A couple of bugs - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Support and Troubleshooting
  A couple of bugs

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   A couple of bugs

carlos posted 05-04-99 02:57 AM ET
1) In the overview after winning a game the Spartans are the same colour as water so that you can't distinguish between the two. Also another thing about the overview (I don't think it has been addressed yet in patch 3.0) waterbases aren't shown.
2)The dissapearance of the black squares when you "discover" land (or sea) by moving a unit doesn't always work correctly. Sometimes you "discover" more then you're supposed to, and the black squares dissappear in strange paterns. I have seen this with land sea and air units. I haven't created a saved game yet, but I could do so on request.
3)When a unit falls through a dimensional hole the world map isn't adjusted for the new discovery.
4)When I tell a plane or a rocket to "go to" a far away base the unit almost always crashes. I would like to see that the unit knows that it has to go to a nearby base because it's movement points are almost used up.
Suggestions:
1)A preference for not to zoom to the active unit when you have entered (and exited) a base screen. I like to view the basescreens of a couple of geographically near bases, but in the present system I have to click on the worldmap a lot.

carlos posted 05-04-99 05:14 AM ET
Another suggestion:
Planned city sites
The idea is that the player can place "planned city sites". This way it's easier to plan expansion, because you can see how to place your cities without causing overlap of city zones. Personally I think this would be very handy, because I usually plan 5 or 6 cities at a time but it can get a little hard to see if there's overlap of city zones.
It would work as follows: by clicking the right mouse button (and selecting from the menu the corresponding option)on a square the player can designate that square as a "planned city site". The program simly draws the resulting city limit in white. It also draws the resulting borders with other factions in white or dotted.
Extra options:
Colony pods can now be automated to go to the planned city sites and build a new city. Automated formers build roads to the sites and improve the area round the future city.
Concluding I think this idea is relatively easy to implement and it gives the player a nice overview. It also adds to the atmosphere of "empire building", because you see your own megalomanic ideas displayed on the world.
R A Spottiswood posted 05-06-99 02:10 AM ET
Planned base sites -- that would be fantastic. That is a feature I have wanted since the original Civilization. It would make planning so much easier.
I have seen the map bug -- new exploration not being shown -- as well. I just wish I knew what triggers it.
Sea bases do indeed show up on the replay screen. However, the problem is not that the Spartan's colour is black -- it is that the water colour was changed to black. In the original version the Spartans showed up fine (I think).
RAS
carlos posted 05-11-99 05:33 AM ET
Small adjustment required:
When two factions agree on a (peace) treaty I assume that the two involved factions agree on the location of their mutual borders. However when you start building bases near that border the border shifts while the factions remain at peace. This is rather absurd, because violation of the integrity of the territory of a state is enough ground to declare war (principle of right of self-defence of a state). I see two solutions:
1)When ordering to build a base that will result in shifting borders the player should get a message: "This action is in violation of the peace treaty with Faction X, do you really want to declare war?"
Something similar would have to be devised for the computer players.
2)When a peace treaty is active the borders between the factions are simply static. Building bases doesn't result in shifting borders, but you can build bases without having to declare war in contrary to (1).
This means that once you agreed to peace, your territory is fixed (at least at the corresponding border(s)). This also means that you will have to go to war to increase your territory.
This might require a simple option to declare war, perhaps something on the lines of: "Release the ownership of the territory on our borders which is obviously in my zone of influence (the shift that would accur if the borders would shift as normal)or be destroyed". On the other hand perhaps the current diplomacy options are enough to declare war (turn over control of base X or else. Receiving the base would have to result in redrawing of the borders as always).

This second solution is my favorite, because of the fact that you can still expand somewhat without having to declare war (unlike (1)). The best argument for implementing this solution is the following; the tactic of the human player to encircle computer players by strategically placing bases would no longer be possible. This tactic resulted in a (too) easy and safe reduction of computer players territory for the human player.
I think solution (2) would help the not so expensionistic computer players quite a lot, since the human player usually can't afford to go to war with all the factions in the early part of the game. This means that there are always some factions which have a peace treaty with the human player in the early part of the game and thus there are factions whose territory the human player can't nibble in on and who now have the time to develop according to their own strategy.
