Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch

[Gyhth]

I was just wondering if maybe the events python needs another going over? I got the event where a random resource spawns in your borders, and you can pay a little bit to have it automatically mined/plantation/pasture/camp or whatever. Below is what happened and game description:

Dual, 6 Civ, Custom Continent, One Per Team, Marathon.

I got the above event for Uranium, and it popped on a tile that had trees. I figured what the hey, another source is always great, and I had a little extra cash sitting around so I paid to have a road and mine installed. Thing is... it didn't remove the trees before it installed the mines. I ended up with a plains tile with trees that gave 1 food, 4 gold and 4 hammers.

 

[obliterate]

Step 1. Install Civ 4
Step 2. Install BTS
Step 3. Install BTS patch v3.13
Step 4. Install Bhruic's patch
Step 5. Play the game.

Please make this post a pop up advertisement across the whole site, just to stop this endless tirade of confused people

C'mon it was midnight and I had just reinstalled BTS.

 

[obliterate]

@Gyhth: Yeah that happens when you get the event and don't mine it manually. There are a couple of other circumstances too. Worldbuilder, event etc...

 

[PieceOfMind]

@Gyhth: Yeah that happens when you get the event and don't mine it manually. There are a couple of other circumstances too. Worldbuilder, event etc...

Well the problem is that you're not supposed to, under any circumstances, have a mine and a forest on the same tile. Either the event should clear the forest when planting them mine or it should not appear occur on for a tile which has a forest.

 

[obliterate]

Well the problem is that you're not supposed to, under any circumstances, have a mine and a forest on the same tile. Either the event should clear the forest when planting them mine or it should not appear occur on for a tile which has a forest.

Sh!t happens.

Moderator Action: Warned! - Language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PieceOfMind]

Gyhth has brought to Bhruic's attention what many would consider a bug. I don't know what point you're trying to make but this is the appropriate thread for posting such a thing. Whether or not Bhruic cares to look into it is up to him.

 

[SexyDude76]

Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch & Multiplayer, some questions:

- In a PBEML game, if I have the unofficial patch and my adversary has not, will we be able to play?

- In the case we can play, me having the patch and my adversary not, will that create ANY kind of advantage/disavantage between us, that would not exist without the patch?

Thanks

 

[Wodan]

Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch & Multiplayer, some questions:

- In a PBEML game, if I have the unofficial patch and my adversary has not, will we be able to play?

I doubt it.

In the case we can play, me having the patch and my adversary not, will that create ANY kind of advantage/disavantage between us, that would not exist without the patch?

Of course.

Wodan

 

[Solver]

You can't play if you have at all different versions. All players need to have the patch or not have it.

 

[Bhruic]

I was just wondering if maybe the events python needs another going over? I got the event where a random resource spawns in your borders, and you can pay a little bit to have it automatically mined/plantation/pasture/camp or whatever.

That event is actually designed to require that the tile have either jungle or forest (I'm assuming you got the Impact Crater event). With that being the case, I think it's a special situation that allows for mines on a forest, much like a few of the events actually assign food/hammers/commerce to mountain tiles (that can then be worked).

So I don't think that's actually a bug.

Bh

 

[Roland Johansen]

That event is actually designed to require that the tile have either jungle or forest (I'm assuming you got the Impact Crater event). With that being the case, I think it's a special situation that allows for mines on a forest, much like a few of the events actually assign food/hammers/commerce to mountain tiles (that can then be worked).

So I don't think that's actually a bug.

Bh

In that case, the documentation of this event is terrible (which is sadly true for many events). It's not clear, not even logical that creating the mine through the event will leave the forest while building it manually will destroy the forest.

The fact that it is illogical that creating the mine through the event is different and a lot more profitable than creating the mine manually makes it appear pretty buggy to me. Especially since the cost of creating the mine on top of the forest is not very expensive and is a lot more powerful. It's an event with an illogical undocumented result of one of its choices and with and with a resulting imbalance between its choices. That's not necessarily the same as a bug (which is a subjective valuation), but it shows many of the characteristics of a bug.

