1. Firaxis celebrates the "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month", and offers a give-away of a Civ6 anthology copy (5 in total)! For all the details, please check the thread here. .
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We have selected the winners of the Old World random draw and competition. For the winning entries, please check this thread.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Old World has finally been released on GOG and Steam, besides also being available in the Epic store . Come to our Old World forum and discuss with us!
    Dismiss Notice

Sub Bug Fix and other Adventures in EXE Modding Release 10B

EXE mod featuring stack bombard, bug fixes, and more

  1. tjs282

    tjs282 Stone \ Cold / Fish

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,189
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Inside my skull
    IIRC, this bug only occurs in multiplayer, though?
     
  2. Arcangelus

    Arcangelus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2016
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Chile
    You think so?. Let's run a little experiment then.
    I set up a scenario where an AI has 4 cities. If I declare war, they get -30 WW. Losing size 1 cities generates 16 WW, so taking 2 cities should cancel their war happiness.
    There probably is a way of checking WW in game with debug, but as I don't know how I'll use civ3multitool save editor to do so.
    First test: 4 unguarded AI cities, I take 2.
    Result: AI has -30 WW, rather than the expected 2.

    Second test: 4 guarded AI cities, I take 2. Then, I wait a turn.
    Result: AI has -30 WW, rather than the expected 6. Also, now I have 1 WW (as expected).

    Now, let's try a test that doesn't rely on 3rd party tools. When a Civ on a government with high WW reaches level 3, it falls into anarchy. You need 91 points for level 3, and losing 6 cities generates 96-102 points (depending on population). So, if 2 civs on democracy were at war and one were to lose 6 cities, the expected result would be that the one losing said cities would fall to anarchy. Setting permanent war between civs removes the need to account for "war happiness"
    With that in mind, let's create a scenario with 6 civs:
    - Player 1 is the human.
    - Player 2 is ready to take 8 human cities. Either I'll declare war, or make the AI do so. It doesn't matter.
    - Player 3 Babylon and Player 4 Germany locked at war. Babylon set to lose 6 cities.
    - Player 5 Russia and Player 6 Japan locked at war. Japan set to lose 6 cities.
    - All civilizations are democracies and in the industrial era.
    - AI civs have an extra city somewhere else to ensure survival.
    - Player is in industrial era.

    Results:
    - Surprising to me, no civ fell to anarchy: There must be a minimum wait. So, i decided to check the save file.
    Spain(human)-America(player2): 97-127
    Babylon-Germany: 118-118
    Russia-Japan: 214-214.

    Something's off. I repeat it, at chieftian level this time.
    1st turn, cities are taken.
    end turn, I raze a city of Player 2. All but one of my pops in my extra city are unhappy now. However, no matter how many turns I wait no one falls to anarchy.
    State at the beginning of the second turn.
    Spain(human)-Portugal(player2) 127-97 [I attacked this time]
    Babylon-Germany: 118-118
    Russia-Japan: 215-215

    Just to be sure I'm not forgetting something, I repeat a last time in debug.
    Beginning 2nd turn:
    Babylon-Germany: 118-118
    Russia-Japan: 215-215

    Beginning 3rd turn:
    Spain(human)-Arabia: 97-127
    Babylon-Germany: 118-118
    Russia-Japan: 214-214

    4th turn (I killed 2 enemy units and lost 1 attack on the 3rd turn)
    Spain(human)-Arabia: 98-128 (consistent with having +2 from failed attack, -1 for ending the turn with no units on enemy territory.)
    Babylon-Germany: 117-117 (-1 for ending the turn with no units on enemy territory)
    Russia-Japan: 213-213 (-1 for ending the turn with no units on enemy territory)

    Conclusion:
    The WW is bugged somewhere.
    According to the result, in the Human-AI war WW increased by 16 per city. (16*8-1=127)
    In the Babylon-Germany war, WW increased by 20 per city.
    In the Russia-Japan war, WW increased by 36 per city. I suspect is counting it twice.

    I attach the last test case, and the saves from where I got my results.
    I rest my case.
     

    Attached Files:

    Belofon and tjs282 like this.
  3. Flintlock

    Flintlock King

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    860
    I spent a couple of hours today looking into war weariness but sadly I don't have much to say about it other than it's a lot more vexing than it has any right to be. I'll have to continue investigating, I haven't even found yet where WW points get added on loss of a city, and I suspect the bug is helping obscure it. Here's an oddity: I found the point in the interturn update code where a player gets kicked into anarchy if their WW is over 90. The odd thing is that it doesn't check against the highest WW for any ongoing war, total WW across all wars, or even average across all wars, instead it checks against total WW divided by the number of contacts the player has. That would explain why you aren't seeing the AIs get kicked into anarchy when you expect, but I wonder if I'm mistaken since I find it hard to believe that no one has noticed this before.

    About the hypertext link limit issue, I'll add it to the list for now. It looks like it's easy to at least remove the popups but I'd have to look into it in detail to know if it's plausible to do a better fix, like increase the limit.
     
  4. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,621
    Gender:
    Male
    Flintlock, may be the following can help in fixing the hyperlink bug:

    Some years ago by accident it was found out in Anthony Boscia´s Worldwide thread, that the hyperlink bug is eliminated, when the first of the three prerequisite slots for a unit is left empty (or the first of two resource slots for a building). In that case the entry with the linked resource icons is dissapearing completely. Since that time I used these settings for the mods CCM 2 and RARR and there is no more trouble with that bug. The player must be pointed in the textbox of the civilopedia to the needed resources.

    Hyperlink Bug1.jpg

    Hyperlink Bug2.jpg

    I think eliminating the popups would be sufficient. If there is found a way to achieve this without sacrificing the first resource slot and the icons entry in the civilopedia this would be nice. If increasing the limit this must be done in factors of many thousands (per example the next version of CCM will hold more than 4,000 different units and many of them are needing the same resources, p.e. oil).
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2021
    Flintlock and Snodmaulvenn like this.
  5. Sutsuj

    Sutsuj Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2020
    Messages:
    18
    Hello everyone. Since I'm very enthused about the enabling of land-sea intersections, I modified Sn00py's greener terrain to make the land-sea intersections have water rather than land. This enables "coast rivers" like those in the image below. You can download the terrain here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/sn00pys-g-terrain-with-coast-rivers.29555/ -- Thanks again to Flintlock, and Merry Christmas!

    Coast_Rivers_Example.png
     
    Ozymandias, Flintlock and Civinator like this.
  6. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,621
    Gender:
    Male
    :yup: Yes these land-sea intersections are really great and a lot of interesting innovative modding ideas can now becoming true with them. :)

    Edit:

    Here are some early screenshots from the new settings of the supply shipping from Canada to Britain in the next version of the WW2 scenario SOE. The battle in the Atlantic will become much more severe.

    Convoy path uncovered:

    Landsea-Intersections.jpg

    Land-sea-intersections covered:

    Landsea-Intersections covered.jpg
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2021
  7. SteamCiv

    SteamCiv Warlord

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    131
    I’m gonna have to use that new snoopy terrain. Now how does this work for areas like the Panama Canal or is it still going to be blocked off or is it going to allow passage of land units and and sea Units?

    Civinator I’m not sure what I’m looking at with your screenshots .

    The top I gather with the volcanoes, you’re just putting the volcanoes in there to show some type of path. The bottom screenshot shows some of these volcanoes removed and there is river terrain in the ocean? And how is this supposed to be helpful with the convoys if you don’t mind me asking, it is a river terrain traversable by land units in which case the convoys are land units?
     
  8. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,621
    Gender:
    Male
    SteamCiv, the terrain used in those screenshots above is old Ares terrain, that Ares de Borg gave to the former SOE team many years ago and in my eyes is better suited for scenarios like SOE, as sometimes in his current terrain the units in it cannot be detected as well.

    SOE is a WW 2 scenario without any settler units. Nearly 10 years ago I explained how the massive "amphibious" invasions are working in SOE: In reality they are not "amphibious", but are using small landbridges: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/storm-over-europe-soe.454785/page-11#post-16012557

    These landbridges are covered by ruin graphics, as these big graphics can hide the land terrain under those graphics. For its use, the terrain, that should be covered, must allow cities, but no other terrain improvements, that would trigger away the ruin graphics. In the SOE scenario there are no settlers and therefore no new cities can be founded "in the water", destroying the ruin graphics. There is no river terrain used. For the screenshots I used the old SOE ruin graphics covering coastal terrain, now graphics covering seaterrain would look a little bit better.