The amount of work required for implementing the simplest form of this solution is in my eyes relatively small; the location of the borders between two factions at the time of an agreement on a peace treaty between the two should be stored somewhere and the location of the named borders should from that point on forward be made independent of the location of bases (until the peace treaty is revoked).
Another consequence of fixing the borders is that the very annoying habbit of some computer players of building bases very near to the border (and to each other) until their bases start to overlap with your own bases (without you being able to do something about it, unless you were prepared to got to war) would be stopped.
Let me conclude be saying that I hope this can be patched and thanking the Firaxis people for their work in advance (optimistically).
cousLee posted 05-11-99 05:53 AM ET
Excellent idea. Pact and treaty agreements freeze the current borders between the agreeing factions. if that is too hard to program in, then possibly another solution, would be to just add it as a diplomatic option: make proposal, freeze borders.
Urban Ranger posted 05-11-99 07:17 AM ET
There's a problem with this, however. Right now, when a base is built in the middle of nowhere, it takes over half a large continent, i.e., it's influence is too wide. I would suggest that a city doesn't influence more than its city radius, or at most a couple of squares more.
Another problem with border is, if you have an existing city near the border, and another player builders one close to it, it's the older city that gets helmed in. That doesn't make sense. It should be the new city that lose usable squares inside its city radius.
carlos posted 05-12-99 04:21 AM ET
Urban Ranger
The zone of influence can be changed in one of the *.txt files so that can be tweaked easily (by Firaxis or by the players themselves) if needed.
The second problem you raise is solved by my solution.
Thanks for your reply
Warp Warrior posted 05-12-99 01:39 PM ET
Problem #1 at top of thread: I have never seen the sea bases drawn on the replay animation map unless the area it sits on is raised up to land first. Since I like to raise a lot of land, the replay animation looks strange particularly when the other factions build sea bases next to my land at the beginning of the game (which don't usually show up on the animation if you would resign at that point), later in the game the city is captured, city and the surrounding area around it is raised, but on the end-of-the-game animation all the land at the end of the game is shown, even though there wasn't nearly that much land to start with, and it looks like the other faction took a chunk of land away from me, which I know didn't happen. It would be nice if it would show what really happened: sea base is built first, then captured, then land is raised up, or what happens alot with me: land raised first then city captured with land units (don't really have a great need for a navy).
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: A couple of bugs
carlos	posted 05-04-99 02:57 AM ET 1) In the overview after winning a game the Spartans are the same colour as water so that you can't distinguish between the two. Also another thing about the overview (I don't think it has been addressed yet in patch 3.0) waterbases aren't shown. 2)The dissapearance of the black squares when you "discover" land (or sea) by moving a unit doesn't always work correctly. Sometimes you "discover" more then you're supposed to, and the black squares dissappear in strange paterns. I have seen this with land sea and air units. I haven't created a saved game yet, but I could do so on request. 3)When a unit falls through a dimensional hole the world map isn't adjusted for the new discovery. 4)When I tell a plane or a rocket to "go to" a far away base the unit almost always crashes. I would like to see that the unit knows that it has to go to a nearby base because it's movement points are almost used up. Suggestions: 1)A preference for not to zoom to the active unit when you have entered (and exited) a base screen. I like to view the basescreens of a couple of geographically near bases, but in the present system I have to click on the worldmap a lot.
carlos	posted 05-04-99 05:14 AM ET Another suggestion: Planned city sites The idea is that the player can place "planned city sites". This way it's easier to plan expansion, because you can see how to place your cities without causing overlap of city zones. Personally I think this would be very handy, because I usually plan 5 or 6 cities at a time but it can get a little hard to see if there's overlap of city zones. It would work as follows: by clicking the right mouse button (and selecting from the menu the corresponding option)on a square the player can designate that square as a "planned city site". The program simly draws the resulting city limit in white. It also draws the resulting borders with other factions in white or dotted. Extra options: Colony pods can now be automated to go to the planned city sites and build a new city. Automated formers build roads to the sites and improve the area round the future city. Concluding I think this idea is relatively easy to implement and it gives the player a nice overview. It also adds to the atmosphere of "empire building", because you see your own megalomanic ideas displayed on the world.
