Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Strange error...

  1. #1
    Evil Overlord Member Kaidonni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    If I told you, I'd have to kill you. England.

    Question Strange error...

    Er, I had a slight issue with MTW:VI tonight. Something...strange happened. Very strange. I'm including all the following information for a more clear idea of what may have gone wrong.

    To start off, earlier, because of all the jumping between the in-campaign menu and the campaign (I over-did it a bit on the saving), I caused a CTD (it's happened before). This was when I saved the campaign (possibly may have been as I accessed the save system, can't remember if I'd actually gotten to the pressing save part). Now, when I came back several hours later and continued, I managed to cause another CTD in the campaign itself.

    Now, I don't think the save was corrupted (deleted it now, went back to 1139 and re-ended my turn). But, I figured it'd be a waste of time to retrain Prince Tancred because King William I (61), who'd just been crowned because King Roger I kicked the bucket at 63, might kick the bucket soon too, so why waste a turn retraining the next heir in-line? Only...he had a unit of FMA right after him, and this is where it goes awry. I don't know exactly how, but I removed Prince Tancred from the retraining queue...but, I didn't. He appeared in King William I's army in Sicily, but he was still being in the retraining queue! So...I decided to remove his 'ghost' and my FMA (properly named Don Gregorio Colonna) moved to the slot.

    However, I got a shock when I checked my military list...there was a unit, my FMA previously mentioned, named King Roman Numerals or something...something VERY unusual. I know there have been translation issues for some factions, like Bohemia (where a unit might be named 'Sir (could not translate!!!) Vradislav' or something), but this was...odd. The guy had a name already.

    I removed the unit from the queue, I think his name came back, can't be certain. Now I put him back in the retraining queue and BAM! CTD.

    Anyone know what may have happened, or if anything like this has happened before or is known to be possible?

    I reloaded back to 1139 and tried two different endings to the turn. One with Prince Tancred removed from the queue properly and one without him removed (removed him properly and carefully in 1140 in the second ending). I went with the second retry because in the original 1140 before all the CTD issues, the English had lost their Chapter House in Anjou, causing a civil war, and their rebels in Mercia looked juicy for the bribe (I love the colony-way of expansion as Sicily). In the first retry, nothing so bad happened (and King Roger II didn't kick the bucket). The second, close enough (King Roger II kicked the bucket like he did before all this happened and by close enough, Wessex had rebelled but was still red, even without any English garrison in the Citadel while the other rebellions seemed to be similar). I felt I had to try a second time because I wanted it to be similar to the original. Guess I got my wish. Not that I'm entirely happy with this reloading, but it's better than the first retry. I actually saved 1139 with Prince Tancred removed from the queue, so in the second retry I had to add him back in...don't know if that affected anything. Oh...and this time around, the Seljuks have returned with avengeance against the Fatimids...LOL!

    I don't like reloading now to fix mistakes...but this one was just for precaution. And the second retry was also to try to see if I could get it as close as possible to the original 1140...back to conquering the world.

    Aside from all this, what are other peoples' opinions on reloading, too?
    Last edited by Kaidonni; 06-07-2007 at 23:12.
    I believe in a society without rules, laws and regulations. A society where there are only ideas - strict ideas that must be followed to by the letter - and any failure to comply is punishable by death. This would be no dictatorship or police state, no one would be living in terror. It would merely be a 'reassessment of one's preferences,' people living in 'not-so-optimistic security.' So, welcome, those who are 'longing to be blindly obedient and loyal, unbeknownst to them.'


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO