Patch 1.20 - Page 5

player1 · March 17, 2004, 16:04

You know, Jesse comment just shows that they did tried to fix sub bug, but it showed to be a little bit complicated.

It would take too much time to be put in this patch.
If they focused more on fixing this, I bet we won't see a patch till April or later.

But, since there will be a patch after 1.20 we know they'll try to fix that bug later.

I just don't understand all that bashing.
They did tied to fix sub-bug.
Really, that tried.
But, it was too much time consuming to be fixed with this patch.

JimMac · March 17, 2004, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
You know, Jesse comment just shows that they did tried to fix sub bug, but it showed to be a little bit complicated....

But, since there will be a patch after 1.20 we know they'll try to fix that bug later.

I just don't understand all that bashing.
.

I generally agree, but I think Jesse could changing the 'bashing tone' of this thread if he was clearer about what is going to happen after 1.20.

IIRC the plan was for monthly beta patches leading to a final patch in June. Jesse was quite enthusiastic about new aspects such as the worker gangs and the proposed new combat system. Then we hear about some major changes in Atari (was it the Q.A. function? I can't remember), Jesse goes quiet and it seems the whole deal is off!

If Jesse was to post something like:

'Listen guys, this 1.20 patch IS simply the official version of the 1.15b, plus a few additions. I promise that I will be getting right on to fixing the sub bug and all the other issues that Alexman and Doc have listed, and I promise that they willl be fixed in forthcoming patches. Thanks for all the feedback" etc

Then I for one would br ready to place my order for CivIV.

But Jesse's actual comments:

"the next steps can be taken.... We need to be focused on Civ IV...there's little to be done about it besides apologizing. I'm not saying a new patch isn't coming, but we are at a crucial point in CIV and need to stay focused.

sounds to me like "we're working on CivIV but if I get a chance I will see what I can do for you all"

Jarred · March 17, 2004, 17:11

It is April almost, so we won't see this patch until April anyway.

Jaybe · March 17, 2004, 17:16

Quote:

... if he was clearer about what is going to happen after 1.20.

He probably didn't clarify it because he is not sure that it will happen, though he has intentions, hopes and plans.
It is possible that he knows it will not.

planetfall · March 17, 2004, 17:52

Unless I miss read, I am disappointed the turns-to-research prompt under SGA is not fixed.

I have learned to adjust, but it is annoying.

PF

Antrine · March 17, 2004, 18:18

I think this thread is beginning wax dribble with sprinkles of babbles midst meloncholly whinning...

...unfortunately for credible reasons...

So therefor I would repost here an adroit quote:

to wit...

Quote:

by Antrine... 'I think after this, a lot us here should check ourselves in at the 'positive thinking' clinic for needed therapy'.

Therapy classes are on a first come first bash basis.

Oh that darn 'writing on the wall'

On another note, I've been a wandering lately, anyone like EUII with patch 1.07? I found it for eleven bucks, thinking about trying it out.

ErikM · March 17, 2004, 18:24

1.05 is better for starters.
If you do 1.07, download the betas from the Paradox site. 1.07 is rather annoying without beta patches due to endless revolts.

Antrine · March 17, 2004, 18:27

Many thanks ErikM! Inside info is always good place to start.

planetfall · March 17, 2004, 18:42

sub bug is nothing. Just remove invisible from subs.

Now AI not building armies, that is significant.

PF

alexman · March 17, 2004, 18:49

No problem, just remove "Army" property from Armies.

Antrine · March 17, 2004, 18:57

Quote:

by planetfall... Now AI not building armies, that is significant.

Gee, just refer to my thread AI army really!! http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=109636

This will secure you a working knowledge (

work-a-around ) of how to see, engage and otherwise 'experience' an AI Army in the field, filled with useful units.

perhaps Firaxis should bring me on as a consultant!

Tell me truly what would rather have? A long table of work-a-rounds like unto this or an official credible patch? Hey, you decide, the list is getting longer...

P.S. Alexman I move aside to work behind this obvious genius.

Mad Bomber · March 17, 2004, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

Well, it's made to be 2 techs to give Frigates some chance in the game. And not to be never to be used unit by players.

I'm satisifed by that.

I find it absurd that I can build Modern ships without the Ironclad tech. I don't mind that Ironclads need an additional tech, so long as Ironclads are required to build Destroyers, Cruisers, Subs, and Battleships (perhaps require an additional tech after Ironclads in addition to combustion to build these?)

Fried-Psitalon · March 17, 2004, 19:55

I believe Jesse posted somewhere that Civ4 was written with a new engine specifically to help deal with the issues mentioned here?

Cort Haus · March 18, 2004, 09:32

The big deal here is the detatchment of Mot Trans from the Electronics branch and the removal of Radio. This will help break the auto ToE-Hoover 2-step as the best tech strat for the industrial era. Before you could only get bombers from the mid-branch alone, but now you get Tanks too. ToE techs can now be used for a miltary beeline.

hexagonian · March 18, 2004, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Has paradox ever released a game even as complete as C3C? Every game of theirs I've played required at least 6 months or patching before some manual features worked at all.

As an aside, C3C is the third incarnation of the civ3 engine and the upgrades are not substanially different than the initial release (with the exception of the addition of MP). Most of the upgrades (for instance, a more complete editor springs to mind) should have been part of the initial release.

Basically, Firaxis has charged customers for 2 patches - and it has taken 2 years to make civ3 playable - as opposed to the 6 months for EU2.