R A Spottiswood	posted 05-06-99 02:10 AM ET Planned base sites -- that would be fantastic. That is a feature I have wanted since the original Civilization. It would make planning so much easier. I have seen the map bug -- new exploration not being shown -- as well. I just wish I knew what triggers it. Sea bases do indeed show up on the replay screen. However, the problem is not that the Spartan's colour is black -- it is that the water colour was changed to black. In the original version the Spartans showed up fine (I think). RAS
carlos	posted 05-11-99 05:33 AM ET Small adjustment required: When two factions agree on a (peace) treaty I assume that the two involved factions agree on the location of their mutual borders. However when you start building bases near that border the border shifts while the factions remain at peace. This is rather absurd, because violation of the integrity of the territory of a state is enough ground to declare war (principle of right of self-defence of a state). I see two solutions: 1)When ordering to build a base that will result in shifting borders the player should get a message: "This action is in violation of the peace treaty with Faction X, do you really want to declare war?" Something similar would have to be devised for the computer players. 2)When a peace treaty is active the borders between the factions are simply static. Building bases doesn't result in shifting borders, but you can build bases without having to declare war in contrary to (1). This means that once you agreed to peace, your territory is fixed (at least at the corresponding border(s)). This also means that you will have to go to war to increase your territory. This might require a simple option to declare war, perhaps something on the lines of: "Release the ownership of the territory on our borders which is obviously in my zone of influence (the shift that would accur if the borders would shift as normal)or be destroyed". On the other hand perhaps the current diplomacy options are enough to declare war (turn over control of base X or else. Receiving the base would have to result in redrawing of the borders as always). This second solution is my favorite, because of the fact that you can still expand somewhat without having to declare war (unlike (1)). The best argument for implementing this solution is the following; the tactic of the human player to encircle computer players by strategically placing bases would no longer be possible. This tactic resulted in a (too) easy and safe reduction of computer players territory for the human player. I think solution (2) would help the not so expensionistic computer players quite a lot, since the human player usually can't afford to go to war with all the factions in the early part of the game. This means that there are always some factions which have a peace treaty with the human player in the early part of the game and thus there are factions whose territory the human player can't nibble in on and who now have the time to develop according to their own strategy. The amount of work required for implementing the simplest form of this solution is in my eyes relatively small; the location of the borders between two factions at the time of an agreement on a peace treaty between the two should be stored somewhere and the location of the named borders should from that point on forward be made independent of the location of bases (until the peace treaty is revoked). Another consequence of fixing the borders is that the very annoying habbit of some computer players of building bases very near to the border (and to each other) until their bases start to overlap with your own bases (without you being able to do something about it, unless you were prepared to got to war) would be stopped. Let me conclude be saying that I hope this can be patched and thanking the Firaxis people for their work in advance (optimistically).
cousLee	posted 05-11-99 05:53 AM ET Excellent idea. Pact and treaty agreements freeze the current borders between the agreeing factions. if that is too hard to program in, then possibly another solution, would be to just add it as a diplomatic option: make proposal, freeze borders.
Urban Ranger	posted 05-11-99 07:17 AM ET There's a problem with this, however. Right now, when a base is built in the middle of nowhere, it takes over half a large continent, i.e., it's influence is too wide. I would suggest that a city doesn't influence more than its city radius, or at most a couple of squares more. Another problem with border is, if you have an existing city near the border, and another player builders one close to it, it's the older city that gets helmed in. That doesn't make sense. It should be the new city that lose usable squares inside its city radius.
carlos	posted 05-12-99 04:21 AM ET Urban Ranger The zone of influence can be changed in one of the *.txt files so that can be tweaked easily (by Firaxis or by the players themselves) if needed. The second problem you raise is solved by my solution. Thanks for your reply
Warp Warrior	posted 05-12-99 01:39 PM ET Problem #1 at top of thread: I have never seen the sea bases drawn on the replay animation map unless the area it sits on is raised up to land first. Since I like to raise a lot of land, the replay animation looks strange particularly when the other factions build sea bases next to my land at the beginning of the game (which don't usually show up on the animation if you would resign at that point), later in the game the city is captured, city and the surrounding area around it is raised, but on the end-of-the-game animation all the land at the end of the game is shown, even though there wasn't nearly that much land to start with, and it looks like the other faction took a chunk of land away from me, which I know didn't happen. It would be nice if it would show what really happened: sea base is built first, then captured, then land is raised up, or what happens alot with me: land raised first then city captured with land units (don't really have a great need for a navy).