Unofficial Patch requests

[Genghis_Kai]

This is the thread to make your requests (or begs) to the unofficial Patch of BTS patch 3.1.7.


Solver, would you please consider making another version for 40civs?

 

[DanF5771]

V019: There is an error in the calculation of collateral damage done to units with Drill2-4 promotions, this is partially my fault.

I suggested that getCollateralDamageProtection() should be applied as a scaling factor and the consensus was that this makes sense. However, my proposed code renders units with promotions >Drill2 immune to collateral damage due to my improvable knowledge of C++ rules:

currently:
iModifier *= (100 - pBestUnit->getCollateralDamageProtection()) / 100;
effectively results in iModifier = 0;

Should be 2 seperate steps:
iModifier *= (100 - pBestUnit->getCollateralDamageProtection());
iModifier /= 100;

Of course the same modification needs to be done to the code for bunker protection.

Furthermore I'm still a bit unhappy about the remaining lack of transparency when comparing numbers for a unit's native collateral damage vs its Barrage promotions.

Example: Provided Barrage is allowed for Tanks, the current implementation leads to huge differences between an ordinary BarrageI Tank (20% ExtraCollDmg) and a modded Tank that starts with a little native CollDmg of 20%. Common sense would assume that they inflict the same amount of collateral damage to defenders.
However, the ordinary BI Tank will take 3 HPs away from a Longbow whereas the modded Tank will lower his health by 9 HPs! Its all in the nonlinear formula.

This problem can be overcome by applying all modifications after the core formula as I explained here.

Why not do it like this?

 

[DanF5771]

I agree that Workers should not be automated when it comes to putting improvements like farms, cottages, workshops, ... on your tiles.
But how do you guys build/improve your trade network, especially after Railroads? By MM-ing single Workers manually???

IMHO this is where automated workers do a respectable job (connecting cities first, focusing on mines/quarries). If only they wouldn't screw up my National Park!

I absolutely understand that improving Worker intelligence can not be the goal here, but what about my suggested minute tweak to how feature growth works with preserves?

 

[MusX]

Solver, would you please consider making another version for 40civs?

I would like to double this request

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

Just wondering if maybe whole point of making sub forum was so each seprate issue/request could have their own thread and not have everything all bogged down in one single thread where they could get buried.

Kaytie

 

[Woody1]

Yes Kat, you're right. There's little point of creating another massive thread where all the ideas get mixed up and missed. Each idea should have its own thread. If it's a good idea, the thread will be active. If not, the thread will die an appropriate death.

 

[Solver]

I'll also start a couple of threads later about specific issues where I'm thinking about and need feedback on.

 

[GeoModder]

A request more on the graphic side: is it possible to adjust the game so as to let units switch graphics on the start of each new era as city graphics do now?

 

[Solver]

I am completely unfamiliar with the graphics code and that side of the game, but isn't it already possible? Workers and Great People change their graphics depending on the era.

 

[Elkad]

Can you look at the weighting when auto-assigning specialists? It seems a spy gets picked 90% of the time.

 

[GeoModder]

I am completely unfamiliar with the graphics code and that side of the game, but isn't it already possible? Workers and Great People change their graphics depending on the era.

They can change outlook in 3 steps, with a early, late and middle xml tag. What I like is that for EVERY era this would be possible.

 

[Solver]

If that's the case, it would require a bunch of XML structure changes and the way ArtDefines are handled. While probably I could implement it, I'm afraid it might break too much compatibility, at least that's my feeling.

 

[MatzeHH]

If that's the case, it would require a bunch of XML structure changes and the way ArtDefines are handled. While probably I could implement it, I'm afraid it might break too much compatibility, at least that's my feeling.

I agree. This ist not a request for this patch but for a mod.

Matze

 

[GeoModder]

I see. Well, best of luck with bug fixing then.

 

[MusX]

0.19 with max 40 players anyone?

 

[Woody1]

I like crowded maps, too. But 40 civs?!?? Wouldn't that just cause the same names to be used over again? I can see it maybe for mods, but then the modder should just take Solver's code and compile it for his own mod. I don't see this as something Solver should do, as it's outside the normal game.

 

[MusX]

I like crowded maps, too. But 40 civs?!?? Wouldn't that just cause the same names to be used over again? I can see it maybe for mods, but then the modder should just take Solver's code and compile it for his own mod. I don't see this as something Solver should do, as it's outside the normal game.

I mean max 40 civ, I don't want to play with all those 40 but 20-30 for huge map seems to be enough for me

 

[Solver]

It's not just something for regular gameplay, it's also (mainly, actually) for mod compatibility. There are many custom map that require 30-40 players.

 

[Caboose]

Any way to make the AI actually launch naval invasions? My opponent has been more powerful than me for a long time, and he has a lot of land troops, but he's not sending them over the pond. Yes, I call it a pond because it's not even separated by ocean. (we're at war, by the way) Am I right if I think this is a consistent problem?

 

[r_rolo1]

Solver, can you give a look at the UN AI vote code? This is more a BtS problem than a 3.17 one, but the AI tends to at the same votes for a long time, even if passed ( most of the times by the same AI ) or sucessfully defied for a long time.....