Any chance for a patch?

[alexander seil]

I really like the game concept, but I never really got into the game, simply because I'm utterly frustrated by the assimilation rates. It's been confirmed before that they are, in a sense, "broken" (it can't be "working-as-designed" for Greeks to disappear from southern Italy in 2 years). Any chance it can be fixed? From what I know it's impossible to mod, so someone has to go into the code.

[calvinus]

Unfortunately, I'm 100% committed in another (secret) project. So I have no time to work on a GI patch... leure: Sorry!

[eleven_west]

Hi Calvinus

although we appreciate you being busy to a new project (this can only be promising for the future - looking forward to!!), is it official that Great Invasions won't be supported any more? Or is it for the duration of the secret project only.

You know I just downloaded it in the beginning of the month dammit leure: if I knew it contained broken elements with no timeline for fixing I might have reconsidered.. I mean, if it's still on sale it should be upgraded to golden perfection in regular intervals..

[calvinus]

Hi Calvinus

although we appreciate you being busy to a new project (this can only be promising for the future - looking forward to!!), is it official that Great Invasions won't be supported any more? Or is it for the duration of the secret project only.

You know I just downloaded it in the beginning of the month dammit leure: if I knew it contained broken elements with no timeline for fixing I might have reconsidered.. I mean, if it's still on sale it should be upgraded to golden perfection in regular intervals..

Ok, I'll try to give you an "official" response...

There are two main issues for the time being:

#1 : I'm 100% committed on a secret project. This will take me busy at least until the end of 2008. So no support can be granted for GI until that date for sure.

#2 : GI is strictly compatible with DirectX 8.1, while for technical needs I'm forced to use a development environment that needs at least of DirectX 9.0. That's why I'm not able now even to plan any patch for GI.

Point #2 brings one immediate consideration. Any GI upgrade would bring to a completely new version of the game, such a sort of Great Invasions II. That's to say a turn-based, monitor resolution compliant and much more affordable game, that will use a new map engine and surely not outdated technologies...

Well, I cannot tell now for sure that a GI2 game will ever see the light. I can only say that we will discuss on this matter not before the first half of 2009...

Thanks,
Calvinus.

[eleven_west]

The answer of a Sphinx but a promising reply, nevertheless..

[Jayavarman]

Very cool.

[Lascar]

Ok, I'll try to give you an "official" response...


#2 : GI is strictly compatible with DirectX 8.1, while for technical needs I'm forced to use a development environment that needs at least of DirectX 9.0. That's why I'm not able now even to plan any patch for GI.

I noticed when recently installing Great Invasions that it prompted with the option to install Direct X 9 from the installation CD. Is it inadvisable to respond with an OK and install DX 9?

[calvinus]

Don't worry. DirectX 9.0c are compatible with all games that work using Dx 8.1, such GI for example. So installing Dx 9.0 will not create any problem to you.

[JMass]

Any GI upgrade would bring to a completely new version of the game, such a sort of Great Invasions II. That's to say a [SIZE="4"]turn-based[/size], monitor resolution compliant and much more affordable game, that will use a new map engine and surely not outdated technologies...

Let me dream!

[alexander seil]

Can we have just that one little fix to assimilation rates? I'm not asking you to fix every CTD, etc., just fix that one variable, or, better yet, make it user-defined. It's the one gamebreaking bug that I can identify in the game, and it makes it impossible for me to enjoy it, because it clearly takes away from a game that's focused on migrations!

[GrudgeBringer]

Ok, I have AACW, MontJoie, and have D/L the demo for Napoleons Conquests.

I really like the period GI is from and was considering buying this as it is cheap and different from the games I am playing now.

My questions to the troops are:

1. Is this game as hard to learn as they say it is (after AACW I don't know if I want to go thru that agian)?

2. The bug you are talking about in this thread seems a game breaker accoring to most of you.

Would you suggest I buy this game 'broken' or pass on it at the present time?

I always rely on the folks that PLAY the game because they are the front line troops and know the most about playability.

