Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch
- Thread starter Bhruic
- Start date
TheWilltoAct
I am observe
I agree with the last few posters... it would be greatly appreciated if you could make a basic patch to fix the buggy 3.13 stuff, and then if there are additional changes you are wanting to make add those in a separate patch.
CivAgamemnon
King
I'll agree to the above. I'd love to see that.
Wodan
Deity
I think you guys are nitpicking the level of objectivity/subjectivity. With any bug, first there needs to be a definition of what the bug is. Along with the definition of the bug, the solution or intented gameplay needs to be defined.
If you are going to preclude gameplay changes, then that pretty much precludes all bug fixes.
So, the question then becomes, where is the line drawn? At what point is a specific fix too much of a change? The answer to this question is entirely subjective and will vary from person to person. Person A might say that a bug fix is too much of a change. Person B might say that to not do it is not fixing the bug... in a sense, not fixing the bug is itself a gameplay change (from what was intended).
Then we must ask "what was the designer's intent?" Or, "did the designer even have an intent, or was this situation unforseen?"
As I said, there is a level of subjective analysis here that can be nitpicked to death. There's really no systematic solution to resolve this. The answer might be different each time, depending on the circumstances of each bug.
If this specific change is "over the line" to YOU, that's fine. However, please realize that there will be people who think that not making the change is equally "over the line".
Ultimately, the programmer (Bhruic in this case) needs to make his best judgment, and that is that. Asking for multiple versions is going down a road we really don't want to go down. I mean, what happens the next time? Okay, now we have 4 permutations. Do we ask him to make 4 versions of the patch?
Wodan
If you are going to preclude gameplay changes, then that pretty much precludes all bug fixes.
So, the question then becomes, where is the line drawn? At what point is a specific fix too much of a change? The answer to this question is entirely subjective and will vary from person to person. Person A might say that a bug fix is too much of a change. Person B might say that to not do it is not fixing the bug... in a sense, not fixing the bug is itself a gameplay change (from what was intended).
Then we must ask "what was the designer's intent?" Or, "did the designer even have an intent, or was this situation unforseen?"
As I said, there is a level of subjective analysis here that can be nitpicked to death. There's really no systematic solution to resolve this. The answer might be different each time, depending on the circumstances of each bug.
If this specific change is "over the line" to YOU, that's fine. However, please realize that there will be people who think that not making the change is equally "over the line".
Ultimately, the programmer (Bhruic in this case) needs to make his best judgment, and that is that. Asking for multiple versions is going down a road we really don't want to go down. I mean, what happens the next time? Okay, now we have 4 permutations. Do we ask him to make 4 versions of the patch?
Wodan
the vassal system is definitely an area where you can start to nitpick and question what the developers intended.
personally I don't agree that a vassal of a master that you were at war with should still be at war with you after you defeat his master... if a master declares war on you, his vassal does so automatically. so your only obstacle should be to defeat the master and the vassal should follow. you should not have to deal with the vassal now that you beat his master... think of the times when you were forced into the war and have war weariness.
but that said I agree he should probably just stick to one patch and do what he wants, I'll take it either way!
personally I don't agree that a vassal of a master that you were at war with should still be at war with you after you defeat his master... if a master declares war on you, his vassal does so automatically. so your only obstacle should be to defeat the master and the vassal should follow. you should not have to deal with the vassal now that you beat his master... think of the times when you were forced into the war and have war weariness.
but that said I agree he should probably just stick to one patch and do what he wants, I'll take it either way!
eric_
Emperor
I totally agree that 1 patch is better than multiple patches.
That said, I don't agree that a vassal should continue to fight in a war it only joined because its ex-master forced it to. Perhaps vassalage should be broken prior to the signing of the peace treaty, but maybe that should initiate diplomacy with the ex-vassal, rather than automatically default to continuing war or forcing you into a peace treaty with them (because that's a little too far in the other direction)? Then you can make demands of the vassal as you see fit, and, if they don't give you what you want, you can declare on them. Actually, it doesn't even need to initiate diplomacy; imo it should just set your relations with your new vassal's ex-vassal to neutral (modified by any diplomacy bonuses or demerits you have with them outside of the war).
That said, I don't agree that a vassal should continue to fight in a war it only joined because its ex-master forced it to. Perhaps vassalage should be broken prior to the signing of the peace treaty, but maybe that should initiate diplomacy with the ex-vassal, rather than automatically default to continuing war or forcing you into a peace treaty with them (because that's a little too far in the other direction)? Then you can make demands of the vassal as you see fit, and, if they don't give you what you want, you can declare on them. Actually, it doesn't even need to initiate diplomacy; imo it should just set your relations with your new vassal's ex-vassal to neutral (modified by any diplomacy bonuses or demerits you have with them outside of the war).
