Bugs in 317

[Unimatrix11]

If civ coding is anywhere near as primitive as my code (which i highly doubt it is), then the ´if-towers´ must be longer than any real one is high and truely terrifying...

From a (albiet not very innovative) single-player´s point of view: Just leave it as is - it´s fine... Maybe there is a minor bug here and there, but I feel too much pity for the coders who would have to dig through the code, in order to fix them.

[rah]

Actually this is no different then when you create a new city that has an overlapping BFC with another city.
The new city is likely to grap the big food square from your established city if it's near the happy/health cap.

When you create a new city or conquer one that overlaps, you have to check the assignments to be sure.

[Metaliturtle]

That's not a bug it's a feature.

Think about it:

First we have an enemy city that goes into revolt. What would the civilly disobedient people do? They would impede the ability of their new overlords from using resources that they deem to be 'theirs.'

Or if it's one of your cities, the new city could be considered a "suburb" (like where rah and ming live) of course suburbs have the wealthiest citizens who can afford Escalades etc. to drive in to work, so they would take the best resources for themselves. (like what rah and ming did to Chicago)

[sorinache]

If civ coding is anywhere near as primitive as my code (which i highly doubt it is), then the ´if-towers´ must be longer than any real one is high and truely terrifying...

From a (albiet not very innovative) single-player´s point of view: Just leave it as is - it´s fine... Maybe there is a minor bug here and there, but I feel too much pity for the coders who would have to dig through the code, in order to fix them.

Have you ever had a look at the code for the old Unix game Nethack ? The whole game is build as an "if"-based decision tree : if he has the dragon scale mail then if he has cast that spell then ... do that else ...

I thought of it in the past (though I admit, not very deeply) and I guess if towers are hard to escape - evolved code would be evolved precisely because it would make the bug easy to track, pinpoint and correct.

[sorinache]

What has happened is that some of those tiles were assigned to your new city for its use once order is restored. Simply go into your "productive" city and reassign those tiles to it by clicking on said tiles within the city screen. You would have had to reassign them either now or once the new city is in order, anyway.

Yes, I understand what happened, but my opinion is that it shouldn't have. As I said, once the newly conquered city is in order, you'd have to go there anyway. You are confused though because if it wasn't for this bug, you would not necessarily need to go into your PRODUCTIVE city (the one you had, and had tuned already). This bug not only forces you to go into an already tuned city, but its effect is not necessarily visible so one might miss it.

[sorinache]

Actually this is no different then when you create a new city that has an overlapping BFC with another city.
The new city is likely to grap the big food square from your established city if it's near the happy/health cap.

When you create a new city or conquer one that overlaps, you have to check the assignments to be sure.

Yes, this is why I think it's a bug : when you create a new city, the new city grabs the big food square from the established city. You know that and might not object to it, in which case you do not necessarily need to check the assignments. You can be reassured that, whatever city has it, your big food square does not go unworked. On the contrary, when you conquer a city, this city CANNOT work the big food square because it's in revolt. If it's not a big food square but a big production/commerce sqaure (like a gold mine on a desert hill) you might not even notice the conquered city has grabbed this square from the productive city. Since your productive city is most likely already tuned, you don't necessarily think of going in city view to check, so the square simply goes squandered for the length of the revolt. To me, that is a (small) bug that could easily be corrected by modifying an if-clause, not a big deal.

[sorinache]

That's not a bug it's a feature.

Right. I guess you either work for Microsoft or you are training to improve your chances to get hired by Microsoft

[Blaupanzer]

Metaliturtle is not a model corporate-type according to his postings. He is saying, if two cities overlap, you are encouraged to manage that overlap. In fact, I check all my cities at least every 10 turns or so, as the governors reassign citizens at every growth or at any enemy presence in the perimeter. It is GOOD the governors do that, but you the player need to manage that.

[wodan11]

Metaliturtle is not a model corporate-type according to his postings. He is saying, if two cities overlap, you are encouraged to manage that overlap. In fact, I check all my cities at least every 10 turns or so, as the governors reassign citizens at every growth or at any enemy presence in the perimeter. It is GOOD the governors do that, but you the player need to manage that.

But the city governor does not, EVER, assign a city tile to another city.

Combined with the fact that you have a great deal of control over the routine reassignment you're talking about (using combinations of the emphasize buttons), this "tile reassignment" is clearly pushing that envelope much further than any other situation.

Anyone may agree or disagree that this crosses the line into bug territory, but it's inarguable that this is more than the governor routinely moving citizens about.