And Paradox upgrades EU2 without charging the customer...

I'll take Paradox's committment level to their games over Firaxis's committment level any day.

vmxa1 · March 18, 2004, 12:48

Well commitment is good, but look at Galciv and Starships Unlimited. You can't beat them for working on the game, but it does not make me want to play them all that much.

I appreciate what they have done and I am glad I bought the games, but I play Civ instead.

ducki · March 18, 2004, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Antrine
Gee, just refer to my thread AI army really!! http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=109636

This will secure you a working knowledge (

work-a-around ) of how to see, engage and otherwise 'experience' an AI Army in the field, filled with useful units.

Come on, Antrine.
You modded the palace to spit out Armies like SoZ spits out Ancient Cav. No reason to continue being misleading about it, especially with so many folks wanting a "real" fix for this.
Besides, what if Jesse just scans the posts/subject lines. Sees yours about an AI army in the field and thinks "Oh, well, good. We can cross that off," without actually reading how you did it? It's not that likely, but if enough folks don't actually read your post and just take your word for it and stop complaining about it, is it possible it slips further down the priority list for Jesse?

Quote:

Tell me truly what would rather have? A long table of work-a-rounds like unto this or an official credible patch? Hey, you decide, the list is getting longer...

Speaking of "credible"...

Hehehe. Just pokin' fun a bit, Antrine. A bit of "pot, kettle, black" in there made me giggle a bit.

Antrine · March 18, 2004, 14:42

'misleading' ?
I surely hope not! sarcastic yes!

Pokin fun in a now depressing scenario. I confess.

Leading the unwary along, who do not read?

Gosh darn ducki I SURE hope I have not so easily misled Firaxis and on account my antics 'they' bypass fixing the Army delimma.

Perhaps I include more 'disclosures' in my posts?

However, today I think I will let 'others' spell it out. Thanks

I have only presented myself one way ( a modder who worships the great big editor in the sky ). Anyway many blessings and let us collectively have mercy on the future of our game.

P.S. the creation forum is nearly dead however, I hope to move back to the graveyard soon.

Jarred · March 19, 2004, 00:14

Since Great Leaders don't build improvements anymore, why not for the AI make Amries instead of great leaders?

Antrine · March 19, 2004, 02:52

Great idea! Jarred. However...

This and many 'other' great ideas require so-called hard-coding for to be implemented. That means we continue petitioning the gods up at Firaxis for these favors.

Again, though we have been ( ...and I say apparently ) left naked

on the 'windy' side of the temple, like old lovers. As new loves are pursued. (

CIV 4 )

Rellin · March 19, 2004, 03:16

Quote:

With such sweeping personnel change at Firaxis, is it reasonable to expect that Civ4 will be a cheap knockoff of Civ3, much in the same way that Call to Power tried to imitate Civ2 but failed miserably?

Scary thought, but sadly enough probably going to be correct.

AK47 · March 19, 2004, 07:23

I already brought this up at CFC, but 1.20 patch doesn't seem to be taking care of it (the description I read of it), so:

Hidden Nationality land units bug. Although a HUMAN player can not attack and capture cities with them (unless declaring war), the AI can, and greatly abuses this. For me it's no problem, I can handle it, but the other AIs have no clue how to deal with it.

And also, the continuing sub bug really annoys me.
(a general Invisible units bug)

I'd really like to see both of them fixed at some stage.
AK.

Spiffor · March 19, 2004, 09:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Antrine
This and many 'other' great ideas require so-called hard-coding for to be implemented. That means we continue petitioning the gods up at Firaxis for these favors.

Not quite. You can do a little tweak in the editor, and have armies created in battle, instead of a leader (general settings). The AI is supposed to know what to do when it has un army under its control.

Edit: however, maybe this tweak would prevent scientific leaders from appearing. I don't know, it needs to be tested.

alexman · March 19, 2004, 09:42

Quote:

However, maybe this tweak would prevent scientific leaders from appearing. I don't know, it needs to be tested.

It would not prevent scientific leaders from appearing, but it would prevent Armies from appearing if you already have an Army in the field. Tested and verified.

Still, better than how it is now, IMO.

planetfall · March 19, 2004, 11:08

F3 crash bug
Any idea if this bug was fixed in 1.20? With 1.15 I'm experiencing crashes about 3..5 times a game.

PF

DrSpike · March 19, 2004, 11:12

Never seen it.

planetfall · March 19, 2004, 11:17

Doc,

It happens late in game with lots of units/cities. When you press the F3 key and have ability to see other civs military, the game crashes about 1/50 turns. Not windows, just the game. Does not seem to have any correlation with frequency of windows reboot. This is on WinXP. Others have reported the problem and is listed as a bug over at cfan.

PF

player1 · March 19, 2004, 12:17

Who knows?

Maybe when Firaxis tweaked rules for scientific leader, maybe army creation bug got fixed too.

vmxa1 · March 19, 2004, 12:27

planetfall do you have to have a spy for it to happen? I have not seen it, but I have not had a spy either with 1.15.

planetfall · March 19, 2004, 12:43

VMXA1,

I think having a spy increases frequency. What is annoying is I have not retrained me yet. I like to:
-- play round
-- see new count of AI military after my action
-- save game
-- go to next round

Unfortunately I too often forget I need to save BEFORE hitting F3. Usually I am trying to see change in number of bombers||infantry||tanks||AC||BS.

It has happened before I had spies in AI civs, but does increase with active spies.

PF