V1.09 - Peace treat doesn't count down; in fact: peace is not logged

[Mercade]

The history: I'm playing the Americans as Roosevelt, and I've been at War with Louix XIV of the French. (Save file 1670)

In 1620 I took Lyons, leaving them one city.
In 1645 I made peace (I think it was 1645)
In 1670 I am thinking about war again, but it says that I cannot declare war yet as there is a peace treaty with a mandatory 10 turn duration.

I wonder how long I have to go till the 10 turns of mandatory peace are up. However, the trade screen says "Peace (10 turns)" and doesn't do a count-down like it used in Civ3. (see screenshot included hereunder)

Then I check the event log (CTRL-TAB) and notice that my peace isn't logged at all. Hereunder I have included the complete log since 1620, when I was surely at war still since I took a French city. In 1655 the peace between Isabella and Huayna Capac is logged. (see screenshot of event log included hereunder; yes, I glued two parts together)

Somehow it seems like it only generates one log entry from any combined action. I remember that I forced him to swallow two civics with the peace, and it only logged one civic and no peace.

 

[mrgenie]

looks like a good reason to send some mail to firaxis

 

[Civivist]

Why don't you wait 'till the 10 turns are over? Apparently in this age 1 turn = 5 years so you should be able to declare war again in 1695.

I too noticed that the 10 turns don't count down, but you'll get a notification after 10 turns anyway.

 

[Mercade]

Why don't you wait 'till the 10 turns are over? Apparently in this age 1 turn = 5 years so you should be able to declare war again in 1695.

I too noticed that the 10 turns don't count down, but you'll get a notification after 10 turns anyway.

Sure, you can wait, but that doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that there is insufficient information while it can/should be available. The game log has no record of the peace. Makes you wonder what other news is not in the log either. A log has to be correct with all the actions or else it is unreliable and thus useless.

Also, if the game has information, it should present it to the user in a usable fashion. A message "you have a 10 year peace treaty" is useless if you don't know when it started, when it ends, or how many years are left. The user shouldn't need to keep a paper journal if he has a computer that already has all the relevant info.

 

[Civivist]

Sure, you can wait, but that doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that there is insufficient information while it can/should be available. The game log has no record of the peace. Makes you wonder what other news is not in the log either. A log has to be correct with all the actions.

Also, if the game has information, it should present it to the user in a usable fashion. A message "you have a 10 year peace treaty" is useless if you don't know when it started, when it ends, or how many years are left. The user shouldn't need to keep a paper journal if he has a computer that already has all the relevant info.

Of course, I agree. But in your original message you seemed to be surprised that you weren't able to declare war again in 1670. If that wasn't your point then I misunderstood you.

 

[mrgenie]

Sure, you can wait, but that doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that there is insufficient information while it can/should be available. The game log has no record of the peace. Makes you wonder what other news is not in the log either. A log has to be correct with all the actions or else it is unreliable and thus useless.

Also, if the game has information, it should present it to the user in a usable fashion. A message "you have a 10 year peace treaty" is useless if you don't know when it started, when it ends, or how many years are left. The user shouldn't need to keep a paper journal if he has a computer that already has all the relevant info.

ehm, isn't it the idea that the computer must have advantages or else he cannot win? even a 3times bigger computer then you plays actually not very wisely..build up an army of 50tanks 100fighters and 50bombers and even the most biggest AI wont win of you, why? because he comes then with 5units, then with 12, then with 4...and so it goes on..the computer doesn't build up a huge Attack force of 300units(which he could build if he wanted) and strike with that massive force at once! human way of warfare in civ4 and older civs too, is nothing more then blitzkrieg, gather all your army, strike them on a single point and force a breakthrough through the defenses of your enemie on a single point, then you'll have only several smaller armies around the map which you can take out one by one..the computer doesn't understand the effect of blitzkrieg..if you move in with 100units against a computer of 300units, and strike against 50units in his center, next turn move south, maybe he even gets 2 cities of you, no big deal, move army south and attack other 50units of him whcih are there, move shortly back in your borders to heal 1 or 2 turns, move back on his next troops which are in your empire and destroy those, heal one more round and force a similar breakthrough again..in 6 or 7 turns you kill maybe up to 150 or 200 of his force while it cost you something like 30 or 40units max!! ehm, use bombers wisely!!! else it won't work of course that's blitz, and the computer who could do that better, just doesn't understand it..he doesn't focuss his troops in 1 single big army to force a major battle which will lead to the ultimate destruction of the defenses of the defending army..and therefore the computer must have other advanses in this game over human player, else he'll be a total weaky btw, difficulty levels are nothing more then computer cheating anyway prince is the only setting where human and computer face similar difficulties, if you go higher(which is wisely if you want interesting games) the only thing that happens is that the computer gets bigger production more money less upkeep etc etc

 

[Civivist]

ehm, isn't it the idea that the computer must have advantages or else he cannot win?
...
...
btw, difficulty levels are nothing more then computer cheating anyway prince is the only setting where human and computer face similar difficulties, if you go higher(which is wisely if you want interesting games) the only thing that happens is that the computer gets bigger production more money less upkeep etc etc

Eh, could it be that you posted this in the wrong thread?

 

[Mercade]

Of course, I agree. But in your original message you seemed to be surprised that you weren't able to declare war again in 1670. If that wasn't your point then I misunderstood you.

Ah, no. Sorry that wasn't clear enough. Perhaps I didn't realise it at first, but the fact that the 10 year peace treaty is fixed and unbreakable is quite acceptable to me.

The point of my bug report is that I cannot find out when the peace started or when it will be over because (1) the log doesn't list the peace, (2) the 10 years don't count down and (3) the treaty doesn't list when it started or expires.

ehm, isn't it the idea that the computer must have advantages or else he cannot win?

I'll just be nice and assume that statement isn't a troll.

Having advantages in terms of game mechanics is one thing, and quite acceptable. That's fine. Forcing people to keep a paper journal because the in-game records aren't complete is on the same level as requiring players to do a lot of unnecessary micromanaging that was removed from for a good reason: the game is about gameplay fun, taking tedious tasks away from the user. If the log isn't complete, that is a bug, not an AI advantage.

 

[mrgenie]

Having advantages in terms of game mechanics is one thing, and quite acceptable. That's fine. Forcing people to keep a paper journal because the in-game records aren't complete is on the same level as requiring players to do a lot of unnecessary micromanaging that was removed from for a good reason: the game is about gameplay fun, taking tedious tasks away from the user. If the log isn't complete, that is a bug, not an AI advantage.

hmmm, i meant it generally and not only related to this subject only, but yah, you're right about the paper writing, it shouldn't be nessecary although i wonder how you can forget the year you got a peace treaty, everything in civ is made so:"6y.o. minimum age" that noone should really have a problem with keeping just a date in their mind should they?

and I don't think it is a bug really, btw, about the micro management, now you got to that point, no, they didnt improve much of it really! in civ3 i could make settings for the governor how he should build my cities, how can I make such settings in civ4? ie, i want him never to build settlers, in civ3 I could do that...you call that micro management? i call it, leaving the automation tasks of city governing to the user and I like this part of civ3 alot..now in civ4 I get very annoyed that even in late ages I get a question about building settlers for each city every 2nd time the city completes something..but maybe you can tell me how to switch off this?

If the log isn't complete, that is a bug, not an AI advantage. maybe it is a bug, but its still a AI advantage knowledge is always an advantage some is not valuable, some is, but everything you know what the other doesnt know can help you but I don't wanna fight about it, if you think that knowing things which the other doesnt know doesnt give you any benefit, even not in the political scene, that's fine. I would still use the fact that I know and the other doesnt to wedge wars against one of his friend ie, while knowing he cannot attack me for 9turns, and he thinks he can help his friend already, to make an example about how to use knowledge but yes, civ4 is not that strategical anyway.