    Along the "volcano path" land units can be moved, across the "edges" between the volcano terrain rhombes, sea units can cross the "volcanoe path" (in the same manner the Panama- and the Suez Canal are working). I used volcanoes for that path, as it is a WW2 scenario and there is an additional danger by mines and abstract submarine attacks for the land units on that path (the graphics for volcanoe eruptions can be changed to other graphics).

    The part I like the most about the new land connections between America, Africa and Europe is the following:

    America is not on the SOE map. There are only a few cities with transparent city graphics, containing special strategic resources, symbolizing the convoys from Canada and the US during WW2.





    This allows using different ship graphics for land units that are produced in those "convoy cities". Per example a "transported" Sherman tank can use other freighter graphics than a shipped Grant tank. These ship graphics are "fitting", as all movement is looking to be "on water" (so in reality it is on land).

    These transported "convoy" units only have very weak unit stats and can be easily destroyed by Axis naval units with lethal land bombardment (what even German submarines will have - but cannot use in most other situations) if these attacking units achieve to come close to the "volcano path". If such a transported land unit is destroyed, a ship is sinking. SOE uses a special "programmed" map with many zones of different and partly unique combinations of resources, I have named "microzones" many years ago. One such microzone per example is the city of Glasgow. Here the AI (and the human player) can upgrade their transported units with ship graphics to the correct land unit graphics with the adequate stats (p.e. in Glasgow the freighter symbolizing the transported Sexton from Canada becomes the real Sexton that cannot use the "volcanoe path" any longer. This graphical setting can only work for landunits that can only move in one direction (here from Canada to Britain). It will not work for Axis units. Per example if an Axis player really wants to conquer the city "Convoys from Canada", this can be done, but the graphics while moving along the "volcano trial" will always be the normal graphics and stats of those landunits (it would be crazy trying to conquer Russia with freighters in this scenario).

    These settings still need some testing, especially I have to look if the pollution by the volcanoes will destroy the ruin graphics. In that case I have to use a different terrain for the "volcano path".
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2021
  9. SteamCiv

    SteamCiv Warlord

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    131
    Thank you for that explanation Civinator. I now understand better how that works. Outside of cleverly designed scenarios, the terrain has limited use, certainly no random maps, and if settlers are in the scenario, as you indicate settlers will create cities "in the water(among the ruin graphics)," and their accompanying improvements which would be kind of strange .

    It should not be too hard to come up with a volcano pollution graphic that would work for both land and sea, ie volcano lava can be transformed into a blackish ash which might be taken for ship debris or something on the ocean. Such a dual purpose graphic is probably what you are working on already.
     
  10. AnthonyBoscia

    AnthonyBoscia Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,663
    This procedure does not work with the original version of the game on my computer. I am still running the game from the original three discs, and so it seems there are differences between the Conquests disc and the Civ III Complete version. I have both the Gog and Steam version now. It seems I can choose one of those to play from now on, as it's safe to say the original discs provided their money's worth. Transferring 105 gb of mod data from the current folder, however, is another matter...

    It would be nice to know how many people are playing each type of release, such as CD, gog, and steam. It may actually be worth making the Steam version the default on newer mods (please pray for my soul), as I suspect the majority of current Civ III players are using this version. The CFC regulars probably aren't, but we're a different breed.
     
  11. Alekseyev_

    Alekseyev_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2014
    Messages:
    58
    Hello there! I came across this project a couple of days ago, in the midst of a game of Civ 3. Well, since then I haven't resumed it, and instead spent my evenings catching up on this complete thread and anything related/linked. Exciting stuff!
    Thank you so much for these fixes, Flintlock! It's crazy how after all these years, the dreams came true. I looked into asm (for other games) in the past, but could never find the time and dedication (esp. without a sufficient IT background) to pull through. So you have my utmost respect. :)

    I've collected a couple of quotes across the pages that I'd like to reply to:

    I can't test my old CD-version Civ 3 complete, since it complains about lacking a CD drive (which is correct, I currently don't have my CD/DVD drive plugged into the MB due to needing a SATA cable the other day), despite running without a CD in the first place... guess they didn't do the job quite right when shipping a no-CD Civ3 Complete DVD. My original Civ3 Conquests (seperate, not from Complete) certainly works fine on Windows 10. Now I also bought the GOG version, so I guess I own this game three times now. Oh well. :D

