Is there way to get this patch to be compatible http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=248049 with that mod is it possible to get the patch going during the middle of a game of that mod how can i make them compatible with each other.
Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch
- Thread starter Bhruic
- Start date
People keep saying that, and yet I keep losing my cannons to knights while my riflemen sit there and watch.
flanking is broken, plain and simple.
provide a save please
Roland Johansen
Deity
Now there is one element about flanking which I myself also think is broken, but it seems unrelated to the complaint of Duuk.
Flanking can damage an unlimited number of siege units. If you would attack a stack of 10000 catapults with 20 knights, then all of the catapults would die in one turn. 20 knight is probably even serious overkill. It's a bit like collateral damage without a limit to the amount of units you can hit and the amount of damage you can inflict. The limitations are that you have to win or retreat successfully with the flanking unit and that you can only damage certain siege units.
I think that flanking damage should damage a limited number of units.
Flanking can damage an unlimited number of siege units. If you would attack a stack of 10000 catapults with 20 knights, then all of the catapults would die in one turn. 20 knight is probably even serious overkill. It's a bit like collateral damage without a limit to the amount of units you can hit and the amount of damage you can inflict. The limitations are that you have to win or retreat successfully with the flanking unit and that you can only damage certain siege units.
I think that flanking damage should damage a limited number of units.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
me too.
certain siege units as in, when i upgrade my knights to croissants they somehow forget how they used to flank trebs now that they know how to flank cannons. now the old obsolete cats/trebs monty loves to keep around are better for him to use in some cases than cannons would be.
make me take available promos into account when i upgrade, like CR goes away when i upgrade to gunpowder, sure. but this flanking alzheimer's seems completely weird to me. i don't see why i need to make the choice of "keep them weaker with flank attack for the weak junk, or make them stronger but lose the chance to flank his older units if they're still around?"
Roland Johansen
Deity
me too.
certain siege units as in, when i upgrade my knights to croissants they somehow forget how they used to flank trebs now that they know how to flank cannons. now the old obsolete cats/trebs monty loves to keep around are better for him to use in some cases than cannons would be.
make me take available promos into account when i upgrade, like CR goes away when i upgrade to gunpowder, sure. but this flanking alzheimer's seems completely weird to me. i don't see why i need to make the choice of "keep them weaker with flank attack for the weak junk, or make them stronger but lose the chance to flank his older units if they're still around?"
That's another different issue. It's not that hard to change it yourself if you wish to. Just look at the xml entries of the knight which can damage both catapults and trebuchets and you'll know how to change it.
I agree that flanking units should be able to flank all siege units of their era and an earlier era, but it's a design decision and there are some who defend it with the argument that it gives a fighting chance to those who have fallen behing in the technology race.
I'm on your side however. If you've fallen behind in the tech-race, then you should suffer.
![[pissed]](/images/smilies/pissed.gif "Pissed [pissed]")
Hi
hehe I guess the Naval combat deadhorse still getting beat and since topic gotten resurected again I will chime in with my 2 cents
.
A) People following this thread might remeber I don't like the current naval combat model. But I do have to agree with the recent post about how this model is probably working exactly as game designers intended. And changing it would go to the level of modding rather than patching.
B) By the same token I am pretty sure stealth destoyers (and subs) are functioning exactly has the designers intended too with regards to how they defend or not defend when in a stack. So changing them would also be more modding than patching.
C)The above points said I DO think sometimes even if they are working exactly as intened by the designers sometimes things work better with some changes. A good example can be from the previous unoffical patch. I would say the HIGH coorporation costs and high late game inflation and high overseas maitenence were ALL working as intended. They were inteneded to slow down teching in modern era, discourage blind spamming of coorperation branches, and encourage people to prefer granting independence to overseas cities to form colonies. Even so they were still making the game unfun and some (not sure bout all) were tweaked a bit in the patch to make them less severe. And I think that decision was in the end vindicated when in the next "offical" patch those features were also toned down maybe not "exactly" the same way chosen in the unoffical patch but still toned down and for what I think is the same reasons they were addressed in the unofficial patch.
