PROJECT: To Do List for Patch v1.2

[Locutus]

I think a lot of us (especially regular players) would like a patch to be released ASAP, so all the improvements made over the past few months will actually be available for everyone in a more or less final format.

Though a lot of great work has been done already, I think most of us agree that we can't release a new patch until the game is up to v1.11 level. This is not yet the case, as far as I can see.

But if we ever hope to get there, it's important to keep track of what has been done already and, more importantly, what still needs to be done. That's what this thread is for: to keep track of which issues at the very least need to be in the first patch and what their status is. These will mostly be issues that were fixed in v1.11, but there may other issues that absolutely *have* to be included in the first new patch as well, but that weren't yet in v1.11.

I dug up the most detailed list I could find of al changes made in the v1.11 patch and made a list of which ones are still To Be Done (TBD) and what is already PARTially or entirely DONE. Since I'm very busy with RL stuff lately, I may not be fully aware of everything that's been going on, so feel free to correct me where necessary. I also added a priority to every issue, so that people looking for something to do have an idea of where to start. I'm sure other people have very different ideas on what should have the highest priority though, so feedback is needed. Note that the issues are numbered for easy reference.

Please note also that for the patch to be released ALL of these issuess will need to be resolved anyway, so even medium and low priority issues still have a fairly high priority (at least compared to stuff not on this list).

Notes:

Issue #1: I vaguely seem to recall it was fixed, but I'm not sure about it, can anyone confirm (or deny)?

Issue #23: Does anyone happen to have a list of which SLIC functions exactly have and haven't been implemented at this point?

Any feedback, comments, etc more than welcome...

Edit: BTW, if anyone knows of any issues that need to be added to the list (whether they are from v1.11 or not), please post them.

[Locutus]

Putting this in a new post 'cause I know it'll get messy

#	STATUS	PRIORITY	TYPE				ISSUE
1.	DONE	ZERO	Savegames				* Fixed corrupted save game bug
2.	TBD	MEDIUM	Scenarios				* Fixed random civ chooser for scenarios (world map)
3.	DONE	ZERO	Savegames				* Fixed autosave directory name for scenarios to match normal directory.
4.	DONE	ZERO	Graphics				* Increased animation queue to 12, making unit-in-wrong-place bug less likely [doubtful if it actually works, but fixed nonetheless]
5.	TBD	LOW	Sound				* Always terminate a unit's sound effects when it dies
6.	DONE	ZERO	Scenarios				* Set cell owner when cheating tile improvements [An undesirable change, should be left as-is]
7.	TBD	ZERO	User Interface				* UnitSpeed and MouseSpeed removed from advanced options (available elsewhere in options) [A revamp of the Advanced Options Menu would be desirable at some point, but there's no rush there]
8.	DONE	ZERO	Savegames				* Incremented save file version to force string reload for old games.
9.	DONE	ZERO	User Interface				* Added missing contextual info to several messages
10.	DONE	ZERO	User Interface				* Added auto-center for bombardment
11.	DONE	ZERO	Gameplay				* Fixed lawsuits against franchises
12.	DONE	ZERO	Gameplay				* Prevented cities from revolting twice in a row (so if you have the wonder that gives you revolting cities, you'll at least have a chance to hold onto them)
13.	DONE	ZERO	Graphics				* Added sanity check on city styles (avoids crash when settling in Alexander)
14.	DONE	ZERO	Multiplayer				* Fixed movement point propagation for settlers from disbanded cities in network games with 3+ players
15.	DONE	ZERO	Gameplay				* Can't rush buy capitalization/infrastructure
16.	TBD	HIGH	Multiplayer				* Fixed feat propagation in network games
17.	DONE	ZERO	Scenarios				* Fixed difficulty choice in scenarios
18.	DONE	ZERO	User Interface				* Setting research goal to something already researched clears the goal.
19.	N/A	ZERO	Gameplay				* Trade routes are revalidated when loading a saved game. Sort of fixes a problem seen only once where a city lost track of its routes. Unknown how it happened to begin with. [Solution worse than the problem (if it exists at all); won't be reimplemented]
20.	DONE	ZERO	Gameplay				* Fixed active defense movement checks so that land defenders work.
21.	DONE	ZERO	Multiplayer				* Added extra checks to disable science victory in network games
22.	DONE	ZERO	SLIC				* Enabled access to database values from SLIC
23.	PART	ZERO	SLIC				* Added about 40 SLIC functions, mostly related to diplomacy (has no effect on any existing scripts) [some functions left unimplemented but they are never used and their intended function is unclear]
24.	DONE	ZERO	Scenarios				* Fixed scenarios that allow players other than player 1 to be played
25.	DONE	ZERO	Cheat Menu				* Fixed crash bug caused by launching editor, generating goods, exiting, and moving a unit.
26.	DONE	ZERO	Multiplayer?				* Added check for clear queue actions from clients received after they lost the city to another player
27.	TBD	HIGH	Multiplayer				* Fixed nuking cities in network games - sometimes left a stale reference to the dead city around.
28.	TBD	HIGH	Multiplayer				* Fixed propagation of city defensive bonus in net games
29.	TBD	HIGH	Multiplayer				* Made sure diplomatic proposals in network games execute at the same point on every machine.
30.	DONE	HIGH	Multiplayer				* Network object bookkeeping gets cleared when exiting a game (exiting and rejoining occasionally left something lying around, resulting in a resync not long after joining)
31.	DONE	ZERO	Multiplayer				* Disabled restart key in net games
32.	DONE	ZERO	Gameplay				* Fixed science tax being one percent lower than it was supposed to be (didn't happen on every machine)
33.	DONE	ZERO	User Interface				* Fixed display of turns for cap/inf
34.	DONE	ZERO	User Interface				* Fixed message tab to always show newest messages
35.	DONE	ZERO	User Interface				* Leave embargo button enabled when cancelled
36.	DONE	ZERO	Diplomacy				* Diplomatic proposals/responses sent from UI get the highest priority possible so that the AI won't override them
37.	DONE	ZERO	System				* Added version label to shell [Replaced by disclaimer string]
38.	DONE	ZERO	User Interface				* Fixed auto-selection of currently researching advance on science chooser
39.	DONE	ZERO	AI				* Improve AI pathfinding: replace ASTAR-_BLOCKED with ASTAR_OCCUPIED

