Galactic Civilizations II v1.3 BETA 1 change log

Target availability: 7/27

Published on July 26, 2006 By Draginol In GalCiv Journals

The 1.3 builds of Galactic Civilizations II will be in beta for longer than some of the previous versions. It's not so much that we think it's buggy but the fact that we don't want to do a 1.3, 1.31, 1.32, 1.33 and so on. Plus, if there ARE bugs in these builds, we can say "Well it's a beta". After all, weaseling is what sets us apart from the animals...well...you know..except the weasel.

The 1.3 builds are designed to extend the playable lifespan of the game. To eliminate annoyances and pet peeves that players might have that would eventually turn them off. That includes things like UI annoyances being eliminated based on player feedback, amping up the computer AI further, and adding more difficulty levels so that players can fine-tune things.

If I were a better game designer, I'd just have the difficulty levels be a slider with a 1 to 100. Dark Avatar will have that (ironically the original OS/2 version of GalCiv back in 1993 had this but what did I know then?). But for 1.3, we added 3 more difficulty levels and just generally cleaned up that area.

Below is the change log of BETA 1 of 1.3. It will be available via Stardock Central tomorrow or Friday unless there's some disaster.

It should be fine to run. Most of the embedded spyware, hard drive formatting, and other malicious code that all our software includes has been reduced by over 14%. Just ignore the hard drive crunching...

+ fixed first turn after load zero production behavior!

+ AI better at managing colonies

+ More difficulty levels: Dunce at the lower end, Godlike and Ultimate at the higher end.

+ AI intelligence levels above and below "Intelligent" adjusted in difficulty (so i.e. Normal will be tougher than it was because there's a new easier difficulty level and Incredible will be easier because there's two higher difficulty levels).

+ The overall difficulty levels have now bee tweaked to have a 1 to 1 relationshipo with the AI intelligence levels so "Challenging" means all AI intelligences set to "Bright" rather than a weighted overall value. Many higher level players would find that they set the difficultly level to Crippling only to find that 2 or 3 of the players would be set to "Fool" (and do very little) while the others played very well.

+ Difficulty setup screen tweaked to work better.

+ changed size of TriStrontium so that it's bigger than TriStrontium2; previously the definitions were identical.

+ fixed error in translation code for raceconfig (homeworld)

+ fixed error in translation code for UP issues.

+ fixed bug that reset the cheater's flag, allowing cheater games to be submitted normally.

+ fixed some exploits in raceconfigs for metaverse games

+ fixed missing image in Rename Ship dialog

+ fixed error in AbilitiesBonus.xml file that didn't show 20% bonus to Loyalty

+ reduced the Custom Race's default value of Loyalty to 15% so that it would not cause negative ability points

+ added code to clear the planet/shiplist between games so that it wouldn't keep old pointers (should prevent a memory leak and potential crashes due to bad pointers)

+ made it so that you can select a race by clicking on its icon on the Foreign Treaties screen

+ made it so that the seleted planet or ship in the planet/ship list is saved so that changing the sort variable or filters will still keep the selection.

+ added code to let you right click on a tech to bring up the tech description dialog when the tech tree window is maximized

+ fixed error where fleets of ships could still attack freighters protected by galactic privateer

+ Reversed direction of the moon revolution (yes, Earth's moon now rotates around the Earth the right way)

+ added a check in the Direct 3D code for vertex and pixel shader versions

+ added code to make foreign policy window try to select a non-dead civ

+ made sure that the civ manager only has to parse the entry definitions once

+ made planet screens refresh after removing or adding troops

+ fixed numerous typos and spelling errors in various files

+ changed it so that the difficulty on the OpponentWnd slider changes all of the selected races' intelligences

+ changed it so that when you enable a race, it automatically sets its intelligence to be at the level of the difficulty

+ Fixed bug where lines on Treaties screen would point off-screen if you were a custom race playing against 10 enemies

+ D and T buttons will now toggle the details and rally point screens on/off instead of queuing up multiple instances of them

+ Kills some battle related processes as soon as they are finished so they don’t stay in memory when no longer needed

+ When running in full screen mode (Release build), the mouse will be clipped to the game window to prevent accidentally clicking outside of the window. You can still use ALT+TAB to activate other windows.

+ added function IsProtectedMiniFreighter to check for valid target

+ added code to clear selected rallypoint from minimap to prevent crashing when the rallypoint is deleted

+ added code to clear rallypoint destination when rallypoint is destroyed

+ Added a debug assert if the required technology for a ship type is not found

+ Fixed bug where ships on auto-explore that were put in a planet would immediately start auto-exploring once launched from the planet

+ Fixed a graphical bug where if you had 1 ship with moves and it attacked a planet with a fleet manager, the fleet would remain on top of the planet if the attacking ship was killed.

+ fixed memory leak caused by too many references to ship design listbox entries

+ fixed possible crash when saving std::strings in save game

+ cleaned up code in PropertyBucket class to make it more efficient.

+ Fixed a crash in the scene graph

+ Added ref counts to scene nodes in battle processes to prevent “random battle crashes”

+ Kills some battle related processes as soon as they are finished so they don’t stay in memory when no longer needed

Comments (Page 4)

CariElf

on Jul 27, 2006

Why is this particular problem not being looked at and fixed?

I am taking this question out of context, because everyone always wants to know why their pet peeve has not been 'fixed', assuming that is actually a bug and not just something that the person disagrees with the implementation.

First of all, if something is a cosmetic error and does not actually hinder playing the game, it is going to be low priority. That includes typos, bad grammar, and general mangling of the English language. I'm not responsible for the other languages, so talk to Paradox if you have an issue with any of the translations. Crash bugs and other bugs that hinder playing the game are my top priority. These bugs are often difficult to track down and can take time. So why, you ask, if it would be fairly quick to fix typos and stuff, don't you just rip through a bunch of those too? A lot of that stuff is easy to miss because after you've seen the text a few times, you tend to skim through it to get the gist and then hit the done button. I played the game in German while testing my translation code, despite the fact that I don't understand German, because I don't need to read most of the text. And, when I'm getting e-mails with crash logs, etc, it just doesn't seem like it's worth it to go and fix a bunch of typos.

Second, everyone has a different idea of what should be top priority. No matter in what order we fix things, a bunch of you are still going to complain.

So how do I decide what to work on? The majority of the stuff that I fixed for 1.3 came out of the bug database, the place where e-mails sent to gc2bugs@stardock.com goes. Also, they were from reports that made it very easy for me to make the fixes. The typos + other text errors that I fixed were from a report that told me EXACTLY what to fix, in what files, etc. Another good way to get my attention is to hang out in the chat room like Marcathonas, who got the loyalty bug fixed because he told me about it. I'd no idea that the second option for loyalty wasn't showing up. Other bugs were fixed because people sent me save games and screenshots with detailed instructions for reproducing bugs. I tend to leave things that would affect the balance or economy of the game to Brad, or I at least ask him about it. Since he's the one who writes the AI, any changes to the economy, improvements, techs, etc, will affect his code the most. Mavx also was a big help by making me a list of various bugs and posting links to the forum threads in the council forum for me. The moon bug was very simple to fix and it was something that people complained a lot about in the past.

However, if you come in the chat room, do not ask me every 5-15 minutes if I've fixed a bug. That's a good way to get yourself kicked. Also, this is somewhat petty, but if you post a thread on the forums demanding that something be fixed, that's going to annoy us, and if I'm annoyed, I don't like to help the person who annoyed me. I have not deliberately ignored bug reports from people who have annoyed me, but I get more done when I'm not annoyed. I don't care how frustrated you are, be polite when bringing bugs to our attention whatever medium you're using to report it. You guys like it that we (generally) don't flame you when you make bug reports, that we actually listen to you, and often act on your feedback. So do us the same courtesy and treat us with civility (and patience) also. You may have bought our game, but that doesn't give you the right to abuse us.

brycej

on Jul 27, 2006

I am still hoping for a sticky planet/ship list which I scroll through at the end of every turn.

It would be nice that if you make a change on a planet, the list wouldn't make you start
from the top again every time.

Lord Nova

on Jul 27, 2006

If you are playing a Metaverse game you can't use any Mods, so we are dependent on Stardock to fix them.

True but I don't play Metaverse games and I'm sure there are alot of users that don't . It would be nice to just list the correct values (I'm looking at you droid Sentry II and III) so that I can make the appropriate changes and fixes to my game and who knows maybe even post it on this site so others can benefit from it and if Stardock approves they can use those values in the next patch which saves them work.

CariElf

on Jul 27, 2006

brycej:

+ made it so that the seleted planet or ship in the planet/ship list is saved so that changing the sort variable or filters will still keep the selection.