Ultimatley final decison goes with Bh since it's his patch. So he can decide to make those changes or not for whatever reasons but he has been nice enough to consider input from other players. And with THAT said here is my input on if there are changes to be made how I would do em if I knew beans bout making a patch hehe.
Stealth destroyers. I have made this sugestion before. Not just in this thread after Kmad mentioned it but in other threads dealing with this topic so dont worry Kmad its not your fault for opening up that can of worms hehe (oh btw while Im speaking to Kmad--LOOOVE the new hello kitty pirate avatar hehe makes me want 1 too ) the suggestion of allowing regular destoyers to still be available after stealth destroyers come available.
Now I know Bh has made very clear in all caps he doesnt like this solution since he wishes to ONLY address stealths not defending in a stack versus non stealth ships. And I am only bringing it up again not to be a troll but just to restate my point since the topic has come back up. I agree stealth's destoyers not defending is annoying and a problem. But in the end their not defending in a stack is ONLY a symptom of the overall problem and fixing this one sympton doesnt really "cure" the disease.
I agree the problem comes from player expectations. The player expects the stealth to defend and gets annoyed when those expectations arent met. Now when regular destroyers come along they perform certain functions during the game and thats all well and good. But the along come stealths and they are so VERY different in design from regular destoyers that they actually have VERY defferent functions BUT the player STILL expects them to be able to carry out their old functions just as well and they dont. Which may be all well and good except there is NO real modern alternative to take the place and perform those functions regular destroyers would do. Now the game designers attempt to fix this was to have regular destroyers upgrade to missle cruisers. I really think that is only half a fix kind of like only addressing the stack defense issue is half a fix. In fact they are both seperate ways of just dealing with that issue. Their way was to allow upgrading regular destoyers to a "modern" unit that defend stacks -- the missle cruiser. So player has a choice if they want that modern stack defender/escort function of the regular destoryer either upgrade/build missle cruisers for that function and when you want a sneaky scout or blockader then upgrade/build stealth destoyers but dont expect them to perform escort duties since thats what MC's are for.
I personally STILL think the better solution is instead of allowing upgrade to MC just keep regular destoyers available. It's simpler and I like simple solutions best if they can solve the problem. It's less confusing to a player since I think it's easier to say "ok if you want a ship to perfom regular destoyers functions build them but if you want to take adavntage of new stealth destoyers capabilities" It keeps mor ein line with player expectations if they want a ship for escort duites they build the one suited for that function and for functions which stealth ships are best for they build them and wont expect one to perform the other's function.
It's also simpler in that it seems less intrusive code change than totally changing when how and if stealth destroyers defend. I admit I could be wrong on this end like I said I dont know beans on the actual coding part and Bh could be using pentagrams and sacrificing chickens to make the changes for all I know hehe But also like I have said before stack defense is to me really only one symptom of a larger problem so even if either change would be as easy to code in one change only goes after a sympton and the other does a better job of fixing the whole problem I think anyways.
Now for the combat model and naval tranports. Like I said before I dont like this model. I fill it makes MUCH more sense for just the strongest units defends regardless of whether it is a loaded transport or MC or not. The ONLY time I think that should enter into it is if if two or more ships are EQUALLY strong enough to defend in every other aspect but one is unloaded and the others are loaded THEN the unloaded ship should go first.
And like I said I do believe this model IS working like designers intended except for ONE sticking point. The fact that a empty transport will defend ahead of a loaded missle cruiser. I think this glitch comes out of fact that naval battle model was designed before MC's were introduced and wasnt intended. No, I am not a mind reader it's JUST a guess but I would bet you a nickel if you asked game designers "hey do you think a empty transport should defend a stack ahead of a missle cruiser?" they would all say no.
So to me one solution would be to somehow get the game to put a MC in category of "empty" no matter what so any MC would ALWAYS defend ahead of any transport.
But I really think strongest defender defends no matter what makes the MOST sense. It avoids what i think is a very nonsensical situation of a ship with only 10% odds or less to win being chosen AHEAD of a ship with over 90% odds to win.