[Maquiladora]

Bug fix: use the veteran status in combat.

Based on the observations and proposals by MrBaggins and Solver: apply the veteran coefficient to the unit properties when in combat.

This bug fix will improve the chance to hit the target (i.e. increase the RangedAttack and Offense properties). It will not modify the other properties (Defense, Strength, etc.). This corresponds to the handling of the veteran status in UnitData.cpp.

Veteran effect should improve Attack/Ranged/Defence values by 50% shouldnt it?

[Locutus]

You can debate that, that would be a design decision.

When two regular units are fighting each other, both have an equal chance of winning, obviously. When a regular unit is fighting a unit with +50% attack bonus due to veteran status, the veteran has a ~9% better chance of winning. And when a regular unit fights a veteran with both attack and defense boni, the veteran has a 20% better chance of winning. And if that's not enough, that 20% can be considerably improved upon by defensive terrain boni, fortification, city walls, etc (much more so than the 9% bonus from the attack value alone).

Look at the numbers if you want (based on the formulas I linked to yesterday in the Armor/HP thread, using hypothetical units who have all stats at 2 (attack, defense, armour, etc)):

CoT = Chance to Hit
TtD = Turns to Defeat
V = Chance of Victory

1.
CoT|A = 2/(2+2) = 50%
CoT|D = 2/(2+2) = 50%
TtD|D = (2*10)/(50%*2) = 20
TtD|A = (2*10)/(50%*2) = 20
V|A = 20/(20+20) = 50%

2.
CoT|A = 2/(2+2) = 50%
CoT|D = 3/(3+2) = 60%
TtD|D = (2*10)/(50%*2) = 20
TtD|A = (2*10)/(60%*2) = 16.7
V|A = 16.7/(20+16.7) = 45.5%

3.
CoT|A = 2/(2+3) = 40%
CoT|D = 3/(2+3) = 60%
TtD|D = (2*10)/(40%*2) = 25
TtD|A = (2*10)/(60%*2) = 16.7
V|A = 16.7/(25+16.7) = 40%

So it just depends on how much stronger you want veterans to be, compared to regular units. Personally I think just an attack bonus is enough. Though it might be an idea to consider a +100% bonus rather than +50%, which would give them a +14% chance to win a battle: better than +9% (which is a bit weakish, I agree), not as good as +20% and above (which is a bit too strong IMHO). Ideally it might be cool to have several levels of veteran status: +50%, +100%, +150%, but that's more for the long-term thinking, I'd say.

Edit: For what it's worth, I seem to remember reading somewhere (in a manual or strategy guide or something) that veterans are supposed to be 10% better than regular units, which would mean Activision intended to have a bonus for attack alone. But my memory is a wee bit vague on that, so I may be wrong.

[Aias]

I don't know if this is relevant to this thread, but will trespassing be fixed? Fortified enemy units and naval units seem immune to the trespassing agreement.

Also, will the automatic 'kicking' of units be put back in?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Locutus
You can debate that, that would be a design decision.

When two regular units are fighting each other, both have an equal chance of winning, obviously. When a regular unit is fighting a unit with +50% attack bonus due to veteran status, the veteran has a ~9% better chance of winning. And when a regular unit fights a veteran with both attack and defense boni, the veteran has a 20% better chance of winning. And if that's not enough, that 20% can be considerably improved upon by defensive terrain boni, fortification, city walls, etc (much more so than the 9% bonus from the attack value alone).

