Single Player bugs and crashes v43 plus (SVN) - After January 2023

[Somebody613]

Yeah, this IS what I meant. It became obvious in hindsight after you said it, but I literally deduced no explanation for it in the Pedia itself.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yeah, this IS what I meant. It became obvious in hindsight after you said it, but I literally deduced no explanation for it in the Pedia itself.

Without looking too deeply, I'm not currently sure which issue could be better resolved.

 

[CameLv]

"This Axeman? "]

Actually, any unit that has strength. I guess I'll wait and see if it goes away with the next update.

 

[Toffer90]

Actually, any unit that has strength. I guess I'll wait and see if it goes away with the next update.

There was nothing wrong with any units I checked in your save... just look at the screenshot I posted, the strength of that axeman is normal.

 

[Maltazard]

I'm also getting this bug. Hover on top tool tip shows strenght values as 0.01/0.01, selecting the unit shows the actual correct strenght value. Size matter is on.

I've added a screenshot: as you can see, the Stone Axeman 8 has a strenght of 0.07 in the hover on tooltip, and a strenght of 7.5 in the unit info panel. Also, other units in the tile have their strenght shown correctly, notice the slinger further on in the tool tip for instance. So this seems to be a graphical bug that affects the first unit on a tile. The problem is, with enemy units you can't select them to verify their strenght value, so it can be quite annoying.

 

[Toffer90]

I'm also getting this bug. Hover on top tool tip shows strenght values as 0.01/0.01, selecting the unit shows the actual correct strenght value. Size matter is on.

Are you also on v43, or on SVN?
On SVN I simply can't get it to show the value wrong in the save CameLv provided.

 

[Maltazard]

Latest SVN, revision 11539... it's as if the first unit in the tooltip has its strenght reduced by 100. Units with a strenght of 7 show 0.07, with 4 show 0.04... really weird.

 

[raxo2222]

Latest SVN, revision 11539... it's as if the first unit in the tooltip has its strenght reduced by 100. Units with a strenght of 7 show 0.07, with 4 show 0.04... really weird.

Do full cleanup of SVN

 

[CameLv]

When I do a Full Clean, should I select the last three options:
Delete unversioned files and folders
Delete ignored files and folders
Revert all changes recursively

I just uninstalled and reinstalled Civ4 and BtS and created an empty Caveman2Cosmos folder, downloaded the SVN (revision 11539) and recalculated the modifiers. I still have the same bug.

 

[Toffer90]

When I do a Full Clean, should I select the last three options:
Delete unversioned files and folders
Delete ignored files and folders
Revert all changes recursively

I just uninstalled and reinstalled Civ4 and BtS and created an empty Caveman2Cosmos folder, downloaded the SVN (revision 11539) and recalculated the modifiers. I still have the same bug.

Hmm, try reverting to revision 11538.
Update to revision option in context menu:

 

[raxo2222]

When I do a Full Clean, should I select the last three options:
Delete unversioned files and folders
Delete ignored files and folders
Revert all changes recursively

I just uninstalled and reinstalled Civ4 and BtS and created an empty Caveman2Cosmos folder, downloaded the SVN (revision 11539) and recalculated the modifiers. I still have the same bug.

Full cleanup = select all cleanup options

 

[CameLv]

Reverting fixed the issue. Thank you for your help.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Here is an example of what I call Realistic Culture Spread OP. Savegame below. My North city just lost the wooded tile to it's east. Screen#92 The Egyptian city size 5 reached out 5 tiles to take that wooded tile Next to my size 1 city.

Screen#93 shows that the only city doing this is the Egyptian city size 5.
#94 and 95 I was trying to show the Numbers for each city in these encroaching tiles.

Is this the real intended purpose for "fixing" RCS? Or is it just that the values for each tile out from a city's 2nd and 3rd rings are just too big?

 

[Blazenclaw]

Here is an example of what I call Realistic Culture Spread OP.

Pretty sure it's working as designed, there's a few things you're missing.

First is that the St. Paul city has a second tier of rivers a tile away. Until you get construction tech(?) or whichever it is that allows you to build bridges across rivers, the penalty for river crossings that aren't directly touching the city are harsh. This means that the majority of cultural pressure from you is either from your very small city of Nekhen, or diminished by the rivers.

Second is that Giza does seem much more developed than your two cities. Particularly this early in the game, the differences are amplified. Consider the difference between 6 and 2, versus 10 and 6. Both have a difference of 4 levels, but the ratio with smaller levels is much more in the winner's favor (and the culture system now should work more closely with the ratio than the value, in theory).

I do agree however RCS does feel too large in early game still. I'm experimenting with some tweaks to it now; features increase effective distance by 1 unless an improvement is constructed on them, and generally increasing distance of a few tile/feature types.

 

[Toffer90]

Reverting fixed the issue. Thank you for your help.

Thanks for confirming that, I'll have to look into the last couple commits then.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Pretty sure it's working as designed, there's a few things you're missing.

First is that the St. Paul city has a second tier of rivers a tile away. Until you get construction tech(?) or whichever it is that allows you to build bridges across rivers, the penalty for river crossings that aren't directly touching the city are harsh. This means that the majority of cultural pressure from you is either from your very small city of Nekhen, or diminished by the rivers.

Second is that Giza does seem much more developed than your two cities. Particularly this early in the game, the differences are amplified. Consider the difference between 6 and 2, versus 10 and 6. Both have a difference of 4 levels, but the ratio with smaller levels is much more in the winner's favor (and the culture system now should work more closely with the ratio than the value, in theory).

I do agree however RCS does feel too large in early game still. I'm experimenting with some tweaks to it now; features increase effective distance by 1 unless an improvement is constructed on them, and generally increasing distance of a few tile/feature types.

1. So..., to get Culture Spread like the AI and even the Barbs and Neanderthals do, I need to find large flat areas with little in the way of Rivers to put down my 1st cities. And being that the player is always given the last spot on any map...hmmm... (that is going to be difficult to do)

2. The AI seems to have been granted a fair sized Boost to Culture and Tech. One that I am now struggling with to find answers to. I have dropped my Difficulty level from Immortal to Monarch now. These screenies are from a new Game just started 2 days ago on Monarch. By being overmatched and over powered by the AI's Culture "spam", I suppose I will need to drop to Noble for my Civic Test games so I can survive to the Ren Era. So far I have not made it to even Med Era yet.

Question: What Map are you using for your testing? C2C World? Start everywhere vs Old World? Reduced Mtns? More or less Rivers? (I Never increase Resources on any Map) Maps amd Map choices Do make a difference in many aspects of C2C game play.

I realize you need feedback on RCS. All I can say atm is that for me in it's current state AND my level of understanding of how it works now, it really appears to be heavily weighted to the AI.

Thanks for Responding and giving me some details.

EDIT: FYI. It would seem now that trying to cut off the AI's Advancement across a land mass, by placing new well defended cities near it's cities borders. is now a No Go using RCS. That means there must be new cities placed in the Preh Era as far as possible from my founding City to try to secure Territory to back fill. Else after entering into Ancient Era there is no expansion possible Except by Conquest. Especially if Barbarians are On and moreso if Neanderthal Cities are On as well. 5 games started and 2 lost already since V43 was released. 3rd game in serious jeopardy because it was started on Immortal Diff. More gameplay to do to see how to overcome this w/o abandoning RCS.

 

[Blazenclaw]

1. So..., to get Culture Spread like the AI and even the Barbs and Neanderthals do, I need to find large flat areas with little in the way of Rivers to put down my 1st cities. And being that the player is always given the last spot on any map...hmmm... (that is going to be difficult to do)

To be clear, the AI plays by the same rules the human player does in terms of how culture spreads. It just happens in your save that your cities are near river areas, which hinders cultural expansion. This means your city tiles themselves are more easily culturally defended (hard for Egypt to get to you), but the middle ground will probably go to them for the same reason.

