Some issues in current (more or less current at least) SVN

JL1312

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
5
Hi,
Some issues I’ve encountered recently

If you group one or more units that don’t have the same movement speed you risk splitting the group after the slowest unit runs out of movement. What happens is that as soon as the slower unit runs out of movement the unitselection changes so that only the unit(s) that have movement left are selected (all units are still grouped though).
If you hit W for wait it’s all good and they’ll be grouped next turn as well. But if you hit space you’ve suddenly broken up the group.
This is quite annoying in the early game when you’re transporting subdued animals for example.

Another issue is regarding worker placement in the city (this might be hotseat only).
Me and my friend play this in hotseat, and currently we’re forced to set our cities to automate worker placement. As soon as any of us manually selects what plot to be worked the city stops working any plots when the turn changes.
Especially in the beginning we tend to want to manually set oit cities as we prioritize different from how the AI wants it.

Anither this that is probably hotseat only is regarding notifications on healthy/unhealthy (and probably other notifications as well.
We noticed that as soon as one of us got a healthy capital while the other player’s capital was still unhealthy we started getting notification every turn ”xxx got healthy/unhealthy” as if the game didn’t really understand that we were two different players.

We also used to have issues with improvements disappearing later in the game (around classical) and havinf to load our latset save to get them back. Not disappearing as in the improvements not being there but disappearing as in not rendering. Not sure if this still persists though as we are very early in our current game.

Another issue we used to have that I don’t know if it persists was that the second human player (which is also the last one) in the turn order never got any notifications when rogues and similar units destroyed improvements.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,394
Location
Las Vegas
If you group one or more units that don’t have the same movement speed you risk splitting the group after the slowest unit runs out of movement. What happens is that as soon as the slower unit runs out of movement the unitselection changes so that only the unit(s) that have movement left are selected (all units are still grouped though).
If you hit W for wait it’s all good and they’ll be grouped next turn as well. But if you hit space you’ve suddenly broken up the group.
This is quite annoying in the early game when you’re transporting subdued animals for example.
I remember this was what happened when you try to explore an area with a group and not all units were 'capable' of exploring. Those that could not, would be held back as the rest moved on, which, yes, would be very frustrating. I wonder if it's related somehow.

Nearly all of these would be helpful to get saves to evaluate what is happening, at least if you can get a repeatable case that displays the problem in action by loading and following a step or two.
 

Somebody613

Emperor
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
1,604
I remember this was what happened when you try to explore an area with a group and not all units were 'capable' of exploring. Those that could not, would be held back as the rest moved on, which, yes, would be very frustrating. I wonder if it's related somehow.

Nearly all of these would be helpful to get saves to evaluate what is happening, at least if you can get a repeatable case that displays the problem in action by loading and following a step or two.
It usually happens to ANY units that are grouped and have different move points.
And this also includes surprise movements when moving into a plot occupied by a hidden unit that only some of mine can see.
Conversely, I've seen ton of beyond-weird cases when an anti-stealth unit manages to wipe out DROVES of, say, Rogues that were hiding on one plot.
And does it in one swift movement.
I like the result, I dislike the dumb bug that causes it.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,394
Location
Las Vegas
Conversely, I've seen ton of beyond-weird cases when an anti-stealth unit manages to wipe out DROVES of, say, Rogues that were hiding on one plot.
Not actually all that weird a case here, as that's how it CAN work, or should be able to. If the Rogues are all on that plot staging an ambush, then the unit that doesn't see them moves onto that plot, he will keep being engaged in combat by the next ambushing unit until no more ambushers remain (if he can survive it all and as an anti-stealth unit, it sounds like it was well promoted to be able to bust up all the ambushers that were on that plot.)

When it's part of a stack, as long as that unit retains the lead as the strongest in the stack to defend against that particular ambush, it will keep coming up to take the hit.

I will probably eventually do something to help combat reporting come across more detailed so that it doesn't seem like just one swift movement is taking place - I did notice once I got it right, it plays out so fast it's crazy. Combat animations can't take place on ambush actions because the animations are mostly handled in the exe and are setup on attacker and defender being assumed to be on different plots and I found I couldn't animate that battle without causing a crash - it's probably something I could fix with more effort but when setting up same-tile combats I took the easy road around that problem and just disabled the combat animations.

As for ambushes separating units in the stack, that sounds like a newer issue I haven't heard of taking place that wouldn't be too shocking that such a bug may have been introduced because I had a hard time keeping the stack together when programming ambushes so later attempts to work on things or fix other problems it presented may have reopened that struggle.
 

Somebody613

Emperor
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
1,604
Not actually all that weird a case here, as that's how it CAN work, or should be able to. If the Rogues are all on that plot staging an ambush, then the unit that doesn't see them moves onto that plot, he will keep being engaged in combat by the next ambushing unit until no more ambushers remain (if he can survive it all and as an anti-stealth unit, it sounds like it was well promoted to be able to bust up all the ambushers that were on that plot.)

When it's part of a stack, as long as that unit retains the lead as the strongest in the stack to defend against that particular ambush, it will keep coming up to take the hit.