Yes I am aware of situations where others and even I would prefer the weaker ship to defend rather than risk losing the stronger ship. BUT while it WOULD be annoying to lose a valuable ship or cargo with a 90% chance to win it would at least make sense gamewise as to why it was picked to defend. It would be annoying and frustrating the way say having earthquake event destroy your forge 5 turns before you have Collosus done or when a macemen with 85% chance to kill an wounded city defender gets a bad roll and loses. Annoying yeah but just part of riskiness of the game-- sometimes plans get foiled. Game play wise it makes MUCH more sense that if you have cargo or ANY unit you really dont want getting into a fight then you make sure if it travels it travels with STRONGER defenders and you make sure you provide it with enough of those protecters to keep it out of the fight and if you miscalculate for whatever reason and it ends up defending anyways and you lose it well it's annoying yeah but part of the riskiness of the game that makes it fun.
Well anyways thats just my opinion
Kaytie
hehe I guess the Naval combat deadhorse still getting beat and since topic gotten resurected again I will chime in with my 2 cents
.A) People following this thread might remeber I don't like the current naval combat model. But I do have to agree with the recent post about how this model is probably working exactly as game designers intended. And changing it would go to the level of modding rather than patching.
B) By the same token I am pretty sure stealth destoyers (and subs) are functioning exactly has the designers intended too with regards to how they defend or not defend when in a stack. So changing them would also be more modding than patching.
C)The above points said I DO think sometimes even if they are working exactly as intened by the designers sometimes things work better with some changes. A good example can be from the previous unoffical patch. I would say the HIGH coorporation costs and high late game inflation and high overseas maitenence were ALL working as intended. They were inteneded to slow down teching in modern era, discourage blind spamming of coorperation branches, and encourage people to prefer granting independence to overseas cities to form colonies. Even so they were still making the game unfun and some (not sure bout all) were tweaked a bit in the patch to make them less severe. And I think that decision was in the end vindicated when in the next "offical" patch those features were also toned down maybe not "exactly" the same way chosen in the unoffical patch but still toned down and for what I think is the same reasons they were addressed in the unofficial patch.
Ultimatley final decison goes with Bh since it's his patch. So he can decide to make those changes or not for whatever reasons but he has been nice enough to consider input from other players. And with THAT said here is my input on if there are changes to be made how I would do em if I knew beans bout making a patch hehe.
Stealth destroyers. I have made this sugestion before. Not just in this thread after Kmad mentioned it but in other threads dealing with this topic so dont worry Kmad its not your fault for opening up that can of worms hehe
(oh btw while Im speaking to Kmad--LOOOVE the new hello kitty pirate avatar hehe makes me want 1 too ) the suggestion of allowing regular destoyers to still be available after stealth destroyers come available.Now I know Bh has made very clear in all caps he doesnt like this solution since he wishes to ONLY address stealths not defending in a stack versus non stealth ships. And I am only bringing it up again not to be a troll but just to restate my point since the topic has come back up. I agree stealth's destoyers not defending is annoying and a problem. But in the end their not defending in a stack is ONLY a symptom of the overall problem and fixing this one sympton doesnt really "cure" the disease.
I agree the problem comes from player expectations. The player expects the stealth to defend and gets annoyed when those expectations arent met. Now when regular destroyers come along they perform certain functions during the game and thats all well and good. But the along come stealths and they are so VERY different in design from regular destoyers that they actually have VERY defferent functions BUT the player STILL expects them to be able to carry out their old functions just as well and they dont. Which may be all well and good except there is NO real modern alternative to take the place and perform those functions regular destroyers would do. Now the game designers attempt to fix this was to have regular destroyers upgrade to missle cruisers. I really think that is only half a fix kind of like only addressing the stack defense issue is half a fix. In fact they are both seperate ways of just dealing with that issue. Their way was to allow upgrading regular destoyers to a "modern" unit that defend stacks -- the missle cruiser. So player has a choice if they want that modern stack defender/escort function of the regular destoryer either upgrade/build missle cruisers for that function and when you want a sneaky scout or blockader then upgrade/build stealth destoyers but dont expect them to perform escort duties since thats what MC's are for.
I personally STILL think the better solution is instead of allowing upgrade to MC just keep regular destoyers available. It's simpler and I like simple solutions best if they can solve the problem. It's less confusing to a player since I think it's easier to say "ok if you want a ship to perfom regular destoyers functions build them but if you want to take adavntage of new stealth destoyers capabilities" It keeps mor ein line with player expectations if they want a ship for escort duites they build the one suited for that function and for functions which stealth ships are best for they build them and wont expect one to perform the other's function.