Look at the numbers if you want (based on the formulas I linked to yesterday in the Armor/HP thread, using hypothetical units who have all stats at 2 (attack, defense, armour, etc)):

CoT = Chance to Hit
TtD = Turns to Defeat
V = Chance of Victory

1.
CoT|A = 2/(2+2) = 50%
CoT|D = 2/(2+2) = 50%
TtD|D = (2*10)/(50%*2) = 20
TtD|A = (2*10)/(50%*2) = 20
V|A = 20/(20+20) = 50%

2.
CoT|A = 2/(2+2) = 50%
CoT|D = 3/(3+2) = 60%
TtD|D = (2*10)/(50%*2) = 20
TtD|A = (2*10)/(60%*2) = 16.7
V|A = 16.7/(20+16.7) = 45.5%

3.
CoT|A = 2/(2+3) = 40%
CoT|D = 3/(2+3) = 60%
TtD|D = (2*10)/(40%*2) = 25
TtD|A = (2*10)/(60%*2) = 16.7
V|A = 16.7/(25+16.7) = 40%

So it just depends on how much stronger you want veterans to be, compared to regular units. Personally I think just an attack bonus is enough. Though it might be an idea to consider a +100% bonus rather than +50%, which would give them a +14% chance to win a battle: better than +9% (which is a bit weakish, I agree), not as good as +20% and above (which is a bit too strong IMHO). Ideally it might be cool to have several levels of veteran status: +50%, +100%, +150%, but that's more for the long-term thinking, I'd say.

Edit: For what it's worth, I seem to remember reading somewhere (in a manual or strategy guide or something) that veterans are supposed to be 10% better than regular units, which would mean Activision intended to have a bonus for attack alone. But my memory is a wee bit vague on that, so I may be wrong.

I think that there is some strong support for having the suggestion of attack and defense being based on just A for the attacker and D for the defender, we have to consider that.

Also I'd suggest that its no problem having the bonus apply to both attack and defense... the game obviously intended veteran bonuses to apply to different game concepts since they included the bonus in the code for bombarders and spies. If the combat bonus is too high, when it applies to both, just reduce it a little...

From a realism view point veteran troops do defend better than green troops anyway.

[Locutus]

Agreed, when the effects of A and D are changed, it becauses necessary to apply veteran status to both. And indeed, in the end it's just a matter of balancing it properly (for which purpose it might not be a bad idea to expore the exact number in a text file?)

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Aias
I don't know if this is relevant to this thread, but will trespassing be fixed? Fortified enemy units and naval units seem immune to the trespassing agreement.

Also, will the automatic 'kicking' of units be put back in?

Almost forgot...

I think tresspassing should be looked into, but I personally don't think it's essential for the first patch.

The 'kicking' was a SLIC thing that came (and still comes) with the mods, not something the patch did.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Locutus
The 'kicking' was a SLIC thing that came (and still comes) with the mods, not something the patch did.

And actual it is just a workaround, the original intention was to make the AI to pull back its armies on its own and not by using some miracle or given the armies seven league boots to return to the closest city.

-Martin

[Locutus]

Updated the table (twice). Kudos to Fromafar and Peter for solving 5 issues in 24 hours At this rate the patch will be out in a week (No, I don't actually believe that)

[Peter Triggs]

Issue #23: Does anyone happen to have a list of which SLIC functions exactly have and haven't been
implemented at this point?

Here's the ones I've been working on. (Martin, I'm not happy with this stuff yet.) There's also a new one, "DeclareWar", at the bottom.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Locutus
Edit: For what it's worth, I seem to remember reading somewhere (in a manual or strategy guide or something) that veterans are supposed to be 10% better than regular units, which would mean Activision intended to have a bonus for attack alone. But my memory is a wee bit vague on that, so I may be wrong.

Your memory is quite good. There's only a single paragraph on Veterans in the original CTP2 manual, but it's quite specific on the benefit accruing to "Veteran Status":

Due to their experience on the battlefield, veteran units are better equipped for combat, and enjoy a bonus to their attack rating.

[Martin Gühmann]

One thing that has definatly fixed in Patch v1.2 is AI path finding, an AI improvement is really necessary, well we already have one or two, but if the AI cannot go to its goals then it can be very good everwhere else but it wouldn't help. From "DOCUMENT: Miscellaneous source findings and thoughts" thread Dale brought up this:

Originally posted by Dale

Originally posted by Solver
The AI won't move around its own 12-stacks because the pathfinder considers those squares to be passable, and the units keep trying to enter the square occupied by 12-stack, and fail. - Dale.

Actually, the function returns: ASTAR_BLOCKED so it's viewing it as unpassable, but then the Astar function doesn't look for another path when returned ASTAR_BLOCKED it just closes that node.

What we need to do it specific a different return like: ASTAR_OCCUPIED and when that's returned to the Astar function, make it keep the node open but try other directions from there.

-Martin

[SMIFFGIG]

Veteran effect should improve Attack/Ranged/Defence values by 50% shouldnt it?

A system where
If a unit gained veterancy whilst attacking
It gains 50% bonus for attacking

If a unit gained veterancy whilst defending
It gains 50% bonus for defending

etc

im sure it could be easily tied in with ranged combat too

this would IMO add greater scope and also realism (as generals gained experience and became known as great defenders or attackers etc) in real life.

does this call for a veterancy thread ? or is there already one out there

[Maquiladora]

so what was the final plan, to expose the veteran effects in a txt file? We all have different ideas of how powerful veterans should be (and in what areas) so it would be nice to have easy control over them.