Solver's unofficial BtS 3.17 patch

[EmperorFool]

Also, a select all icon for bombers would be real handy. Why isn't that icon present for air unts by the way?

Ctrl-click a unit icon in the plot list to select all units of the same type. Alt-click a stack to select all units in the plot.

 

[Willem]

I'd like repeat my request that you fix the bug which buries most starts in forests. It's annoying, it provides information that clearly shouldn't be available ("Hm, I bet that unforested hill has a hidden resource!"), and it greatly reduces options in the early game (I used to tech Pottery before BW somewhat regularly, to get cottages growing. Now that's simply not an option because there's literally nowhere to put a cottage, unless it's a hidden resource). It's been degrading gameplay for too long.

thanks,
lilnev

Thanks for bringing that up. I mentioned this in a post over at Apolyton and everyone thought I was crazy. The fact that it makes so many options useless is my beef with it. It forces the player to go with a Bronzeworking ASAP opening. I too would like to be able to get Pottery if I can and start Cottaging right away, but unless I start with a Floodplain in my BFC, it just isn't possible anymore. It's just not an option in BtS, it was before.

 

[Willem]

Ctrl-click a unit icon in the plot list to select all units of the same type. Alt-click a stack to select all units in the plot.

IIRC though, that doesn't get all your Bombers to Bombard at once. You need to do it one at a time. I could be be wrong though, I haven't really used Bombers all that much.

 

[EmperorFool]

IIRC though, that doesn't get all your Bombers to Bombard at once.

All the bombers in the same city, since you can't select units from different plots together. But I use this a lot. I'll have the four bombers in a city as a single group, hit B or S, and click the city I want to bombard or air strike. I'd have to check again, but I think right-clicking will bombard if there are cultural defenses first, or air strike if none. I'm a big fan of shortcuts.

 

[Balderstrom]

Small Request, can a ReadMe.TXT be added to the zip, if only to contain the line

• Version 0.15

Could paste the changelog into it too.

 

[PieceOfMind]

EDIT Nevermind. I just realised I didn't have the option enabled. Must have been when I patched the game!

Cheers Methos

P.S. I thought I'd never seen it happen before.

 

[Methos]

There is a setting under options that when checked makes it so that workers do not change improvements.

 

[EmperorFool]

Even though I have the option "Workers leave old improvements" enabled, when I set workers to "Automated build trade network" they will in fact go around and destroy improvements.

There is a setting under options that when checked makes it so that workers do not change improvements.

PieceOfMind is saying this option is ignored when workers are automated to build trade network.

 

[CivCorpse]

Ok, you guys still don't get it. (some of you)

Solver fixes flaws in the official patches, and tries to make them as close to what Firaxis intended as possible, ok?

Try to separate these two things: Fix official patch --- change gameplay in a way that Firaxis hasn't intended to. Maybe someone else is willing to do a different patch with more gameplay changes. Isn't Bhruic already doing that? Why don't you talk to him?

If Solver should make such a patch, then it should be separate from this one. I doubt he will do it, but what do I know. I do know that it shouldn't be mixed up with this one.

Get it people - this patch is for fixing flaws in official and tweaking AI only.

Honestly, you have been posting on this site for less than two months. You have a lot of nerve constantly telling longtime members how to post. With every release/expansion pack for CIV, Solver. BH and others fix/tweak the game and it's patches.
And then we have a thread about it. The code savvy deiscuss possible fixes. those of us that are not so code savvy give our opinions on what we do and do not want/like. From all this input Solver, Bh. and other smart people make patches and MODS.
It's how we go about doing things on these forums. So kindly refrain from telling others what to do until you have something positive or constructive to contribute to the discussion.

 

[CivCorpse]

For the naval units in port. Will the fix you implemented cause them to leave port if ships from a civ they are not at war with are close? Or does the Ai think. "Oh, that's my buddy CivCorpse's vast armada of ships and transports, he would NEVER stab me in the back."
Also late game naval units can strike from well outside visibility range of most cities. The Ai rarely has an observation ring to prevent strikes from 7-8 tiles offshore.
Perhaps coding them never to have undamaged ships in port?

 

[Caboose]

Are you saying the quote you made of me is false, and that it isn't constructive in any way?

I'm gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Through this entire thread there have been many propositions that has nothing to do with fixing flaws in the official patch or tweaking the AI. To mention a few, people have brought up Guided Missiles, Paratroopers, giving more mobility to normal artillery, etc, etc. If you want these things changed, fine. This is not the thread for it. If you can't read what Solver says yourself I think you have a problem.

Here you go, one last time:

Generally speaking, I want the unofficial patch to be devoted to fixing issues and, as possible, improving the AI. I want gameplay changes kept to a minimum, only where balance really seems affected...

I like to think of this as a patch and not a mod, keeping the changes close to what Firaxis would approve of.

I REALLY don't see the point in bringing up things that doesn't fall under this. It derails the discussion from what Solver is actually going to do, so I suggest you discuss these things in a thread where these changes actually can happen.

 

[Caboose]

Don't take so much offense now. I was only aiming at those who post things like "change this unit, change that unit". Sorry if I come across as one with a big nerve. Now, back on topic please?

 

[Methos]

Now, back on topic please?

Agreed....

 

[Duuk]

Voluntary capatalation (sp?) seems to be way, way up.

