The Next Patch after 3.13

[The_CatSnack]

Hey folks, just wondering if another official patch is due to be released soon. I noticed that 3.13 fixed up heaps of stuff but ultimately created a few new bugs.

I'm about to try the unofficial 3.13 patch. Is version 1.11 the latest?

Anyways, if anyone got any info please share!

 

[The_CatSnack]

One more thing, I was reading the change log for the unofficial 3.13 and can anyone explain this point:

* Relationship penalty for declaring war on a friend checks if Civs are at war

 

[ori]

some firaxians here have hinted at another patch at some point in time - no more specifics at this point though.
the change is there to make sure you don't get penalized for you declared war on a friend when you join a war between two "friends"

 

[Vehem]

One more thing, I was reading the change log for the unofficial 3.13 and can anyone explain this point:

* Relationship penalty for declaring war on a friend checks if Civs are at war

It's possible to have two civilizations at war that still maintain a "positive relationship score". If you were to ask what they thought of each other, they'd be pleased or friendly, despite the conflict.

If you were to declare war on one of them, the other would dislike you for it despite the fact they are also at war. The check makes sure this penalty is not applied in this case.

 

[azzaman333]

If there isn't another patch, I won't be buying Civ 5.

 

[ggganz]

Why?? Bhruic's fixes everything important, just play with that.

 

[azzaman333]

Because, they abandoned patching Civ 3 when it was unfinished, and if they do the same with Civ 4, why should I continue to support a company which doesn't even care to patch its games of major bugs?

 

[ggganz]

CUZ CIV'S TEH AWESOME!!!!!1

 

[azzaman333]

Not when it's consistently broken...

 

[Melchizel]

Nothing in this world is perfect man... no matter how much you work on something, there will always be some kind of error.

 

[MarkM]

Nothing in this world is perfect man... no matter how much you work on something, there will always be some kind of error.

Agreed. Don't buy it if you don't want, azzaman333, but it will likely be your loss, and the rest of the world (including Firaxis) will go on just fine.

 

[CivDude86]

I'm with azzaman333, I want my science golden age and not fight wars over foreign subs voilating my ships personal space.

 

[Willem]

Because, they abandoned patching Civ 3 when it was unfinished,

That's probably because Civ 3 was inherently flawed and couldn't be fixed without screwing something else up down the line. I know that was the case with the subs causing automatic war declarations when another civ sailed over them. There were a few other things as well that simply could not be fixed without messing up other areas. Firaxis just decided they were better off devoting their energies to making a better version.

 

[azzaman333]

That's probably because Civ 3 was inherently flawed and couldn't be fixed without screwing something else up down the line. I know that was the case with the subs causing automatic war declarations when another civ sailed over them. There were a few other things as well that simply could not be fixed without messing up other areas. Firaxis just decided they were better off devoting their energies to making a better version.

The subs was a minor issue as far as I was concerned. The major bug they should've fixed, but ignored, was the Scientific Golden Age bug, which simply didn't work. Plus, AI's not using armies should've been fixed. The rather poor patching of BtS, especially the 3.13 fiasco, gives me a clear impression that Firaxis is thinking "Civ4 needs patching? Stuff it, we'll get more money making Revolutions. Plus that Bhruic guy has made an unofficial patch, it's not like they need anything more than that"

 

[toft]

Here we go again....​

 

[Willem]

Plus, AI's not using armies should've been fixed.

Gee, I wonder why they never reappeared in Civ 4? Maybe because they realized that the AI could never use them properly and gave up on the idea?

 

[azzaman333]

Gee, I wonder why they never reappeared in Civ 4? Maybe because they realized that the AI could never use them properly and gave up on the idea?

Surely its not that hard to program the AI to find the strongest unit it has, find 3 (or 4) of them, and stick them in the army?

 

[TheDS]

Maybe it's cuz armies were a stupid idea, and Civ4's stack-move and stack-attack features made them utterly pointless?

