Bugs and Patch Changes v1.5

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Well, this one is back...



I think your right - there will not be an easy solution for 'the other half'...

C-F Perhaps you should check your own image you provide.
The "bug" "is not back". You have modded the game to allow you to play the Spanish and you have then given them access to a "Roman Faction only" building.
We don't support bugs accidentaly created by modification of the game data, never have, never will do. How can we possibly fix a problem you created?

[Captain Fishpants]

That's not a trait. That is poor editing by CA on the temples. Why they even have higher level horse temples is beyond me. Rome isn't allowed to build the base level temples but can build higher level versions? And why in the world should Rome get huge bonuses for their already overly powerful cavalry.

It's easy enough to edit out...been doing it for awhile.

I checked with the people responsible, and the Epona temples were a deliberate design decision. Many cavalry barracks did include a small shrine to Epona, as the worship of the horse god seemed a practical benefit to the Roman cavalry and so the practice spread across the Empire.

The Romans can't *start* a "Temple of Horse" line in a settlement, but if they capture a settlement with an intact temple they can improve it and make it part of their system. That's the explanation - it's a bit of "local colour", and a nice benefit feature if you find it. It is most definitely not "poor editing" (I *love* the way that there's an automatic assumption that we're all numpties).

Edit:

Unfortunately, it appears that one of us may be a numpty after all. An unauthorised somebody went into the file and "improved" matters on his own say-so (a) without actually checking on the design intent (b) without bothering to tell anyone that he had done this and (c) without actually having responsibility for this area of the game. This has caused problems. A little knowledge, and all that kind of thing... So, sorry guys. Intrepid Sidekick is currently off applying a small amount of boot toe to certain bottoms.

[player1]

But why are from 1.3 (and still in 1.5), removed

temple_of_horse_awesome_temple requires factions { roman, }

...

temple_of_horse_pantheon requires factions { roman, }

...these bold lines that existed in 1.0/1.2???

When I made bug-fixer for 1.3 and 1.5 I considered that it was "revison" decision by CA, to remove access to these temples from romans (why edit it otherwise?)

Anyway, only thing that edit did was to make these temples available to "all factions (no require tags means available to "all" not "none"), which gave graphic glitchs for gaul and spain factions.


Anyway, it is an error in editing, since it should be either as it was in 1.2, or removed (like in bug-fixer).


EDIT:
I released bug-fixer for 1.5/1.6 yesterday

[C-F]

C-F Perhaps you should check your own image you provide.
The "bug" "is not back". You have modded the game to allow you to play the Spanish and you have then given them access to a "Roman Faction only" building.
We don't support bugs accidentaly created by modification of the game data, never have, never will do. How can we possibly fix a problem you created?

You are absolutely right. - poor wording on my part...sorry

btw, I only 'applied' a(two) mod(s) [bugfixer from player1 and factionunlock from Bosook (SP?)] that I downloaded here and then started; I didn't give or take away anything in the game (I'm not a modder/programmer) - the reason being is, that I am trying to get the tech trees for all the factions in the game that were not published.

In my case you could fix it in giving us all the tech trees (I didn't create this problem ), fix the skins and the other little things that are addressed in those above mentioned mods...et all

I look at it as being in a 'drive thru': nowadays it is a challenge to get but the simplest order right. RTW and BI are not simple and I guess a lot of people are just afraid that many of the 'issues' will remain as the time and-financial clock is ticking - after that (@ the game over part), only the pride and dedication of the individual programmers will remain...

Again, no offense intended, I did get my 'fix' in player1's release 3.0

[edit] PS, while on the subject of helping, is it possible to get info on what "Improved general's bodyguards" does and wether it is the same for every faction...it would take the last ?-mark off my 'homemade' techtrees (I think...). Thanks in advance.[/edit]

[Red Harvest]

I checked with the people responsible, and the Epona temples were a deliberate design decision. Many cavalry barracks did include a small shrine to Epona, as the worship of the horse god seemed a practical benefit to the Roman cavalry and so the practice spread across the Empire.

The Romans can't *start* a "Temple of Horse" line in a settlement, but if they capture a settlement with an intact temple they can improve it and make it part of their system. That's the explanation - it's a bit of "local colour", and a nice benefit feature if you find it. It is most definitely not "poor editing" (I *love* the way that there's an automatic assumption that we're all numpties).

If you look at the intentional changes to the buildings text for the horse temple, and the removal of "requires factions { roman, }" the assumption I made is quite reasonable. Since it was an intentional decision, then the editing was indeed poorly done. The horse temple is now showing up for playable Gauls among others--with that warning graphic IIRC.

I do find the idea of giving Rome even more bonuses for cavalry to two more levels of horse temple a questionable balance issue.

[Red Harvest]

C-F Perhaps you should check your own image you provide.
The "bug" "is not back". You have modded the game to allow you to play the Spanish and you have then given them access to a "Roman Faction only" building.
We don't support bugs accidentaly created by modification of the game data, never have, never will do. How can we possibly fix a problem you created?

This response about it being a modding problem is overused and misapplied unfortunately. This same "warning" shows up as Gauls in vanilla 1.5. That is how I found it with the patch.