I will probably eventually do something to help combat reporting come across more detailed so that it doesn't seem like just one swift movement is taking place - I did notice once I got it right, it plays out so fast it's crazy. Combat animations can't take place on ambush actions because the animations are mostly handled in the exe and are setup on attacker and defender being assumed to be on different plots and I found I couldn't animate that battle without causing a crash - it's probably something I could fix with more effort but when setting up same-tile combats I took the easy road around that problem and just disabled the combat animations.

As for ambushes separating units in the stack, that sounds like a newer issue I haven't heard of taking place that wouldn't be too shocking that such a bug may have been introduced because I had a hard time keeping the stack together when programming ambushes so later attempts to work on things or fix other problems it presented may have reopened that struggle.
I haven't used battle animations for years now, lol.
But there were cases when a military unit accompanying a settler would step onto a plot with a hidden animal, NOT attack it, and leave the settler behind, since it couldn't step on the animal.
Or something similar.
So, yes, stacks are much less solid than what they should be, and that's quite annoying to be aware of all the time.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,394
Location
Las Vegas
But there were cases when a military unit accompanying a settler would step onto a plot with a hidden animal, NOT attack it, and leave the settler behind, since it couldn't step on the animal.
I can see how it would act the same as can't explore since can't attack has a similar kind of validation check. That would be super tricky to fix. Will have to look at that at some point.
 

Toffer90

C2C Modder
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
8,087
Location
Norway
I can see how it would act the same as can't explore since can't attack has a similar kind of validation check. That would be super tricky to fix. Will have to look at that at some point.
Interesting way to fix that might be to make non-hunters 100% unable to see animals with hide and seek, make them oblivious to them, would increase the value of hunter units too as military units would be unable to hunt on their own.
 

JL1312

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
5
I remember this was what happened when you try to explore an area with a group and not all units were 'capable' of exploring. Those that could not, would be held back as the rest moved on, which, yes, would be very frustrating. I wonder if it's related somehow.

Nearly all of these would be helpful to get saves to evaluate what is happening, at least if you can get a repeatable case that displays the problem in action by loading and following a step or two.
Definitely have saves that can reproduce the ones that are from the early game.
Not sure if have kept any saves for the ones that are from later eras as I tend to overwrite or erase all saves when we start a new game (and those are from an old SVN anyway).
I’ll upload a save tomorrow with steps on how to reproduce
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,394
Location
Las Vegas
Interesting way to fix that might be to make non-hunters 100% unable to see animals with hide and seek, make them oblivious to them, would increase the value of hunter units too as military units would be unable to hunt on their own.
Would like spearmen to be able to at least... I'm not sure this would be a good way to address things in prehistory though I could see it working after. Spears, for example, are meant to be used on the really tough animals. Brutes and Rock Throwers are supposed to be able to hunt while exploring. Would have to really think this out some how that could work. It would be a good idea in some ways to further divide the military and hunting worlds, especially in naval.
 

Somebody613

Emperor
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
1,604
Would like spearmen to be able to at least... I'm not sure this would be a good way to address things in prehistory though I could see it working after. Spears, for example, are meant to be used on the really tough animals. Brutes and Rock Throwers are supposed to be able to hunt while exploring. Would have to really think this out some how that could work. It would be a good idea in some ways to further divide the military and hunting worlds, especially in naval.
Easy yet complicated way:
Promotions.
Literally.
Make "hunting" and "fighting" two incompatible promotion CHOICES, the same way we can "reconfigure/reassign" ships and guards.
And also the same way "moving" works - you have 3 possible moving "modes" (for military), and you can only choose 1 at any given moment.
So make it that military units can also only choose either "fight" or "hunt", never both at the same time.
With appropriate "visibilities" (and even allowed attack targets) or lack thereof, of course.
Would get even harder for new players, but, well, lol.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,394
Location
Las Vegas
Easy yet complicated way:
Promotions.
Literally.
Make "hunting" and "fighting" two incompatible promotion CHOICES, the same way we can "reconfigure/reassign" ships and guards.
And also the same way "moving" works - you have 3 possible moving "modes" (for military), and you can only choose 1 at any given moment.
So make it that military units can also only choose either "fight" or "hunt", never both at the same time.
With appropriate "visibilities" (and even allowed attack targets) or lack thereof, of course.
Would get even harder for new players, but, well, lol.
Not really sure I want to completely isolate one from the other because I had always considered hunting to be something that military units should do to help themselves with food supply when in the field under the Nomadic option and a planned supply line option. Anyhow, I'll try to absorb the consideration into the larger plans thinking.
 

Toffer90

C2C Modder
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
8,087
Location
Norway
If you group one or more units that don’t have the same movement speed you risk splitting the group after the slowest unit runs out of movement. What happens is that as soon as the slower unit runs out of movement the unitselection changes so that only the unit(s) that have movement left are selected (all units are still grouped though).
This behaviour will be changed in next SVN revision 11518.
 