This should also be true if the window is closed. It's also supposed to jump to the correct entry if it would otherwise be off the screen, but I did find one instance where it didn't do it.

pdesrivieres@yahoo.com

on Jul 27, 2006

When a later tech is inferior to a preceeding tech, I would say that is a bug. In some cases it is obvious, e.g., Subspace Blaster is clearly inferior to Disrupters and Subspace Annihilator doesn't exist. In other cases it is only clear after doing some number crunching, e.g., Phasor VI is inferior to Phaser III; in these cases it is understandable why they were missed. While playing I avoid the "Manufacturing Center" tech until a need it to further upgrade my starbases mining resources because an "Enhanced Factory" provides nearly the same output at half the cost! I also skip building "Banking Center" because they cost twice as much as they should and go straight to "Stock Market".

I would not bother Stardock with something as petty as a typo (I blame them on the Universal Translator) or the Moon rotating the wrong way. The government description states each confers a 25%, 50%, or 75% bonus to production, research, and your economy. If true, these techs would be overpowered but they each only confer a 10%, 20%, or 30% bonus to your economy. Frogboy/Brad indicated they were only intended to provide an economic boost. The false description causes players to place too much importance on them. I have read many posts saying something to the effect of, "I rush to get all the government techs for the bonuses to production, research, and my economy."

Also, this is somewhat petty, but if you post a thread on the forums demanding that something be fixed, that's going to annoy us, and if I'm annoyed, I don't like to help the person who annoyed me.

Being a developer with nearly 2 decades professional experience I understand the demands and challenges developers face. I hope I have not offended any of the developers at Stardock, as I have great respect for the quality work you have done!

Please consider ignuss and my humble change requests.

Paul D.

The Water Seer

on Jul 27, 2006

Thanks Stardock for these updates, I especially appreciate the first turn load fix.
Azrune makes a valid point about the "Custom Race" not needing some additional work however. We are still alot like the Terrans. To make a truely custom race I suggest the following:

-Let us choose our own abilities with a clean slate. I personally don't value loyalty or soldiering very highly, and they are thrust upon me.
-The biggest difference of all to me is how your initial solar system is designed. I currently play the Thalan's because I don't like having a two-planet system with a class 10 and 4. One class 15 is vastly superior, as it is an ideal site for a manufacturing capitol off the bat, allowing several galactic achievements to be built if you are doing well, and room for lots of standard buildings if you are bottled up to be applied to your population with some planet-specific bonuses such as the technological capital.

-If I can be given complete chioce about what abilities and planetary setup I desire then I can truely create a custom race that satisfies my desires, and I can stop being a green bug.

Initial technologies are fairly secondary by contrast.

Thanks for your time!

Litcube

on Jul 27, 2006

Well said, Mascrinthus.

Frogboy

on Jul 27, 2006

When a later tech is inferior to a preceeding tech, I would say that is a bug. In some cases it is obvious, e.g., Subspace Blaster is clearly inferior to Disrupters

Subspace blaster is cheaper than Disruptor. Like Cari said, sometimes it depends on how we interpret things. Moreover, the values on many of these things have changed since 1.0.

What Cari is getting at is that one has to look at what has been changed. EVERYONE here has their own list of priorities. I mean come on, look at the change logs of these updates and this is on a game whose 1.0 was considered pretty good.

Personally, I think nearly all the stuff at this point is piddly outside AI changes. But there's been tons of posts from people who complained about the resource update thingy that occured after loading a saved game. To some people, that was a big deal. To others, it was nothing. To you, having subspace blasters only provide 6 units of damage instead of say 8 is a big deal. Why haven't you changed it in the XML file to whatever you want it to be? If you think it should be 8 or 9 or 53 then just change it. You're not really playing the Metaverse so that can't be the reason.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but some day -- some day we won't be doing updates to the game anymore. And with that in mind, it seems to me that the things that should really take priority are the kinds of things only we can do (i.e. C++ code changes). That is how we've been approaching things anyway. Things that people can tweak to their heart's content on their own don't take the same priority.

Or put another way - which do you want me to work on? Computer AI and economic engine tweaks or participating in back and forth debates on whether Phasors III should cost 40 or 35 and then putting it into the game. People (on all games) always think their the "proper" value for a weapon or unit or speed or whatever is "obvious". But obviously..it's not or else we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. That's why it's in a text file -- so people can make it what they want.

That isn't to say we won't ever go back and tweak the values more, but good grief, let's keep some perspective. There's a lot of work that's gone into these updates and half the comments are "Why didn't you fix MY pet peeve that I could fix myself????".