2. The AI seems to have been granted a fair sized Boost to Culture and Tech. One that I am now struggling with to find answers to. I have dropped my Difficulty level from Immortal to Monarch now. These screenies are from a new Game just started 2 days ago on Monarch. By being overmatched and over powered by the AI's Culture "spam", I suppose I will need to drop to Noble for my Civic Test games so I can survive to the Ren Era. So far I have not made it to even Med Era yet.

I don't think the bonuses were increased, but rather the AI build priority and logic was substantially improved by Flabbert, and they're doing less stupid things earlygame now, which translates to them doing better as the game progresses.

In your save you linked, most AI have ~10 cities to your 5. Granted your starting position didn't seem the most optimal (have to trundle through tundra terrain to get to next city spots), but I don't think that alone explains it. Do you focus getting tribalism ASAP? I noticed you weren't running 100% tech, for instance; if that's been the case for a while, could explain how the AI are ~1/3 era ahead of you.

Question: What Map are you using for your testing? C2C World? Start everywhere vs Old World? Reduced Mtns? More or less Rivers? (I Never increase Resources on any Map) Maps amd Map choices Do make a difference in many aspects of C2C game play.

I realize you need feedback on RCS. All I can say atm is that for me in it's current state AND my level of understanding of how it works now, it really appears to be heavily weighted to the AI.

Testing tends to be C2CWorld, old world start. My personal gameplay is with increased rivers, normal resources. I appreciate the feedback very much! The next update, maybe this weekend, should include a nerf to RCS based on your feedback.

EDIT: FYI. It would seem now that trying to cut off the AI's Advancement across a land mass, by placing new well defended cities near it's cities borders. is now a No Go using RCS. That means there must be new cities placed in the Preh Era as far as possible from my founding City to try to secure Territory to back fill. Else after entering into Ancient Era there is no expansion possible Except by Conquest. Especially if Barbarians are On and moreso if Neanderthal Cities are On as well. 5 games started and 2 lost already since V43 was released. 3rd game in serious jeopardy because it was started on Immortal Diff. More gameplay to do to see how to overcome this w/o abandoning RCS.

I'd have to agree with your assessment as it currently is. I'd like to try to get cultural garrisons fixed - I fixed some bugs relating to them when I did the overhaul, but not all it seems - which should enable this strategy as an option again.

 

[jshetley]

There are also culture issues WITHOUT using RCS. As it stands now going to war is almost impossible unless you bring an overwhelming number of units and take out an entire civ at one time. The enemy almost never loses ANY culture until they are wiped out. No more taking 2-3 cities, getting peace, and coming back to finish them off later. If this is by design it needs to be optional. Forcing that on players is wrong.

 

[JosEPh_II]

In your save you linked, most AI have ~10 cities to your 5. Granted your starting position didn't seem the most optimal (have to trundle through tundra terrain to get to next city spots), but I don't think that alone explains it. Do you focus getting tribalism ASAP? I noticed you weren't running 100% tech, for instance; if that's been the case for a while, could explain how the AI are ~1/3 era ahead of you.

When you found a new city on Monarch Diff it costs over 38 Gold per turn. I will found a city when I'm running 28Gold/turn or better. So I Have to drop Science down to stop the Gold hemorrhage from founding cities. The AI does not have this problem though. As each Higher level of Difficulty the AI gets a Bigger % of cost cuts. City founding for them is less expensive, plus they get the better areas of the map to boot. (In this regard, I am in favor of the placing of Player and AI to be a random draw. Not the Player always being the tail end of placement. )

Obviously, each level of higher Difficulty the founding of a new City costs the Player more Gold.

And my preferred Game Speed is Normal. A 2000 turn game can take months to play if not played everyday for several hours per day. I cannot stand to play the GSs longer than 6000 turns.

 

[Blazenclaw]

The enemy almost never loses ANY culture until they are wiped out.

There's already a fix in the works, not on svn yet but should hopefully be by Mon or so, that substantially increases culture decay after sources lost which'll make this less of an issue.

City founding for them is less expensive, plus they get the better areas of the map to boot. (In this regard, I am in favor of the placing of Player and AI to be a random draw. Not the Player always being the tail end of placement. )

@Toffer90 is this the case the AI placement happens before players? Thought it was random