LiberiGlacialis
To the stars!
*agrees with Wodan*
Err...silly noticing: I backed up my .dll, then replaced it with this new one, but there's still no Glance Screen. I think I saw something about a Glance Screen on the first post of this topic. Any reason why?
(and...which file would I find the code for the Glance Screen, just in case?)
Err...silly noticing: I backed up my .dll, then replaced it with this new one, but there's still no Glance Screen. I think I saw something about a Glance Screen on the first post of this topic. Any reason why?
(and...which file would I find the code for the Glance Screen, just in case?)
CivAgamemnon
King
Look at the first post again, the bottom section. There's another patch. 
TheWilltoAct
I am observe
well some changes don't need debating, like showing the culture and espionage bonuses for buildings. Also, it does not seem right that the AI should be eagerly trading for resources it already possesses pre-corp?
I don't agree with this. The vassal becomes one for protection or by capitulation, and not to be manipulated into war with third parties. If it breaks away while the master is at war, the vassal should get peace because it was not the one who declared war on you... vassals don't even have the power to declare war so they should not be forced to keep fighting ones as a free state that they didn't willingly enter earlier as a vassal.
this is what i meant to say above
LiberiGlacialis
To the stars!
It's a little confusing. My head says 1.02 is first, and there for has less changes. But the post/thread count for the download is higher then 1.07, which means it is second, and there for has more changes.Look at the first post again, the bottom section. There's another patch.
eric_
Emperor
Oh, quick question (probably obvious): in light of the updates, which were announced at 3:15 this morning, do I need to re-install the unofficial patch, which I installed last night?
[edit:] nevermind, I see that the version number has changed from 1.05 to 1.07...I'll re-patch tonight.
[edit:] nevermind, I see that the version number has changed from 1.05 to 1.07...I'll re-patch tonight.
CivAgamemnon
King
It's a little confusing. My head says 1.02 is first, and there for has less changes. But the post/thread count for the download is higher then 1.07, which means it is second, and there for has more changes.
1.07 is the bugfix. The glance screen is not part of the bugfix, since it has nothing to do with the .dll, but the python part of the programming. It's 2 separate things.
The 1.02 is what fixes the glance screen
LiberiGlacialis
To the stars!
Alright, now I get it.
(but the link is broken. DX )
(but the link is broken. DX )
eric_
Emperor
Exactly, although I don't think a full-on peace treaty is appropriate. If they fought aggressively on behalf of their master, you should be able to continue warring with them immediately, imo. So, defaulting to neutral or a ceasefire seems more appropriate to me.
CivAgamemnon
King
Eric, it would probably be best unless you kept the .zip file you got the .dll from. If the .zip matches the version number, then you're fine. Otherwise, go ahead and overwrite.
Melhisedek
Prince
Anyone knows if this patch is compatible with BUG mod?
Roland Johansen
Deity
I also agree with Wodan. Even if I might not agree with some future bug fixes, it's better to create one version. If there are enough people who want to see something fixed in a different way, then maybe one of them knows enough about programming to make a different version of this unofficial patch. We can't expect you to create a patch that will perfectly satisfy everyone.
About the vassal-war thingy:
I think it is better to keep the war going. At any time after the defeat of the master, the former vassal could sign a peace treaty with the conqueror if both the former vassal and the conqueror agree. It would be weird if a peace treaty were automatically signed while one of the warring parties doesn't want to stop fighting. It would also result in a second war declaration with a new set of diplomatic modifiers with anyone who likes the former vassal which is also weird as it is essentially the same war.
About the vassal-war thingy:
I think it is better to keep the war going. At any time after the defeat of the master, the former vassal could sign a peace treaty with the conqueror if both the former vassal and the conqueror agree. It would be weird if a peace treaty were automatically signed while one of the warring parties doesn't want to stop fighting. It would also result in a second war declaration with a new set of diplomatic modifiers with anyone who likes the former vassal which is also weird as it is essentially the same war.
eric_
Emperor
Thanks CivAgamemnon! I actually just edited because I realized that it was 1.05 last night, whereas it's 1.07 today...so, I'll overwrite.
CivAgamemnon
King
XD
>.<
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=7301
Try THAT.
*wonders what the heck is wrong with CFC today...*