Not the 'surrendered in a war' kind, but the 'Oh wow, you'd be a nice boss' way of the AI offering randomly.

IIRC this is due to 3.17 and not Solver... so let's fix it

 

[SilentHunter]

Voluntary capatalation (sp?) seems to be way, way up.

Not the 'surrendered in a war' kind, but the 'Oh wow, you'd be a nice boss' way of the AI offering randomly.

IIRC this is due to 3.17 and not Solver... so let's fix it

I have seen that too. It's really weird. I was at war, IA didn't want to capitulate and because another war was declared on me, I pressed im for peace. He gave me some tech, and 3 turns later, "Hey, I managed not to be your vassal during war, but now I can clearly see you are the master here".

 

[DrJambo]

All the bombers in the same city, since you can't select units from different plots together. But I use this a lot. I'll have the four bombers in a city as a single group, hit B or S, and click the city I want to bombard or air strike. I'd have to check again, but I think right-clicking will bombard if there are cultural defenses first, or air strike if none. I'm a big fan of shortcuts.

Sometimes direct access to the keyboard can be problematic! (don't ask why )

There are the special icons which infantry and boats have - you know, the one that selects all units and the one that selects all units of one type.
Anyway, just wondered why these aren't available for air units...

 

[DanF5771]

Currently I'm going with iCollateralDamage = baseCombatStr() / 2.

I'd just like to point out (in a positive and constructive way) that such a solution would be a diversion from the long established core of combat mechanics that calculates the damage done in fighting as a function of the attacker's/defender's strength ratio. A Tank should damage a Longbow more than a MechInf.

So I put my earlier contribution to the discussion in here again and kindly ask for arguments/counter-examples/pitfalls to not go that route:

Unit has no native CollDmg and no Barrage promos --> exit (unchanged):

if (collateralDamage() == 0 && getExtraCollateralDamage() == 0)
{
	return;
}

iCollateralStrength set to baseCombatStr/airBaseCombatStr for all units:

iCollateralStrength = ((getDomainType() == DOMAIN_AIR) ? airBaseCombatStr() : baseCombatStr());

Core of combat mechanics formula for calculation of iStrengthFactor and iCollateralDamage considering attacker/defender-strength (unchanged):

iStrengthFactor = ((iCollateralStrength + iTheirStrength + 1) / 2);
iCollateralDamage = (GC.getDefineINT("COLLATERAL_COMBAT_DAMAGE") * (iCollateralStrength + iStrengthFactor)) / (iTheirStrength + iStrengthFactor);

iModifier starts with native CollDmg and Barrage promos are added:

int iModifier = collateralDamage();
iModifier += getExtraCollateralDamage();

Now my other proposal for a modification:
CollateralDamage protection via Drill promotions and bunkers (in case of air strikes) should not be subtracted but considered as a scaling factor, thus reducing the amount of CollDmg and not avoiding it at all (moot point):

iModifier *= (100 - pBestUnit->getCollateralDamageProtection())/100;
if (pCity != NULL)
{
	iModifier *= (100 + pCity->getAirModifier())/100;
}

Calculation of the actual damage done in hitpoints (unchanged but given for completeness):

iCollateralDamage *= iModifier;
iCollateralDamage /= 100;
iCollateralDamage = std::max(0, iCollateralDamage);

Comments/Errors/Suggestions/Insults?

 

[Woody1]

Voluntary capatalation (sp?) seems to be way, way up.

Not the 'surrendered in a war' kind, but the 'Oh wow, you'd be a nice boss' way of the AI offering randomly.

IIRC this is due to 3.17 and not Solver... so let's fix it

I don't think it needs fixing. It's not a bug. Please, limit this patch to fixing only things that are clearly broken.

Yes, volunteering to be a vassal seems more frequent now. The AI also seems to break off from being a vassal easier now, too. I kind of like this new behaviour. It allows the AI to form alliances of convenience, when it's vunerable to attack.

I will point out that this is INTENDED BEHAVIOUR FROM FIRAXIS. See the readme:

Lowered capitulation threshold

Please do not remove intended behaviour!

 

[EmperorFool]

There are the special icons which infantry and boats have - you know, the one that selects all units and the one that selects all units of one type.

Oh right, I totally forgot about those. I have never used them, perhaps because I usually have both hands free when I play Civ.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Were I failled, is that you say it was my main argument. I should never have spoken of counters because my main argument was that:

- artillery cannot kill ennemi units, only reduce them, and that's why they have collateral.
- tanks with barrage can reduce and kill.

My main argument against barrage tanks was that they are performing the main job of artillery (doing collateral damage) better. Tanks are stronger and faster. So, we're on the same side here. I have been opposed to barrage promotions on tanks from vanilla version 1.00, but I never found it important enough to change it. Now that Firaxis has changed it in the patch, we (Civfanatics) need to make it a working and reasonable change.

I'd just like to point out (in a positive and constructive way) that such a solution would be a diversion from the long established core of combat mechanics that calculates the damage done in fighting as a function of the attacker's/defender's strength ratio. A Tank should damage a Longbow more than a MechInf.

So I put my earlier contribution to the discussion in here again and kindly ask for arguments/counter-examples/pitfalls to not go that route:

[...Codepart...]

With my limited understanding of the code, I think I agree with this approach. The calculation follows the description of the barrage promotion in the civilopedia and there don't seem to be any pitfalls.