 |
| |
|
|
Cesa
|
 |
Kumla, Sweden
Nov 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Feephi
Firaxis, we all appreciate the work you've done on the new patch.
I personally have no interest in scenario building, multiplayer, or editor functions. I just want to play a balanced game. Along those lines, I was disappointed that AI tech trading during the player turn was not addressed in this patch.
Would you comment on the AI tech-trading during the player turn that appeared after the 1.16f patch? Is this a bug or not? Since this was not documented in the release notes of that patch, many people assume it is a bug.
Some people thought AI tech trading out-of-turn might have been added to counter the so-called "exploit" that allowed a player to sell the same tech to every civilization on his turn. Many people, however, did not feel that being able to do this was an exploit since the AI can do the same thing on it's turn. At the very least, if you leave it this way allow the player to initiate diplomacy during the AI's turn to balance things out.
Thanks again for the patch! |
I've been asking about this in a couple of threads already, but haven't gotten any answer yet. They don't need to tell whether they are working on it or not, I just wish they could tell if it's a bug or a feature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999
time: 02:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Leonidas
The Stack Command is really just a pseudo "stack command".
Let me explain:
The patch readme states that only units of the SAME TYPE within the stack will move to the designated location. So if you are being sensible and have a variety of DIFFERENT units, you will have to give them ALL individual unit commands. So much for stacked movement. . .
If you want to implement the so-called "stack movement", you'll have to make sure that all your stacks contain the EXACT SAME UNIT. So much for combined arms. . .  |
Well... reading the readme closely, I think that you only have stacked movement with units of the same type -- horseman, cavalry, archers, transports, workers etc. -- which is not what Ralf was envisioning. The readme says: "Air units of the same type will try to rebase"... which means that the units will not be considered as pertaining to larger groups (air, sea and land units).
On the other hand, I think that TechWins has a good point about this, so we'll have to see how it plays out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kiltdown
|
|
Boston
Jan 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
I'm hoping stacked movement distinguishes between fortified and unfortified units, ie, fortified units should not be moved.
I think they got stack movement right. One of the problems in moving a mixed stack is the difference in movement rates, and the resulting turn count to get to deestination. If you asked to move a mixed stack a distance that required, say, three turns, then at the second turn, the horsies would have to "know" that they couldnt move their full distance. The current implementation (17f) can be accomplished just by iterating a common order across a common unit, requiring only a small change to what happens when the command is actually issued. Linked movement would require that the units know they are linked together - much much much more difficult.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cesa
I've been asking about this in a couple of threads already, but haven't gotten any answer yet. They don't need to tell whether they are working on it or not, I just wish they could tell if it's a bug or a feature. |
It's a feature. I'm pretty sure it's been removed based on feedback but I don't know if it's been removed for this patch or not (I didn't work on this feature which is why my details are a bit vague).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
Hmm, so despot rush has been cut down in power? Thank god, that will make things a little more interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pauli
|
|
herndon, va, usa
Jan 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
not quite ... my formula provides a reasonable shot at a maximum value for the minimum distance between civs that always ensures the users set sane combinations, and is flexible enough to allow rather large distances on large maps. It is a reasonably accurate formula that gives the maximum possible minimum distance between any two civs on a map, given the map dimensions and number of civs. It is intended to replace the hardcoded maximum of 32, not the individual values (which are usually less).
Suppose we were creating an "itty bitty" map size, 40 x 40, 4 civs. A limit with the constant value of 32 is too large here, and is likely to cause problems if CIV3 doesn't perform good sanity tests. My formula would enforce a maximum distance of 20 in the editor, but the mod maker would probably choose a closer distance.
Or suppose we're creating a "gigantic" map size, 256 x 256, 16 civs. My formula would impose a maximum distance of 64 here, but again, the mod maker will probably choose a lesser value. |
no, see, by max distance i'm refering to the hardcoded max. no matter what, with the current version, you cannot set it up to space starting points more than 32 squares away from each other. that 64 square spacing you specify for 256x256 is great... but it's completely impossible at the moment.
presumably, the max will be raised to 128 (which, i think, would give you the ability to start one civ on each side of the planet)... then your formula could be used to determine the actual spacing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Salvor
|
 |
Chicago
Feb 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn05
err wrong. I just have to goto word or any other application to prove this. I just open the open/save dialog box and the system pauses to turn the 2nd HD on and read it. Any program that uses a tree file structure (windows explorer for example, or the browse option in PSP6). |
This is pretty OT and probably ought to be in tech support, but to put your mind at ease, I can assure you that what I said is correct. The applications you mention, like MS Word or Windows Explorer, actually look at the contents of the drives, minimally to get their labels, size of free space, etc. This is not necessary if all you want to know is what kind of drive it is. For example, on my machine, I have a DVD drive and a CD-RW drive. None of my games look at my floppy drive when searching for my game CD. As another example, try opening up your system folder in your control box. In your hardware manager, you'll see all the devices hooked up to your computer. But it doesn't have to actually query each device to know what it is and where it is connected.
I also concur with the previous poster who suggested a better solution for you would have been to simply reassign the drive letters.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Morbid
But I have to correct you on the AI Tech trading bug. |
By saying it was a feature, I meant that it was purposely added to the game. Soren referred to it as a bug because most (if not all) people did not like it. However, it was a consciously implemented feature.