Thanks!!

[alexander seil]

To make myself clear, the "bug" I mention is not, in principle, a bug, it's a modifier (cultural conversion) that I believe is set way too high. It's basically a historical balance issue that does not make the game "broken," but it severely diminishes my own personal enjoyment of it. If you like the time period, you should definitely get the game. The only problem is that the game can be a bit unstable and sluggish at some point, but otherwise it's perfectly playable and enjoyable.

[GrudgeBringer]

Thank you for responding to my fear of a 'Game Busting' bug or lack there of.

My seccond question is/was about the learning curve and the Tutorials (or lack of) as I have read the 'reviews' and they say that its hard to learn with a bad manual.

Now, as I have said I play AACW and if you have never tried to play that puppy then you have NO idea what a non-existent manual and out of date tutorials can do to a game that has the depth and scope of that particular game.

It actually took 40 posts to just understand the basics. And this is on a forum that not only is currant but VERY active and helpful.

LOL....I REALLY do want to try this game...I am just still having nightmares over the learning process with AACW (however it IS a great game once you learn it).

So I guess I am asking:

IF you had not bought this game yet and given what you know about the learning curve and the game itself ...would you buy it agian?

Thanks for youe help!!

[alexander seil]

Again, as I said, the two main and obvious problems is stability (although, it actually seems to be surprisingly stable in Vista) and the strange demographic issues (the most populous group in the province assimilates everyone else shockingly fast).

Now, as for the learning curve...Basically, be prepared to have the least possible guidance from the manual. It gives you some idea where the buttons are, but beyond that you're pretty much on your own. The interface isn't the best, either.

Now, keep in mind that this isn't AACW. It's not even related to AACW. Conceptually, it's close to Paradox games (especially EU1/2/3 and Rome) in some respects (in fact, at first look it's not even obvious whether it's a different engine from EU2, although Paradox claims it is). So if you're frustrated with confusing documentation and have never played this type of games, you might want to read up on how games like EU2 works.

Now, if you ARE familiar with Paradox games (or, say, with Pax Romana), then you'll still have difficulties with small things, because the rules for some actions are very obscure. I still don't know, for example, why you can hire mercenaries from some countries but not others (it's not tied to relations, interestingly). Or, for example, as Persia you'll be quite surprised once you realize that they get 500 Cataphracts in their capital every year for free. That kind of thing. But these "difficulties" are more like, "Oh, cool, didn't know that" rather than "Oh, man, this sucks." For the most part

But, basically, if I had to decide whether to buy the game or not again, I would definitely buy it. It's a complete, full-featured game. Even the AI isn't half-bad (typically, it's terrible in these types of games). But be prepared to discover many rules on your own and be frustrated with what seems to be "randomness" in the game system.

[GrudgeBringer]

Thank you...

I by chance do have all three of the EU games (I know it sounds silly but I think I enjoyed EU1 as Turkey the most, even if I DIDN'T understand at that time how Merchants worked).

As long as the basics are spelled out I usually will screw around with it enough to actually go...."ohhhh yeah, now I get it" (well at least most of the time).

Thanks agian, I think I will order it upon your recomendation.

[alexander seil]

Now that I have convinced one more person to buy the game, any chance for 1.08 to go into development? Or even 1.07c?

By the way, I have to confess that I am not excited about a Great Invasions 2. Why? Because I prefer the EU2-like feeling that the game has (that is, real-time and day by day). Plus, a new game means many opportunities to have many, many new bugs, whereas the current game is basically feature-complete and just requires some minor polishing. I'd be more willing to pay for a patch for GI than for GI2, in all honesty.

[calvinus]

Ok guys, you are lucky!

I had to find some spare time to work on Great Invasions.
The aim is to build a 1.07c patched full installation setup executable...
You can wonder why...

