thus the cost was not, right?

I agree, would much rather have a gold cost per turn for routes (and some improvements that don't pay for themselves... Forts?) than any form of expense to get them in place, the units upkeep covers the cost of the job the unit does in my opinion.
If you fail to pay their upkeep the may fall in disrepair (downgrading to a lower type perhaps) similar to how they upgrade over time, could actually expand the upgrade mechanic to handle the opposite direction.

I suppose I favor... both?

Hello. In my city there are two slingers with the task of city defense, next to an animal that they can easily defeat. However, they do not do this on this or the next move. The Can leave city option is enabled. Is it something that doesn't work for me, or is it supposed to? I remember in older versions of the units themselves kill enemies close to town and engaged in a comfortable place for the defense around him.

The AI usually won't do that but now that you mention it, I'll try to consider that in my unit AI overhaul planning, particularly with taking potshots at truly enemy units that make themselves vulnerable for the sake of surrounding the city.

 

[Toffer90]

gold cost is based on the comparison between the improvement to the next

This is only true for routes built by workers, not improvements. Cost of new route minus cost of existing route equals cost to start building new route.

apparently only the worker and actual autoimprovement times were being scaled, thus the cost was not, right?

Yes, time was scaled but not cost.
Since you have more time to earn gold between each time you pay up for an improvement/route, you should also have to pay proportionally more for them when you do.
It is now scaled though I changed it to be about 12 hours ago.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Looking into it deeper, the upgrade cost is based on the gold cost of the most expensive worker build definition for that improvement, and it's not even scaled by gamespeed.

This is only true for routes built by workers, not improvements. Cost of new route minus cost of existing route equals cost to start building new route.

I misunderstood... sounded like the first comment was saying it was like unit upgrade costs, based on the comparison of production costs (equivalent).

Yes, time was scaled but not cost.
Since you have more time to earn gold between each time you pay up for an improvement/route, you should also have to pay proportionally more for them when you do.
It is now scaled though I changed it to be about 12 hours ago.

Okie, cool. Thanks!

 

[JosEPh_II]

This is only true for routes built by workers, not improvements. Cost of new route minus cost of existing route equals cost to start building new route.
Yes, time was scaled but not cost.
Since you have more time to earn gold between each time you pay up for an improvement/route, you should also have to pay proportionally more for them when you do.
It is now scaled though I changed it to be about 12 hours ago.

Today's massive change is......

 

[Toffer90]

Today's massive change is......

lol, it's a minor change that makes the gold cost for building improvements/routes scale by gamespeed. That's it.

Most improvements and routes doesn't cost gold to build, and those that do cost very little, even when scaled by gamespeed, so the change is barely noticeable really.

 

[irishhombre]

There is an issue with the light hoplite graphic. It is 3 red dots.

Spoiler Screenshot :

 

[JosEPh_II]

lol, it's a minor change that makes the gold cost for building improvements/routes scale by gamespeed. That's it.

Most improvements and routes doesn't cost gold to build, and those that do cost very little, even when scaled by gamespeed, so the change is barely noticeable really.

I forgot the smilie....

There is an issue with the light hoplite graphic. It is 3 red dots.

Someone moved or deleted an art file it would seem. Ugh.

 

[GiantLittleDog]

C2C 40.1.2529. Can not abandon captured barbarian city (nothing changes after selecting "Abandon city" -> "OK"). Also for my capital city - demolition cost is not red-coloured ans has non-negative value. Both cities have population 1.

 

[Toffer90]

C2C 40.1.2529. Can not abandon captured barbarian city (nothing changes after selecting "Abandon city" -> "OK"). Also for my capital city - demolition cost is not red-coloured ans has non-negative value. Both cities have population 1.
View attachment 563233 View attachment 563234

Probably a python error that stops the code before it finish its work, you can turn on python logging in the ini and report the error, or upload a save so I can see the error myself.

 

[GiantLittleDog]

Probably a python error that stops the code before it finish its work, you can turn on python logging in the ini and report the error, or upload a save so I can see the error myself.

Save is attached.

 

[Toffer90]

Save is attached.

Multiplayer game, eh, found the error. I can give you a fix patch if you don't use SVN, but both players should install the patch in that case.

 

[GiantLittleDog]

Multiplayer game, eh, found the error. I can give you a fix patch if you don't use SVN, but both players should install the patch in that case.

Thank you, we use SVN...