The hostility to modding is misplaced. Afterall simple playable faction mods like this turned up problems with the unit line up of Spain and Numidia in vanilla, did they not? These were ones where the unit cards were ready and the units were slotted for the factions, and they were usable in custom, but the AI could not recruit them. The fixes were straightforward once found and CA made the changes to allow them in future patches.

EDIT: Wanted to add that I appreciate CA folks responding to the issues in the thread, thank you. However, you are doing yourself a bit of a disservice by not examining the issue more closely before attributing it to modding. I've seen this same approach used on at least four different issues since 1.2 where the community had already confirmed the problem.

We would all like to hear more about positive things that were changed that didn't make it into the readme. Blow your own horns on these! There are several positive changes that I suspect were done, but I don't have enough confirmation yet to list them at the top of the thread.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Hello Red Harvest.
I've just taken a look at the source files. Someone (unauthorised) here has in fact removed Roman faction access to Temple of Horse Awesome Temple and to Temple of Horse Pantheon. This is the only faction that should have access to these two buildings.
This has the unfortunate side effect of making those temples accessable to factions that should not have access to those buildings. Hence the "WARNING! This text should never appear on screen!" message.

We are investigating how this happened.

So we do have to hang our heads in shame on this one.

Intrepid Sidekick

[player1]

Hmmm...
I guess I'll make v3.01 of bug-fixer soon...
(and put it back how it was in with patch 1.2 when it worked as intended)

[Jambo]

I admire your honesty and humility Intrepid Sidekick. Thanks for the update. :D

[Haudegen]

I re-edited the higher Epona temples to make them buildable by the Romans in version 1.3. I reported about this some time ago in the Julii guide. (postings # 213, 215, 217)

But I must add that although it basically worked, it came at the cost of game stability. The game crashed to the desktop once or twice in an hour.

If the same thing happens under version 1.5 is still to be found out ...

[Red Harvest]

Hello Red Harvest.
I've just taken a look at the source files. Someone (unauthorised) here has in fact removed Roman faction access to Temple of Horse Awesome Temple and to Temple of Horse Pantheon. This is the only faction that should have access to these two buildings.
This has the unfortunate side effect of making those temples accessable to factions that should not have access to those buildings. Hence the "WARNING! This text should never appear on screen!" message.

We are investigating how this happened.

So we do have to hang our heads in shame on this one.

Intrepid Sidekick

Intrepid Sidekick,

Thank you for checking it, and especially for reporting back.

No reason to hang your heads in shame! It is a small editing thing that can be changed back to how you intended it (whether or not I agree on the balance aspect, LOL.) ...and perhaps add the academy law bonus that appears to have been unintentionally omitted (comparing the file to the 1.5 Readme.) This is little stuff that players/mods can correct if we know the intent.

CA made some considerable improvements with 1.5 as most of us agree. Of the RTW patches released, this one is the best in my opinion. I would of course like to see a couple of hardcoded issues addressed.

Again, most importantly, thanks for the communication. It really is much preferred over us on the outside hypothesizing over design intent. I embarass myself when I guess wrong...

[gardibolt]

Since we have your attention, El Capitan, what about the questions re the slave trade bonus and whether it's working, as discussed upthread?

[C-F]

Hello Red Harvest.
I've just taken a look at the source files. Someone (unauthorised) here has in fact removed Roman faction access to Temple of Horse Awesome Temple and to Temple of Horse Pantheon. This is the only faction that should have access to these two buildings.
This has the unfortunate side effect of making those temples accessable to factions that should not have access to those buildings. Hence the "WARNING! This text should never appear on screen!" message.

We are investigating how this happened.

So we do have to hang our heads in shame on this one.

Intrepid Sidekick

Thanks for your feedback

I think this is a wonderful game and we just want to get it 'just right' - shame and hanging heads should definitely not be on anybodys mind that accomplished such complex task in a program and gameplay - I mean that.

[Oaty]

New 1.5 Bugs
1. AI seems to be able to very successfully use pila after it engages in melee...even after it did the initial hurl and charge. (Red Harvest.)
(Red Harvest)

Not an introduced bug. I have been able to hurl pila from an engaged units in multiple ways since patch 1.2 and maybe earlier.

One way is guard mode with fire at will on. The unit can stay engaged and the rear ranks of the unit will throw pila. However if the unit becomes too disrupted it will be unable to throw.

Two just fire at will on. The unit will more likeley becom engaged once hit, but if the unit does not counter attack it can still throw from rear ranks.

Three probably the most obvious is to right pila click on a nearby unit that is within range.


Why this has become suddenly obvious is the fact that the A.I. always has FAW on. And now the A.I. is at the same level as the human.

[Jambo]

One thing that really puzzles me is that Praetorian Cohorts are buildable with Army Barracks+ AND also the Imperial Palace (both now post marian reforms). Didn't they used to be buildable from the Imperial Palace only?

This relative freedom to build the Praetorian Cohort using Barracks and or Palace construction pathways seems to make the other Legionnaire types rather pointless. They're also buildable anywhere on the map, which seems rather unhistoric.