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
568
Interesting way to fix that might be to make non-hunters 100% unable to see animals with hide and seek, make them oblivious to them, would increase the value of hunter units too as military units would be unable to hunt on their own.
But the biggest value from hunters is that they are much better at subduing the animals !
Easy yet complicated way:
Promotions.
Literally.
Make "hunting" and "fighting" two incompatible promotion CHOICES, the same way we can "reconfigure/reassign" ships and guards.
I'm not sure this is needed either, because hunting promotions tend to make the unit weaker, while combat promotions - worse at hunting (both directly and as an opportunity cost).
And also the same way "moving" works - you have 3 possible moving "modes" (for military), and you can only choose 1 at any given moment.
So make it that military units can also only choose either "fight" or "hunt", never both at the same time.
With appropriate "visibilities" (and even allowed attack targets) or lack thereof, of course.
Would get even harder for new players, but, well, lol.
We already have Quick March status negating Camouflage and Size veils.
Adding a status (or even a build up) that makes military units better at hunting carries the risk of making hunters unnecessary...
 

Somebody613

Emperor
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
1,604
My point was more like this:
FIGHT = 100% military attack, 5% hunter attack.
HUNT = 5% military attack, 100% hunter attack.
And I mean that as a final multiplier, lol, not a boost.
Also, would eliminate the unit type split, focusing on the unit promotion split.
Basically, ANY unit would have the option to build up either type of attack, and the end result choice would "focus" that buildup towards one of the optional goals.
So, no "hunter UNITS" any more, but "generic units" that can CHOOSE to "act like" either military OR hunters at any given moment.
With different, mutually contradictory multipliers that would make them mostly only useful in their chosen role.
Yeah, I know, I know, lol - by I've always wanted to RPG Civilization as much as possible, and this is one of the resulting features that would work precisely that way.
 

BlueTemplar

Prince
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
568
Well, RPGs have that because you have a very limited number of units under your control, and "building" new ones, especially to catch up with your current party is often quite the undertaking !
(Also, they still have classes, unless playing a single character you'll typically focus each one of them in a specific role, and unlike with build ups and statuses, respeccing is usually hard if not impossible.)
 

Somebody613

Emperor
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
1,604
Which is what I would LOVE to see in Civ. That's just me, but why NOT, if we already have the concept of Heroes? And we CAN attach a Hero to a unit, renaming it (though it can be edited).
Why then not make it generic and much more applied? I always enjoy as much "customization" as possible - and that would be precisely that.
 

Maltazard

Prince
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
345
Well, Fall from Heaven does this, in a fantasy setting, but it's still a Civ game, with doomstacks and all. They achieve this by, on one hand, having hero units (exactly the same as C2C national heroes but even stronger) and on the other hand making all units' promotions twice as effective, so that now your level 5 unit is a godlike elite force, not just Bowman 67.
The downside is that hero units become nigh unstoppable if not by other hero units and eventually a strongest contender comes around by defeating his peers, and forms an unstoppable elite force of decorated veterans that no one can gain the experience to stand against (their enemies all die before they can reach that same level of experience).
Though it could be fun, it would be a lot more micro management without gaining much at all, other than some RP elements, and making warfare even more complex.
 
Last edited:

Somebody613

Emperor
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
1,604
Well, Fall from Heaven does this, in a fantasy setting, but it's still a Civ game, with doomstacks and all. They achieve this by, on one hand, having hero units (exactly the same as C2C national heroes but even stronger) and on the other hand making all units' promotions twice as effective, so that now your level 5 unit is a godlike elite force, not just Bowman 67.
The downside is that hero units become nigh unstoppable if not by other hero units and eventually a strongest contender comes around by defeating his peers, and forms an unstoppable elite force of decorated veterans that no one can gain the experience to stand against (their enemies all die before they can reach that same level of experience).
Though it could be fun, it would be a lot more micro management without gaining much at all, other than some RP elements, and making warfare even more complex.
Complex warfare is always good.
But I never said that RP has to be limited to literally just going from buff to buff.
There are tons of features that aren't "add X base Strength" whatsoever, more so with Cultures and a bit with Religions.
Make a ton of "special" buildings that can only be built by equally "special" units, for example.
Just what we have for Animals, but much-much-much broader and for all types of units.
Also, Equipment (not merely +Str, but type-varied, or even outright required for "special" buildings or cultures).
Also, replace Upgrading with Promoting in the most literal sense.
I just recently bumped into the old Protector tower defense flash game series on Kongregate, which does precisely that (just differently):
You promote your basic units (via EXPERIENCE) into different types, never building any "promoted" units whatsoever.
In Civ, this could be reworked into "upgrading" basic units via promotions (needs a new mechanism for the graphic update of units), while preventing any non-basic unit from being built.
Basically, it'd force you to actively and massively TRAIN your units, not just BUILD them.
I'd very much like THAT, mind you.
And C2C has a ton of non-Str-related features, all of which could be TRAINED one way or another.
Would make for a much more fun (and much less Civ) game, loool.
But that's just me, yeah.
 
Top Bottom