So I took this "opportunity" to patch something. First of all the nasty bug of too frequent ethnics assimilation tests!!!
Now the frequency of assimilation tests is customizable via GameRules.csv DB.
I expressed the frequency in months: the default value I've put is 60, that's to say every 5 years! Is it good for you??? (Consider that previously it was once evey year [12 months])...

Thanks for your replies!
Calvinus.

[calvinus]

Please also tell me if adjusting the frequency of assimilation tests is enough to your opinion
Or if you suggest further changes...

Always keeping in mind that I cannot spend too much time on GI, because we are working very very hard on the other secret project! leure:

Thanks again,
Calvinus.

[alexander seil]

Thank you calvinus

The ability to adjust frequency of these assimilation checks is exactly what I was asking for in my original proposal (although, perhaps the check should be performed every 50 years, not 5 years, but I'll change that myself ).

Also (not related to the issue above, directly):

- Does the "state" ethnic ever spread as of right now in kingdoms/empires? If it doesn't, there should be some way for it to grow even in provinces where it is not present, in the cities especially. So, for example, of Persia holds Damascus for 200 years, perhaps some Persians should show up. Assimilation of this sort should depend on the monarch's and governor's administrative skill, similarity in religion and, of course, presence of cities and wealth.

- Currently, even when you delegate diplomacy to the AI, you are still asked to make decisions on things like joining wars and trade. I think the diplomatic adviser should handle that (so I don't have to decide for the Burgundi while I'm focusing on Persia)

- The poor Persians/Mazdeists don't get any missionaries? I mean, unless I can get Persia to be Integrist, but there doesn't seem any way to do that (wasn't their King also the High Priest? Seems that Mazdeists should be able to go Integrist just like Catholics).

- I've reported some minor inconsistencies on the old forum after 1.07, but I'm not sure if they were addressed (can't check right now). In the 634 scenario, I *believe* that the Monotheletism icon is switched with the icon for Isawism (you've noted that before, though), although I can't confirm that right now (I'll do that when I get home later). Also, the Huns in the 375 scenario are still "Caucasian," I think. Could be a design decision?

[calvinus]

Ok, i'm going to set the default frequency to 10 years.

For all other questions, I'm sorry I can't help you right now, as I'm overwhelmed by tasks... leure:

I'll keep you posted asap.

Thanks,
Calvinus.

[alexander seil]

BTW, Calvinus, I went back to the old forums and noticed that you've said that you had some things fixed for 1.08. Any chance for those fixes making it into 1.07c? I'm particularly concerned about some of the bugs that may still exist with the Horde settle/found city buttons and Hordes disappearing when they're not supposed to.

EDIT: Actually, the patch notes for 1.07a say that the Horde settlement behavior was fixed...but I can't seem to settle any Hordes in 1.07b? Was something left out?

EDIT2: BTW, I'm using the Strategy First download-able version, not the Ageod one. Now, the Horde bugs involves just the executable (I believe?), so shouldn't it work for me? I think I'm getting those same bugs that were fixed in a. and b. (this is described in another thread)

[calvinus]

Patch 1.07a and 1.07b fixed the annoying bugs on Hordes settlement and disappearance, yes... But, as you wrote, these patches are to be applied to AGEOD game version only, because the executable so overwritten asks for the serial key number... that you haven't, right? Indeed you bought the Strategy First edition. This is why you are still suffering from the hordes bug!

Now the point is that I remember that Strategy First applied his own copy protection. Isn't it? If so, I'm in trouble for building a patch for SF game version... Nobody ever told me how to copy-protect any SF patch... leure:

I hope Philippe can help us...

[calvinus]

- Does the "state" ethnic ever spread as of right now in kingdoms/empires? If it doesn't, there should be some way for it to grow even in provinces where it is not present, in the cities especially. So, for example, of Persia holds Damascus for 200 years, perhaps some Persians should show up. Assimilation of this sort should depend on the monarch's and governor's administrative skill, similarity in religion and, of course, presence of cities and wealth.

What you ask is a major change request. Its impact is to be quoted... Actually monarchs may only obtain such results playing stratagems (conversions) in key areas, so trying to start a progressive expansion of the "state" religion...