It's also simpler in that it seems less intrusive code change than totally changing when how and if stealth destroyers defend. I admit I could be wrong on this end like I said I dont know beans on the actual coding part and Bh could be using pentagrams and sacrificing chickens to make the changes for all I know hehe
But also like I have said before stack defense is to me really only one symptom of a larger problem so even if either change would be as easy to code in one change only goes after a sympton and the other does a better job of fixing the whole problem I think anyways.Now for the combat model and naval tranports. Like I said before I dont like this model. I fill it makes MUCH more sense for just the strongest units defends regardless of whether it is a loaded transport or MC or not. The ONLY time I think that should enter into it is if if two or more ships are EQUALLY strong enough to defend in every other aspect but one is unloaded and the others are loaded THEN the unloaded ship should go first.
And like I said I do believe this model IS working like designers intended except for ONE sticking point. The fact that a empty transport will defend ahead of a loaded missle cruiser. I think this glitch comes out of fact that naval battle model was designed before MC's were introduced and wasnt intended. No, I am not a mind reader it's JUST a guess but I would bet you a nickel if you asked game designers "hey do you think a empty transport should defend a stack ahead of a missle cruiser?" they would all say no.
So to me one solution would be to somehow get the game to put a MC in category of "empty" no matter what so any MC would ALWAYS defend ahead of any transport.
But I really think strongest defender defends no matter what makes the MOST sense. It avoids what i think is a very nonsensical situation of a ship with only 10% odds or less to win being chosen AHEAD of a ship with over 90% odds to win.
Yes I am aware of situations where others and even I would prefer the weaker ship to defend rather than risk losing the stronger ship. BUT while it WOULD be annoying to lose a valuable ship or cargo with a 90% chance to win it would at least make sense gamewise as to why it was picked to defend. It would be annoying and frustrating the way say having earthquake event destroy your forge 5 turns before you have Collosus done or when a macemen with 85% chance to kill an wounded city defender gets a bad roll and loses. Annoying yeah but just part of riskiness of the game-- sometimes plans get foiled. Game play wise it makes MUCH more sense that if you have cargo or ANY unit you really dont want getting into a fight then you make sure if it travels it travels with STRONGER defenders and you make sure you provide it with enough of those protecters to keep it out of the fight and if you miscalculate for whatever reason and it ends up defending anyways and you lose it well it's annoying yeah but part of the riskiness of the game that makes it fun.
Well anyways thats just my opinion
Kaytie
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
I distinguish the SDD versus cargo carrier order of combat issue this way:
1.) SDDs replace an escort-class naval unit and yet are useless for escort duty. Therefore, the intention was either to create a unique vessel that could almost do everything a regular DD could with one glaring exception, or else the game developers who went to add the SDD unit just said to themselves: "hey, let's just use that invisibility code we scripted for the submarines" without really thinking it through -- that submarines did NOT step up to defend if they were "unseen" in a stack, meaning that they'd created an escort-class unit that wasn't actually an escort unit.
It is true that one of the patches changed things so that the regular DD now upgrades to either a Missile Cruiser or a SDD. I suppose this could mean that the developers were going for the whole paper/rock/scissors effect -- MCs were now meant to act as BB replacements, missile carriers, AND front-line escorts in the later game, while the SDDs were only available for the extra air defense (50% versus 30%) and to act as a sort of high-strength attack submarine. But this argument doesn't really hold that much water--I think the later patch was just an attempt to smooth over a rather iffy design decision in the first place. In reality, you now need two different types of vessels to escort transports in the "future" era -- the nigh-invulnerable SDDs for air defense and MCs to actually defend -- whereas in the modern era, for relatively light duty, you could get away with just having a few (cheaper) DDs do the job. So, contra everything that applies everywhere else in Civilization, by gaining the stealth technology, the player takes a step backwards in what his escort-class vessel can do. This fails the sense test and fails the fun test.
