Patch 1.20

[player1]

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]

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]

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

[Jaybe]

... 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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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

[planetfall]

sub bug is nothing. Just remove invisible from subs.

Now AI not building armies, that is significant.

PF

[alexman]

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

[Antrine]

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]

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]

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

[Cort Haus]

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]

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.