[Rilder]

hmm this is a maby undocumented patch change but i've noticed the reforms happen exact turn you finish your imperial palace, i loaded my 1.2 brutus campaign were i hadnt had the reforms and a imperial in italy then the moment i got to the next turn i got the reforms, further testing i started a scipii campaign and did the add_poulation Capau 5000 then worked up to an imperial and lo and behold as soon as i finished "A New man, Gaius Marius" when it was like 250 bc.

[Red Harvest]

One thing that really puzzles me is that Praetorian Cohorts are buildable with Army Barracks+ AND also the Imperial Palace (both now post marian reforms). Didn't they used to be buildable from the Imperial Palace only?

This relative freedom to build the Praetorian Cohort using Barracks and or Palace construction pathways seems to make the other Legionnaire types rather pointless. They're also buildable anywhere on the map, which seems rather unhistoric.

I had the same question, Jambo and for the same reasons.

[Red Harvest]

Were the Thracian bastarnae intended to have warcry? They don't presently, while the merc bastarnae units do.

Also have been intending to mention that it appears to me that in 1.5 the AI is again using warcry more consistently. It was not doing so in 1.3 and it was costing it in 1vs1 match ups. Glad to see this apparently fixed!

[player1]

heh...
Maybe they are more "civilized" then their mercenary friends?

[Jambo]

lol!

Maybe one to address (Thracian Bastarnae) in the text files.

Red,

I had thought making Praetorians more freely available might have been CA's way of helping the Roman AI factions achieve such dominance over the world, i.e. building up to the supposed civil war climax. This is certainly true, but it also makes it seriously easy for the Romans in the hands of a human to beat up on the rest of the world. Only the tough Greek phalanx units seem to represent a problem. Tying Praetorians to Italy and the Imperial Palace seems the fairest option.

Also, it's a shame to see skirmishers still attacking in melee. This was reportedly fixed but I still see it happening with the Numidian and Greek armies I've been facing as Scipii. I've lengthened the range of skirmishing units from 50 to 60 to hopefully lessen the likelihood of the AI using them in melee.

[player1]

By the way both praetorian and bastarnae are old from 1.3, it's strange that none of the players has mentioned them as an issue.

Seems to me more like a rule change then a bug, but it does have an balancing implications.

[Jambo]

I would have noticed it normally, but this is the first time I've played an Imperial Campaign since the release of BI. Plus I suppose many don't play the Roman factions. I reckon this should only be applicable for the Senate and that for the Roman families their ability to build praetorians should be restricted to Italy and an Imperial Palace.

[Red Harvest]

By the way both praetorian and bastarnae are old from 1.3, it's strange that none of the players has mentioned them as an issue.

Seems to me more like a rule change then a bug, but it does have an balancing implications.

I already knew that the warcry had changed in 1.3. However, the bastarnae and falx of Thracia did not have warcry before 1.3...since it used to be based on culture and unit type, and wasn't a listed attribute. Greeks didn't get it...even Thracian ones from what I recall of testing. I used the Thracian falx vs. the Dacian falx to see how much warcry contributed to attack in testing in 1.2. The addition of warcry to the Thracian falxmen is an improvement made possible by porting RTW to the BI based .exe.

So for the Thracian recruited bastarnae there has been no net change in warcry while for the Thracian falxmen there has.

I haven't called either of the Praetorian or Bastarnae oddities a bug, but I do have doubts as to whether they are configured as CA intended them to be. The Praetorian change doesn't seem to follow the basic logic of the game.

[Zatoichi]

Another warcry related question - before I got BI, when playing as the Romans the warcry ability for mercenary warbands was disabled - now it is enabled. Or am I imagining it? (I am playing a slightly modded version of RTW). Would this relate to what Red Harvest is talking about? I didn't really play 1.3 as I was too busy playing BI - now I've gone back to RTW so maybe this was in 1.3 not introduced in 1.5/6?

[player1]

In 1.2 and before all barbarian units had warcry (if they were melee, not skirmishers or something else), including mercenaries recruited by barbarians too I think.

From BI, only units tagged as warcry capable have it.
So no more same mercenary unit has or has not warcry depending from which faction recruits it.

[Red Harvest]

Another warcry related question - before I got BI, when playing as the Romans the warcry ability for mercenary warbands was disabled - now it is enabled. Or am I imagining it? (I am playing a slightly modded version of RTW). Would this relate to what Red Harvest is talking about? I didn't really play 1.3 as I was too busy playing BI - now I've gone back to RTW so maybe this was in 1.3 not introduced in 1.5/6?

Yes, that is what I noticed as well. The new system CA adopted for BI and ported to RTW 1.3/1.5 is superior in that regard.

[Germanvs]

Slave-trading definately does not work, nor has it ever worked.

[player1]

One of a few things that got unhardcoded after the expansion.

[player1]

You mean pop growth bonus due to slave trade?

[Germanvs]

Yes, I mean that. The icon for increased population growth appears neatly, but if fact it doesn't do anything. Factual growth is the same as if no slaves were being traded.

Dragging off half the population upon capturing a settlement works splendid.