 |
|
Lui2
|
 |
Saarbruecken
May 2004
time: 06:36
|
|
Thanks for compiling a new playtest version.
quote:
Originally posted by J Bytheway
It's been nearly a month, so I guess it's time for a new version. Lots of little changes this time.
...
Fixed: Incorrect display in keymapping dialog
Added: New commands in keymapping dialog
...
|
But for this change you didn't include the needed
ctp2_data/xxxxxx/uidata/layouts/km_screen.ldl files.
So this will not work correctly.
Also there is an other problem with this change, that i described in this thread.
So take care when playing saved games with this updated version.
Last edited by Lui2 on 16-06-2004 at 02:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
J Bytheway
|
 |
England
Jul 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
That's not the only thing I missed - I forgot about all the updates needed to the ctp2_data directory. I'd best fix that...
Edit: crosspost, I see you noticed another symptom of the same problem.
Last edited by J Bytheway on 16-06-2004 at 02:38
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BureauBert
|
 |
Vienna, Europe
Apr 2003
time: 06:36
|
|
The good news is: GrantAdvance() no longer crashes the game. The bad news: It still doesn't work.  But as I now got an error message concerning argument type mismatch I could track the problem down to a database access problem. I tried to put the advance into a global variable and tested it using a message box - voilà:
This line should make SLIC happy:
code:
GrantAdvance(iwwPlayer, VIS_VisiStuffAdvance);
... if this assignment worked:
code:
int_t VIS_VisiStuffAdvance
HandleEvent(BeginTurn) 'SetupEveryTurnPre' pre {
VIS_VisiStuffAdvance = AdvanceDB(ADVANCE_SUBNEURAL_ADS);
Message(1, 'GeneralGamestatsMsg');
}
messagebox 'GeneralGamestatsMsg' {
Text(ID_GENERAL_GAME);
}
The proof of the assignment is the messagebox:
code:
GENERAL_GAME "Visi: {VIS_VisiStuffAdvance}"
The message box always displays "Visi: 0" (just to make it clear: ADVANCE_SUBNEURAL_ADS is at the bottom of my Advance.txt, hence certainly not no. 0), so GrantAdvance() would always just grant advanced composites according to my Advance.txt.
There seems to be another DB-access-issue with Buildings.txt:
code:
Event:CreateBuilding(popCity, BuildingDB(IMPROVE_GERM_THEORY));
gives the SLIC error message:
type mismatch for argument 2, expected int_t
I didn't test this one with a message box yet but I would guess it's similar to the above one.
I haven't yet tested HasAdvance() intensively but I wouldn't be surprised if this function wouldn't work, too (and probably due to the same lack of database access), because I already had the feeling in earlier testing that all of my diplomacy and strategy related functions lost all impact on the AI's behavior. It hits me now that many of them are using "if(HasAdvance())"-statements and I am also missing a messagebox that should appear under certain circumstances, among those a neighboring civ having a certain advance  . But this is just a feeling and probably related to something completely different. Anyway - it might be useful to take a look into HasAdvance(), too.
I am also sure that HasGood() doesn't work - as far as I remember it never did, just wanted to mention my observation: I am telling SLIC not to put my "visible capitol" on a tile if it HasGood(someLoc) - actually SLIC doesn't care at all and still likes to build capitols on cotton fields 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
I've started a new game with the latest playtest build. Everything is going smooth so far, except that I am playing with 12 other civs, and one of them is Portugese - but I have already selected Portugese for myself. It doesn't crash or anything, plays fine with two Portugese civs, but I think that a check should be added on such a circumstance.
Another thing that bugs me, though, is AI attack priority. Playing with mods, I am facing a competent AI, but it seems to always ignore ceasefires. I sign one, it will attack the next turn, if it wants to. I did the following a few times: before an AI attack save. After they attack, reload and get the AI to sign a ceasefire. End turn. Every time, the attack still commenced. Therefore, it seems to me that if the AI has assigned a target for its attack, then it does not re-evaluate the target based on presence of a ceasefire/peace treaty.
Sure, it helps create a more competetive AI, but I somehow don't like the fact that once a war starts, it stays that way. Heck, even the civs I bring down to 1-3 cities and sign peace with, attack me shortly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
Bert, how safe do you imagine is that Frenzy code? That is, does it provide a real improvement to AI (as intended and, to a degree, it worked), but without the problem of never going to peace once it attacks?
Another thing I'm pondering is city attack focus, sometimes maybe the AI hesitates a bit in attacking cities... but that's unimportant right now.
The advance problem, then, is unrelated to the SLIC engine, but rather to the database engine, I gather. Anyone has messed enough with that to provide valuable input?
OK, really going to watch football now  .
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2004 19:18
Where does the time go?!
.
you would have thought they would have called a function that returned the database index of the good WhatGood or WhichGood. One would logically assume HasGood would return True/False 0/1. 
.
|