I am not comfortable that severing the upgrade link between DDs and SDDs in the XML is the best answer. I myself suggested it as a stopgap in case there were compelling reasons not to make the change. But the consensus appears to be: there aren't any. Further, by severing the link you create a situation where players can build more escort vessels. The entire thrust of Civ IV appears to be to keep the number of units available to an absolute minimum. The XML solution would create two units that almost do exactly what the other does with only a slight exception. (And, odds are, people would find very little reason to build the SDDs anyway.) Having a new unit available that is almost totally useless because an existing unit does 90% of its job (and is cheaper) also fails the sense/fun test. The XML edit is better than nothing...but I think the preferred solution would be an SDK fix that permits SDDs to defend in a stack normally while remaining invisible if they're moving around as lone wolves.
2.) The combat defense order for cargo carriers issue, on the other hand, looks like a relatively clear rule was created and applied consistently. It may occasionally provide some results that people don't like, and Firaxis clearly dropped the ball in terms of explaining the new players how this works, but, hey, once you know it, it's very understandable. Again, it would be neat to see a mod component done with some of the suggested figures made here, but it does not actually need to be fixed.
In sum, while the combat order issue is a case of an occasionally harsh rule applied consistently, Firaxis' implementation of SDDs--to quote the Chewbacca Defense--just doesn't make sense.
And if SDDs do not make sense, you must acquit.
1.) SDDs replace an escort-class naval unit and yet are useless for escort duty. Therefore, the intention was either to create a unique vessel that could almost do everything a regular DD could with one glaring exception, or else the game developers who went to add the SDD unit just said to themselves: "hey, let's just use that invisibility code we scripted for the submarines" without really thinking it through -- that submarines did NOT step up to defend if they were "unseen" in a stack, meaning that they'd created an escort-class unit that wasn't actually an escort unit.
It is true that one of the patches changed things so that the regular DD now upgrades to either a Missile Cruiser or a SDD. I suppose this could mean that the developers were going for the whole paper/rock/scissors effect -- MCs were now meant to act as BB replacements, missile carriers, AND front-line escorts in the later game, while the SDDs were only available for the extra air defense (50% versus 30%) and to act as a sort of high-strength attack submarine. But this argument doesn't really hold that much water--I think the later patch was just an attempt to smooth over a rather iffy design decision in the first place. In reality, you now need two different types of vessels to escort transports in the "future" era -- the nigh-invulnerable SDDs for air defense and MCs to actually defend -- whereas in the modern era, for relatively light duty, you could get away with just having a few (cheaper) DDs do the job. So, contra everything that applies everywhere else in Civilization, by gaining the stealth technology, the player takes a step backwards in what his escort-class vessel can do. This fails the sense test and fails the fun test.
I am not comfortable that severing the upgrade link between DDs and SDDs in the XML is the best answer. I myself suggested it as a stopgap in case there were compelling reasons not to make the change. But the consensus appears to be: there aren't any. Further, by severing the link you create a situation where players can build more escort vessels. The entire thrust of Civ IV appears to be to keep the number of units available to an absolute minimum. The XML solution would create two units that almost do exactly what the other does with only a slight exception. (And, odds are, people would find very little reason to build the SDDs anyway.) Having a new unit available that is almost totally useless because an existing unit does 90% of its job (and is cheaper) also fails the sense/fun test. The XML edit is better than nothing...but I think the preferred solution would be an SDK fix that permits SDDs to defend in a stack normally while remaining invisible if they're moving around as lone wolves.
2.) The combat defense order for cargo carriers issue, on the other hand, looks like a relatively clear rule was created and applied consistently. It may occasionally provide some results that people don't like, and Firaxis clearly dropped the ball in terms of explaining the new players how this works, but, hey, once you know it, it's very understandable. Again, it would be neat to see a mod component done with some of the suggested figures made here, but it does not actually need to be fixed.
In sum, while the combat order issue is a case of an occasionally harsh rule applied consistently, Firaxis' implementation of SDDs--to quote the Chewbacca Defense--just doesn't make sense.
And if SDDs do not make sense, you must acquit.
Wodan
Deity
FWIW, I don't buy "designer's intent" arguments. The designers could simply make a poor decision. To exclude fixing it is ludicrous. A much better benchmark is to decide what is best for the game.
