PROJECT: Playest II

[Flinx]

The version date is 2004-07-26

[rdorau]

@ Flinx: No, I started a new game.

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by rdorau
A minor problem: I can't select more than 31 players. This should have changed with the new playtest.

Are you saying that because of the change:

Fixed: Allow more than 44 playable civs

If so, then you are misunderstanding the change - it's just a change that allows you to choose from amongst more civs when starting a game, not a change which allows you to play with more civs in a game at the same time.

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Flinx
Was the problem with savegame files with more than 28 civs fixed?

I believe so, yes.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Flinx
The version date is 2004-07-26

Looks like noone updated the *.ldl files maybe, we should extract the information from the executable itsself. However you can find the creation of the debug executable in the log files.

Originally posted by J Bytheway
I believe so, yes.

It is definately fixed.

-Martin

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
Looks like noone updated the *.ldl files maybe, we should extract the information from the executable itsself.

Well, eventually when we're going to make actual official releases we'll probably want to use version numbers or something, rather than dates. Might be just as easy to just stick with ldl files, as long as the people making the playtest builds remember to keep them updated

[calvitix]

Originally posted by Flinx
The version date is 2004-07-26

the version date used for the moment is in the 'str_ldl.txt' file, no ?

### Version String ###

str_ldl_version "2004-07-26"

Originally posted by calvitix
allies have a diplomacy regard greater than neutral, so they won't be considered as enemy.

Really?

I couldn't really test it, as AI don't ally with other AI.
It seems to me logical, that AI will refuse to ally an other Civ if its regard is low, and for civs that are already allied and with regard decreasing (due to expel, or other bad actions), we can feel it will not stay allied for long. -> but that's a part of the diplomacy improvement.

Originally posted by calvitix
I didn't actually find any attribute for 'Power'. to determine if the army has enough 'power' for a goal, I use the addition of attributes : attack + defense + ranged + value(HP). (see squad_strengh operator)

Of course Power must be calculated from those values, otherwise you would have more values in the database then necessary.

I agree, what I wanted to say is that I only used the easiest formula to calculate Power (as it isn't defined).

It will be interessant to improve it by adding coefficients (a* attack + b * defense + ...) and to add also other attribute like Firepower (or movement).

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by calvitix
I couldn't really test it, as AI don't ally with other AI.
It seems to me logical, that AI will refuse to ally an other Civ if its regard is low, and for civs that are already allied and with regard decreasing (due to expel, or other bad actions), we can feel it will not stay allied for long. -> but that's a part of the diplomacy improvement.

It doesn't seem so logical to me afterwards I won a game by diplomacy by the pattern like this:

Hey, AI let's make peace.
What! You don't want to make peace, so let's make war.
Ah, we know it and never doubt it that you make peace.
Hey, AI let's make pact.
What! You don't want to make pact, so let's make war.
Ah, we know it and never doubt it that you make pact.

If you just have enough power in the original game, you can blackmail everything from the AI, even its last city.

-Martin

[Flinx]

2004.10.20 Playtest crash.txt

0x006e3b02 [?LogRegardEvent@Foreigner@@QAEXABW4REGARD_EVENT_TY PE@@ABURegardEvent@@@Z + 0x22]

[Flinx]

Re: 2004.10.20 Playtest crash.txt

Originally posted by Flinx
0x006e3b02 [?LogRegardEvent@Foreigner@@QAEXABW4REGARD_EVENT_TY PE@@ABURegardEvent@@@Z + 0x22]

Permanent and fatal.

[Fromafar]

Originally posted by kaan
I will be really interested to hear what your experiences with the .NET build is.
Also of my interest is any feedback on the multiplayer updates.

So far, all problems I have encountered with the .NET release were reproducible with a 6.0 release. So, it looks like we are not stuck with an old compiler.

Regarding the PW fix: I would suggest adding new enum values at the end of the list - not somewhere in the middle. If you put NET_INFO_CODE_MATERIALS at the end of NET_INFO_CODE (just before NET_INFO_CODE_NULL, which serves as an end marker), you do not change the coding/interpretation of the other messages. For later debugging, comparing against the messages of an original Activision release will be so much easier, when the codes stay the same.

Also, you should have a look at NetInfo::m_args - you still have to add the data for the new message, but it becomes easier to find out where exactly.
Actually, without knowing, you have completely messed up the table by inserting in the middle. It is impossible to predict what will happen when you play a network game with this release .

[kaan]

Originally posted by Fromafar

So far, all problems I have encountered with the .NET release were reproducible with a 6.0 release. So, it looks like we are not stuck with an old compiler.

Regarding the PW fix: I would suggest adding new enum values at the end of the list - not somewhere in the middle. If you put NET_INFO_CODE_MATERIALS at the end of NET_INFO_CODE (just before NET_INFO_CODE_NULL, which serves as an end marker), you do not change the coding/interpretation of the other messages. For later debugging, comparing against the messages of an original Activision release will be so much easier, when the codes stay the same.

Also, you should have a look at NetInfo::m_args - you still have to add the data for the new message, but it becomes easier to find out where exactly.
Actually, without knowing, you have completely messed up the table by inserting in the middle. It is impossible to predict what will happen when you play a network game with this release .

You are absolutely right, i better fine tune it a bit then

[Tamerlin]

Frenc civ_str.txt for the latest playtest build

Here is the new French civ_str.txt strings needed for the latest playtest build.

Sorry, I couldn't help, I changed "Arthur" and "Morgana" to "Brennus" and "Boadicée" in the Celtic civilization. I am sorry but I can't cope with Arthur, I can't... no really, I can't... It is really beyond me, I can't...







I am not kidding, I can't...

[child of Thor]

Hi guys - Locutus has pointed me in this direction to pick up the latest(close to release) build so some work can start on the Manual and docs..........i've scanned around a little but am not sure which download i need
A big red arrow in its direction would be appriciated

Ah its ok i found it - its the one in Jbytheway's sig right?

Edit: got it Now next week when my new 'experimenting with code and files and programming' pc is up and running i'll start to play with the new build and see all the great things that have been done by you all

[Flinx]

->