Note that I'm referring to the same thing Soren is referred to here:
quote:
The bug I was referring to was a change which allowed the AI to trade with each other during the human's turn, which could lead to aggravation... however, the trades which do happen are still "fair." (whether any trading between the AI can ever be truly fair or unfair is another matter altogether...) |
If you were referring to something else, then I don't know about it. Although, I did see that Soren started another thread about tech trading.
Last edited by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS on 15-02-2002 at 02:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shuttleswo
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold
An army attacks together as well as moving together. When it fights each unit - even infantry - will retreat automatically if it gets to 1hp as long as there is another unit in the army that is in better shape to step up and fight. |
True, but on attack with mobile units you had this functionality anyway. The ability to retreat within an army has up to this point been strongest on city defense, in my limited experience with armies the AI NEVER attacks an army (with good units) fortified in a strong position (mountain, city etc.) This has been an armies best use; although I personally didn't find it more useful than rushing wonders.
One thing this patch WILL make me do is possibly re-evaluate the value of armies on attack. Now that independant mobile units can die in an attack the 100% probabilty of a units retreat within an army now becomes an ability unique to armies and thus could make them more valuable.
I do hope that entire armies comprised only of mobile units can also retreat, i haven't used armies enough to know if they did or not before the new patch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Friday
|
|
Still nothing on fixing diplomacy- ie stopping trade embargo's, breaking mutual protection pacts when you want to without having to go to war with your former ally and the such.
Also in large empires in the end game, pollution gets out of hand, and communisum goes bankrupt, while democracy has 99% corruption in far off cities.
Finally, where are the wonder videos and added forms of government. Will there be a reasonably priced expansion?
Great game otherwise....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Morbid
|
|
Denmark
Feb 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
Wow, that was really quick! Thanx Mike.
I think that you misunderstood me, and went one post too far down the list. I quoted an earlier post in that thread on the same page, regarding the fact that the AI is allowed to trade stuff in your turn. Thus you can experience that even though you are the first to invent gunpowder, the second you trade it away 2 other civs, plus the civ you traded with, also have gunpowder, regardless of the fact that you only gave it to 1 civ.
The civs can diplo-trade with each other (techs, maps -whatever), before you "hit end". That is what is confirmed as a bug by Soren in my quote.
The quote that you refer to is a refutation of an interpretation of that bug; that all the AI civs have a shared pool of techs, maps, contacts and whatever. The refutation is correct, the trades ARE fair between seperate pools of knowledge, and thus your quote is not wrong.
It is just from the wrong post (by Soren Johnson Firaxis, 11-12-2001 20:00), regarding the false interpretation of the bug. The "correct" one is posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis, 11-12-2001 18:41, and is concerning that the AI trades in THE PLAYERS turn, albeit fairly.
Nevertheless, I will follow your advice and check the new thread by Soren. Hopefully, it will make me a happy camper again  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Unregistered
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Morbid
Wow, that was really quick! Thanx Mike.
I think that you misunderstood me, and went one post too far down the list. I quoted an earlier post in that thread on the same page, regarding the fact that the AI is allowed to trade stuff in your turn. Thus you can experience that even though you are the first to invent gunpowder, the second you trade it away 2 other civs, plus the civ you traded with, also have gunpowder, regardless of the fact that you only gave it to 1 civ.
The civs can diplo-trade with each other (techs, maps -whatever), before you "hit end". That is what is confirmed as a bug by Soren in my quote.
The quote that you refer to is a refutation of an interpretation of that bug; that all the AI civs have a shared pool of techs, maps, contacts and whatever. The refutation is correct, the trades ARE fair between seperate pools of knowledge, and thus your quote is not wrong.
It is just from the wrong post (by Soren Johnson Firaxis, 11-12-2001 20:00), regarding the false interpretation of the bug. The "correct" one is posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis, 11-12-2001 18:41, and is concerning that the AI trades in THE PLAYERS turn, albeit fairly.
Nevertheless, I will follow your advice and check the new thread by Soren. Hopefully, it will make me a happy camper again . |
Mike, he's exactly right. For instance, my source of uranium is exhausted, and I want to build more nuclear reactors. Ok, fine, sez I, the Egyptians have three uranium resources in their continent, but they don't have the required tech to 'see' them. So I trade them the tech, (giving them a really good deal too since they're broke) and go right back in to trade for the uranium. But I can't, they've already traded it off to the other ai players...
Hopefully this was fixed??
Edit:
Soren replied in another thread:
"To further clarify:
the AI's will not trade anything during your turn (techs, maps, goods, etc...)"
Thanks Soren!!
Last edited by Unregistered on 15-02-2002 at 05:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
No problem. Here is one, already in the modern age, but it works. Sink the Russian galley near Minsk. A German navy is already nearby. |
OK, I've looked into the save and it apparently does still crash (even in 1.17f). It's actually not the same settler/transport crash I fixed for 1.16f but it is related. I've updated the latest build to fix it (not 1.17f) but I'm not sure when it will be made available.
Bonus: your save also exposed a problem with the latest build of the game and I've fixed that too (note: this problem doesn't exist in 1.17f so no need to worry).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2002 16:33
!
to frequent the boards once more.
|