 

[Wodan]

Roland, sounds kinda like how you can put a Camp on a forest resource, but you can't put a camp on an unforested resource and then have forest spread to it.

Wodan

 

[Roland Johansen]

Roland, sounds kinda like how you can put a Camp on a forest resource, but you can't put a camp on an unforested resource and then have forest spread to it.

Wodan

That's really different. You can always place a camp on top of a forested resource, not only through a random event.

If this random event was well documented, then I wouldn't say anything about it. It still wouldn't make a lot of sense, but it would be clear that it was meant to be this way. Now, the cost of getting the forest + resource is not significantly higher than just the resource and it is in no way clear that one could expect to get both the improved resource AND the forest if the option to improve directly was chosen.

The lack of documentation that suggests that you can get both the forest and the resource improvement if you chose to build the improvement through the event, the normal game rules that these types of improvements can't coexist and the insignificant cost to create the tile improvement on top of the forest all suggest that this was an oversight and not a deliberate choice by the programmers.

This random event has one of the main characteristics of a bug: It behaves contrary to the expectations of the gamer who first encounters it.

 

[PieceOfMind]

In that case, the documentation of this event is terrible (which is sadly true for many events). It's not clear, not even logical that creating the mine through the event will leave the forest while building it manually will destroy the forest.

The fact that it is illogical that creating the mine through the event is different and a lot more profitable than creating the mine manually makes it appear pretty buggy to me. Especially since the cost of creating the mine on top of the forest is not very expensive and is a lot more powerful. It's an event with an illogical undocumented result of one of its choices and with and with a resulting imbalance between its choices. That's not necessarily the same as a bug (which is a subjective valuation), but it shows many of the characteristics of a bug.

... What he said...

Even though the event requires the forest or jungle, as Bhruic pointed out, I still don't agree that it is meant to allow the mine on top of the forest. If however, the event option had a simple "forest will remain" on the end of it it would be completely reasonable IMO.

I guess though that if we were to be pedantic about issues in the documentation like this there would almost definitely be hundreds of instances of similarly poor descriptions.

 

[Refar]

I think it sounds quite logical, that taking the best possible outcome of the event (and paying for it) gives you a advantage over taking a cheaper option and mining yourself (i which case you would lose the Forest.) A event does not have to be balanced (in the sense of "All options beeing equal").

Maybe the event text needs fixing, but the forest mine is ok by my book - makes the event more unique, giving you something you can't have normally.

 

[grumbler]

I'm with Refar on this. There are quite a few events that give you things you couldn't get otherwise, like extra food in a single tile or extra money from a certain building. This bending of the rules is part of their charm. The mine event seems no different to me. I agree that the description could use some work.

 

[Wodan]

That's really different. You can always place a camp on top of a forested resource, not only through a random event.

What I was talking about was the possibility (lack thereof) of getting a forest on top of a camp, not of placing a camp on top of a forest.

The dichotomy there is both annoying as well as akin to what you're talking about.

Anyway, IMO a description error is just as much of a bug as a programming error. Either way, the user has an expectation that isn't fulfilled.

If the programming is as intended by the designers, and we have no reason to second guess that intention (which is what everyone is saying), then absolutely the description qualifies as a "bug" which should be rectified.

Wodan

 

[lsgag]

Hello just a quick question.

If i "install" the patch can i still play my lan-game (pitboss) where the server doesnt run Bhruic patch?

 

[Bhruic]

If the programming is as intended by the designers, and we have no reason to second guess that intention (which is what everyone is saying), then absolutely the description qualifies as a "bug" which should be rectified.

I'm not sure I'd go with the word "bug" for something that is functioning as designed. The description certainly could be improved, however. But correcting all of the text in the game could be a lifetime commitment, so I'll leave that up to someone else to handle.

Bh

 

[Wodan]

The programming doesn't have a bug, the description has a bug.

Anyway if you didn't want to tackle it, that's your call of course. Beggars can't be choosers.

Wodan