Azrune

on Jul 27, 2006

I knew it, I knew it wouldn't be availible on thursday when they said, why do they give you a release date when they know it won't be released? And how is it that when the internet was delayed last week for just a day we had to wait almost a week??? Also when is IGN going to post the info on the humans in the databanks? "coming soon" my ass.

Lord Nova

on Jul 27, 2006

That's exactly what I want you guys to be fixing. I can handle the XML stuff but I'm not going to learn code language. I believe if the community actively made their own fixes to weapons/techs/buildings and shared them they could make the game play even better with even more balance. Instead of countless threads about how something is unblalanced, it would be nice to see suggestions on why and then a link to download that techtree so others could test it out and share input. People will be more likely to agree if there is an example of how the weapon/tech "should" be. The default values work pretty well but I think it's us as players that should be making it better and balanced.

The reason the multiplayer RTS games usually gets rebalanced is due to multiplayer and playing against humans that will exploit major weakness in the game design. Here you don't really have to worry about abuse since it's SP and it's up to the human player to choose to abuse a system or not. For instance even though the last industry tech doesn't give that big of a bonus, I still research it anyways for production cause the AI does it too, now if it was MP I would never research it cause I would be pretty sure my rival wouldn't waste his time with it either thereby putting us on equal ground.

kryo

on Jul 27, 2006

I knew it, I knew it wouldn't be availible on thursday when they said, why do they give you a release date when they know it won't be released?

It's been up on SDC since at least 20 minutes before you made this comment. Lets look before we flame next time, eh?

ignuss

on Jul 27, 2006

I'm also sorry if I have offended you in any way. I'm very happy with the support Stardock have provided to this game so far and I hope you look through my suggested changes and see that they are in fact bugs.

pdesrivieres@yahoo.com

on Jul 27, 2006

Why haven't you changed it in the XML file to whatever you want it to be? If you think it should be 8 or 9 or 53 then just change it. You're not really playing the Metaverse so that can't be the reason.

Sadly that is not the case.

Since completing the campaign at the end of April, I have only played very long Metaverse games. With a demanding career and long commute (60miles/100km) I have no time during the week to play, so the only time I have is a few hours on the weekend while my young daughters are napping unless I'm busy with some project around the house. For many of us with careers, wife, and young children, time to play video games is at a premium. A gigantic map with everything abundant, very fast research, 9 opponents, takes a long time given the micro-management required at the higher difficulty levels (I'm currently playing my second game at Masochistic). The first game took me May and June (not helped by the memory bug in v1.0 which caused many corrupted saved games and frequent reloading), submitted July 4. This weekend I have a wedding to attend on Saturday and painting to do on Sunday so I likely will have to wait until the following weekend to continue my current game (it is Feb. 2226, my economy is finally in the black and I'm starting to build my first NLC).

It is 10:30 p.m. and I have a 1.5 hour drive home, so I should be leaving now. At least I got Firehose v2.3.0 (an ANSI-C POSIX real-time multi-threaded server running on Linux or Solaris which relays audio and video streams to thousands of concurrent clients) out today for Network Operations, soon to be powering all of AOL Radio Link (currently it is relaying XM Radio streams) and maybe someday SHOUTcast Link!

S1Genocide

on Jul 27, 2006

-Let us choose our own abilities with a clean slate. I personally don't value loyalty or soldiering very highly, and they are thrust upon me.

I agree with that.

I would also like some weapon balancing done.

Just chiming in my opinion.

For INVADER-Mod I'm probably going to do something like:
Instead of Default:
Laser 1 does 1 damage no miniturazation
Laser 2 does 1 damage some miniturazation
Laser 3 does 1 damage small miniturazation
Laser 4 does 1 damage smaller miniturazation
Laser 5 does 1 damage smallest miniturazation

INVADER-Mod will be like This:

Laser 1 does 1 damage no miniturazation
Laser 2 does 2 damage some miniturazation
Laser 3 does 3 damage small miniturazation
Laser 4 does 4 damage smaller miniturazation
Laser 5 does 5 damage smallest miniturazation

And I'll balance the shields and armor to go with the weapons. (what drives me nuts is inventing a weapon thats basically the same thing except smaller.)

Mismatched

on Jul 27, 2006

I thought the moons always rotated the right way but we were looking at the galaxy from the other side? Didn't you guys tell us that once?

Good work, I'm really looking forward to a further improved AI.

And Thanks!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!