In addition, ultimately, us trying to divine the "designer's intent" is just as difficult as us trying to decide what is best for the game. Either way, it requires a judgment call. The advantage of the latter approach is that some decisions that turned out to be poor ones or to have unintended side effects, such as allowing unlimited executives, can be fixed.
I also don't buy arguments that a patch is only for bug fixes. Every single patch from Firaxis has done gameplay changes in addition to bug fixes.
Regardless, I agree there still needs to be a line drawn in the sand. A change that is decided is good for the game, if it is minor in scope then it would be appropiate to include in the unofficial patch. If however it is a major change, then I think it would be more properly done in a mod. Again, a judgment call would be required.
Wodan
In addition, ultimately, us trying to divine the "designer's intent" is just as difficult as us trying to decide what is best for the game. Either way, it requires a judgment call. The advantage of the latter approach is that some decisions that turned out to be poor ones or to have unintended side effects, such as allowing unlimited executives, can be fixed.
I also don't buy arguments that a patch is only for bug fixes. Every single patch from Firaxis has done gameplay changes in addition to bug fixes.
Regardless, I agree there still needs to be a line drawn in the sand. A change that is decided is good for the game, if it is minor in scope then it would be appropiate to include in the unofficial patch. If however it is a major change, then I think it would be more properly done in a mod. Again, a judgment call would be required.
Wodan
Lars_Domus
Say No 2 Net Validations
I guess I'm a little late to the party here. I got so fed up with the whole 3.13 debacle, that I took a break from both the game and these forums for a while... Now that I've got the craving for some Civ again, I thought it'd be right and proper to show my appreciation for these fixes.
Thank you for your time and effort Bhruic!
Thank you for your time and effort Bhruic!
ChickenSalad
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 35
There's no need to fix any iffyness, just the most annoying ones. Like stealth not defending and there being no distinct vessel for convoy defense.
On the other hand, by nw I think the most logical, complication free, gameplay non-disruptive solution would indeed be ... a mod. A very simple, 1 unit mod that reintroduces the Aegis Cruiser, becoming available after the MC but before/same time as the SD (or on a different tech branch, e.g. with robotics as in CIII). Then make the destroyers upgrade to either AC or SD.
That way we'd have:
Transport - transportation
Aegis - convoy defense
MC - convoy offense
SD, Subs - stealth tasks
But yeah, now we're talking about actual modding.
On the other hand, by nw I think the most logical, complication free, gameplay non-disruptive solution would indeed be ... a mod. A very simple, 1 unit mod that reintroduces the Aegis Cruiser, becoming available after the MC but before/same time as the SD (or on a different tech branch, e.g. with robotics as in CIII). Then make the destroyers upgrade to either AC or SD.
That way we'd have:
Transport - transportation
Aegis - convoy defense
MC - convoy offense
SD, Subs - stealth tasks
But yeah, now we're talking about actual modding.
how do i do that?
I like croissants too, but they are a bit on the fattening side; too much butter!
Cuirassier
Some comments to spies.
Should giving away spies be forbidden?
This way you can hurt relations between the AIs on a different continent.
Causing a revolt + 0% defence overpowered?
From a sologame, a French city with 100% culture.
Each catapult took away only 2% of it, so you've to wait a lot of turns
to bring down the cultural defence and risk your army.
Be able to destroy more than 3 buildings?
I've never been able to destroy more than 3 buildings in a city.
This should be changed.
Should giving away spies be forbidden?
This way you can hurt relations between the AIs on a different continent.
Causing a revolt + 0% defence overpowered?
From a sologame, a French city with 100% culture.
Each catapult took away only 2% of it, so you've to wait a lot of turns
to bring down the cultural defence and risk your army.
Be able to destroy more than 3 buildings?
I've never been able to destroy more than 3 buildings in a city.
This should be changed.
.............Why are you asking this here? This isn't the place to ask for changesd for gameplay balance, just for bug fixes that Bhruic may be able to fix. These aren't bugs, just something you and Firaxis disagree on.
AI creating colony conflicts with outcome AP resolution.
See this thread :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6237224#post6237224
See this thread :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6237224#post6237224
Similar threads