But regardless of that, the reason why companies keep producing buggy games if because PEOPLE KEEP BUYING THEM. Too many people simply don't care that they're getting ripped off and being used as unpaid beta testers. Would you tolerate this from a company that sold you unpatchable games, like most cartridge-based machines are? Of course not, because why should you support someone who doesn't give you what you paid for?

There used to be quality control, back when computers were a niche and the customer base was small enough that a lost sale meant something and the customer investment was significant enough that they cared if they didn't get what they paid for. Now that it's becoming possible to patch console games after the sale, you're seeing more and more bugs in those games too.

I have to applaud Nintendo for holding their game writers to a high standard, and insisting that their customers really ARE deserving of a FINISHED product, even if it's only to protect their reputation. I don't own a single Nintendo product, because they don't build anything I want, but their reputation has penetrated even my thick skull. (I did enjoy playing my sister's NES when her kids asked me to play with them, though. Refreshing to not have the game crash just because I was winning a hard-fought victory, but the gameplay wasn't deep enough, nor the interface hardware sufficient for the games I like to play.)

I'm with Azzaman too: if they don't finish debugging this game, I will NOT buy the next Civ product. This from a man who has gotten almost all of them, minus the special edition stuff that simply repeated stuff I already had. (And after the debacle that was the new Pirates, I'm also not buying any Sid game sight unseen again. A similar policy in regard to Paradox's failings saved me from EU3, which won't even run on my brand new $2000 computer, and from MAN2, which won't run without a connection to their server - if people don't want my money, they can put a big sticker on the box that says "This ain't for you, Jim!" Yeah, I know I'm not the 1% of the total market that I used to be, but sooner or later, the massive stupidity fad is going to end and I won't be the only one clamoring for changes.)

 

[azzaman333]

Maybe it's cuz armies were a stupid idea, and Civ4's stack-move and stack-attack features made them utterly pointless?

Army units would've been a better idea than the rather pathetic Warlord units IMO.

But regardless of that, the reason why companies keep producing buggy games if because PEOPLE KEEP BUYING THEM. Too many people simply don't care that they're getting ripped off and being used as unpaid beta testers. Would you tolerate this from a company that sold you unpatchable games, like most cartridge-based machines are? Of course not, because why should you support someone who doesn't give you what you paid for?

There used to be quality control, back when computers were a niche and the customer base was small enough that a lost sale meant something and the customer investment was significant enough that they cared if they didn't get what they paid for. Now that it's becoming possible to patch console games after the sale, you're seeing more and more bugs in those games too.

I have to applaud Nintendo for holding their game writers to a high standard, and insisting that their customers really ARE deserving of a FINISHED product, even if it's only to protect their reputation. I don't own a single Nintendo product, because they don't build anything I want, but their reputation has penetrated even my thick skull. (I did enjoy playing my sister's NES when her kids asked me to play with them, though. Refreshing to not have the game crash just because I was winning a hard-fought victory, but the gameplay wasn't deep enough, nor the interface hardware sufficient for the games I like to play.)

I'm with Azzaman too: if they don't finish debugging this game, I will NOT buy the next Civ product. This from a man who has gotten almost all of them, minus the special edition stuff that simply repeated stuff I already had. (And after the debacle that was the new Pirates, I'm also not buying any Sid game sight unseen again. A similar policy in regard to Paradox's failings saved me from EU3, which won't even run on my brand new $2000 computer, and from MAN2, which won't run without a connection to their server - if people don't want my money, they can put a big sticker on the box that says "This ain't for you, Jim!" Yeah, I know I'm not the 1% of the total market that I used to be, but sooner or later, the massive stupidity fad is going to end and I won't be the only one clamoring for changes.)

Good to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

[T.A JONES]

Army units would've been a better idea than the rather pathetic Warlord units IMO.

Right and besides, Armys do work. All you need is the "unoffical patch" . Normally we just call that mod .
The idea was to lower the amount of units allowed in each army stack. Play 'MEM' or 'Rood of the Dragon' for all the AI army you can handle Or just copy how the fix was implimented and use it on any epic you want.

Ive never been hit by the sub bug