    I can 100% confirm this, and it is entirely unrelated to C3X. Whenever I start up the GOG-exe, I get massive initial lag (For a good 2 minutes or so, I hadn't yet tracked it) when starting or loading a game. Which is extremely painful when you frequently reload for whatever reason like I sometimes do. When I start the original exe on the same computer (Windows 10), the game runs flawlessly.
    I originally bought the GOG version so that I could play Civ3 again on my newly installed operating system. Simply copying over all my game installation files from my previous OS did not work, since Civ3 requires some registry keys to be set before it likes to launch. I didn't know what these were and didn't find sufficient info online, so I just got the version on GOG, thinking to just use that instead. However, due to the issue above, this quickly turned out to be very uncomfortable, while I also noticed that my old files would run now - without any such issues!. So after getting the GOG install to fix my registry keys, I ditched it again... for about two weeks, because that's when I found this patch.

    As said above, it's 100% unrelated to C3X. I've seen similar issues mentioned online in a few places, including here by Civinator and I think at least 1 other person, but I don't know what could be the cause. So while I will now use the GOG version for your patch (the positives of C3X make me endure the problems of the GOG-exe :D), I still dream of getting a patched original exe at some point. :D

    There must definitely be something different about the GOG-exe due to the aforementioned issues. :/

    Maybe the disbanding-due-to-money logic didn't always trigger due to difficulty-induced free unit support?

    I am 99% sure the Civ3 (pre-PTW or pre-Conquests, I never played PTW myself, just a ton of vanilla) worker AI knew how to chain irrigation from some far away river (possibly many tiles outside of the civ border!) to irrigate a nearby town. But maybe that was just for automated human-owned workers, and not for the AI.

    I was actually about to post this suggestion as well, and while reading through the thread I was wondering how nobody else had suggested it, but then you got it two pages before the last :D This would be amazing to have. Then finally paratroopers could be used for something, as a commando of some sorts or a "blitzkrieg" role of swifty seizing enemy unguarded or weakly guarded radio towers or airfields behind the lines, or even just workers. Hell, even fortifying in place would help. :D And it would give them a solid distinction from other helicopter-dropped foot units.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
    Ruin and Flintlock like this.
  12. Alekseyev_

    Alekseyev_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2014
    Messages:
    58
    Here are other ideas I also had, for "the list". :p Putting them in a seperate post so they're a bit seperate from my quote-wall up there.

    - Workers on remove pollution job stay on the job even after all pollution is gone, staying on stand-by for new pollution to appear, at which point they resume the removal.

    - Having shield, food and science overflow would be amazing, and remove one of the most tedious and micromanagement-intensive aspects of Civ3 min-max optimisation.

    - When a city is settled on top of a resource, its bonus shields and commerce apply to the base city square. The same does not happen with a food resource. A city square will only ever yield 2 food (3 if agri and near fresh water), even if it contains something like grassland cattle, which would give 4. Fixing this would be nice, since it actively penalises settling on food resources - but not the others.

    - The "anti-air defense" value of units such as flak, mobile SAM and many ships causes an animation of a vertical missile to play when an aircraft unit is shot down by it. This however isn't always very fitting, especially for the flak. Switching it out to a flak explosion graphic like it's done in Age of Imperialism on the other hand looks out of place with SAM units. Would it be possible to instead of playing the generic animation, have the unit whose defense value triggered the shootdown play its attack animation a single time? Playing it in the direction the air unit came from would be perfect, but any angle would work and be a massive improvement over the generic SAM.
    The base game's animation would still play a role for the SAM battery city improvement.
     
  13. Flintlock

    Flintlock King

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    860
    Thanks! By the way, C3X doesn't involve much ASM, so if you're interested in this stuff don't let the threat of ASM scare you off from looking deeper into the mod. It works instead by compiling C and patching it into the executable. The patcher must work with ASM but above that the large majority of the mod is written in C. Even complex features like stack bombard don't involve any custom ASM, it's written entirely in C and patched in automatically.
    It's good to know the bug isn't caused by C3X. I wonder if this is a bug I could fix. If it were caused by C3X that would make it easier to track down since I could start by removing things until the bug disappeared. As it is, I wouldn't know where to start. This is such a strange bug too. It used to affect me very badly, sometimes making the game unplayable, but it mysteriously subsided some time last summer. Since then I rarely see it and when I do it's mild. I can't think of anything I did that would affect it. Very strange.
    I don't think unit support is related, just based on where in the code the crash occurs. It's in the unit AI logic, as in the code that moves AI units, not in the economy logic.
    All added. I'll look into letting paratroopers move after landing, that should be easy and when multiple people request something I usually give it more priority. Changing the anti-air animations is interesting. I've never tried modifying the game's animations but I decoded parts of the animation code recently in connection with the sound code (I was investigating how AMB files work). Replacing that missile animation with a unit attack anim is maybe doable. It's hard to say since I've never tried anything like that before, but then that's what makes it interesting.



    Edit: You also mentioned compatibility with the CD Complete version. Personally I've given up on getting a lucky free compatibility with any other Civ version due to a matching executable. The GOG Complete executable is probably unique. If you want to check compatibility you don't need to actually run the program, just investigate Civ3Conquests.exe. If the size doesn't match the one from GOG then the mod is definitely not compatible, and if it does match then it almost certainly is.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2022
    Alekseyev_ and Ruin like this.
  14. adz1061

    adz1061 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Two things to consider:

    It was mentioned earlier but there is a bug with air superiority mission where it takes two turns to activate instead of the turn immediately after you assign it.

    Would it be possible to fix the bug where culture can't expand past 100000 in terms of controlled area? This would help with scenario generation for very large maps.
     
  15. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,621
    Gender:
    Male
    adz1061, the limitations for cultural victory still can be overcome with the Quintillus editor. For CCM 2.50, I set the one city cultural victory to 180000 and the culture civ victory to 500000. Both victory settings were achieved in the the succession games with this mod:

    One city cultural victory of 180000: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...cm-2-5-180k-goal.649583/page-18#post-15693359
    Cultural civ victory of 500000: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/lk162-japan-500k-culture.655873/page-15#post-15861402

    Of course, if the restrictions in the C3C biq for cultural victories could be overcome directly in the starting settings of a C3C game could be overcome, this would be nice, too.
     
  16. Alekseyev_

    Alekseyev_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2014
    Messages:
    58
    @Civinator
    I think he is referring to the city's culture radius not expanding any further.

    Good to know, I will take a look at your files when I have time. :)
    It's really strange, but good to hear that you at least know what I'm referring to. :D Hopefully I can get it do disappear somehow as well...
    Thanks! :)
     
  17. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,621
    Gender:
    Male
    :yup: Yes, as you mention it, this seems to be the correct direction.
     
  18. Alekseyev_

    Alekseyev_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2014
    Messages:
    58
    I compared the two exe files I have present. I noticed a few things:
    - Size is different (Complete slightly larger)
    - Product version number was incremented between Conquests and Complete
    - Complete looks for different file names when playing the intro video and showing the main menu background, so you can have the files for either version in place and the launched exe will pick which ones it uses. See the "title screen" screenshot, where one can see how Complete looks for files starting with "civ3complete_TITLE" and Conquests for files starting with "x_title".

    Sorry for the German screenshots btw, that's my OS' language, but I guess the file properties are familiar enough to not need to understand the language to understand which field is what.
     

    Attached Files:

    Flintlock likes this.
  19. Flintlock

    Flintlock King

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    860
    I enabled paratroopers to move after airdropping. As expected that was an easy change, I just had to block a tiny bit of code that removed all their remaining movement after the airdrop. I could make it so that airdropping costs one move, and that's what I was planning to do at first, but I decided instead to make airdropping free. The reason is that if airdropping costs one move and you want paratroopers to move after landing, you have to make them into two-move infantry, and I figured that they really shouldn't be able to move faster than normal infantry on land. But if you guys want airdropping to cost one move, just say so, that's a trivial change to make. By the way, like all features that change the game rules, this one won't be applied unless the config INI is edited to enable it.
    I'll get this done next. It's very easy, actually it's the same issue as with paratroopers. There's a bit of code that removes all of a unit's moves after it's set to intercept, and I just have to block that out. About letting cities expand borders beyond 100k culture, I'll add that to the list. I don't expect that to be hard but I can't say for sure without looking into it.
    Do you have the CD Complete version? I'm curious to know its EXE's size. Also I'm surprised to see the size of the Conquests EXE is very similar to GOG Complete, which means porting the mod over might be possible without too much work. Somehow I had gotten it into my head that the sizes were very different. :hmm:
     
    Shmelkin, Alekseyev_ and Ruin like this.
  20. Ruin

    Ruin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2021
    Messages:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    As a former modern paratrooper, I thank and salute you for your service
     
    Flintlock likes this.

Share This Page