- Currently, even when you delegate diplomacy to the AI, you are still asked to make decisions on things like joining wars and trade. I think the diplomatic adviser should handle that (so I don't have to decide for the Burgundi while I'm focusing on Persia)

You are not the first person who asks for such change. During the beta-testing it was a point of discussion. At the end, beta-testers preferred keeping these decision to the human players because quering on important elements (wars and resource disposition). Wars are the most imporant point, because a wrong decision could bring stupid consequences, such as an escalation of conflicts among federal states, vassals and dominant nations... I really prefer to keep these themes inside the sphere of human decisions, whereas possible. In fact, I always disable diplomatic AI because, for example! Similarly, even if looking stupid decisions, trades often cause the temporary (years!) lack of important resources, such as iron and horses, so that administrative AI often underevaluates the consequences of such choices on economy and (mainly) wars!

- The poor Persians/Mazdeists don't get any missionaries? I mean, unless I can get Persia to be Integrist, but there doesn't seem any way to do that (wasn't their King also the High Priest? Seems that Mazdeists should be able to go Integrist just like Catholics).

I guess Philippe already answered this point in another thread.

- I've reported some minor inconsistencies on the old forum after 1.07, but I'm not sure if they were addressed (can't check right now). In the 634 scenario, I *believe* that the Monotheletism icon is switched with the icon for Isawism (you've noted that before, though), although I can't confirm that right now (I'll do that when I get home later). Also, the Huns in the 375 scenario are still "Caucasian," I think. Could be a design decision?

Ok, I'll check this point asap.

[PhilThib]

I am not sure I am going to help directly, because I have no clue or information on what kind of copy protection was added... I'll try to find out...

The only thing I can do to help is the following: if you have a SF version you can't upgrade, contact me by PM with all details you can provide on the version you purchased (date, where, etc...). I'll give you a temporary link to download our own version (with the latest patch included)...

[Frank]

Hi Calvinus

it would be nice if you can fix the "no historical leaders" bug too.

Btw when can you give us more information about your secret project. Will it be similar to your last games or something completly different?

Bye
Frank

[alexander seil]

Calvinus,

Strictly speaking, my suggestion was about "state" ethnics, not religion, but I realized later that game does have mechanisms for migration, so the change I suggested is unnecessary.

Now, about my SF version...the funny thing is, when I patched my game with 1.07b, it did NOT ask me for a new serial. So, in fact, I can play the game just fine, it just seems that, somehow, I still have the Horde bugs. But the executable is 1.07b. I will PM Philippe ASAP (Thank you for your offer!)

Other things (very minor inconsistencies, but maybe useful for 1.08 ) -

- there are some unit types present in some scenarios that aren't supposed to be there (since they were dropped from the game), such as "Legion" (it seems identical to heavy infantry?) and "Revoltee" (Visigoth territory, year 450 AD).

- newly-founded kingdoms can become Integrist even if they do not have a major state religion (so, for example, *new* pagan kingdoms can go Integrist). Design decision?

- "Natives" sometimes form their own country, which you can interact with by diplomacy

- My province at the mouth of the Persian Gulf has 100% Christians AND a 100% Mazdeists...because -4000 believe in Paganism

- when giving saves default names (the date), could it place the year first? So, instead of "14 June 358," you'd get "358 June 14."

[calvinus]

it would be nice if you can fix the "no historical leaders" bug too.

Can you please describe the bug? It could be helpful for me.

Btw when can you give us more information about your secret project. Will it be similar to your last games or something completly different?

I cannot give any information for the time being. But I can tell you that this game will be much different from Great Invasions!

[Frank]

Hi

i reported this bug a few months ago in the old forum. You get no historical leader from the database only Monarchs. Another bug was that you get no income from a province if a allied Army is stationated there and when two allied army are in the same province they fight each other.

Bye
Frank

[alexander seil]

There are still a few bug reports on the old forum, for 1.07, which were listed for 1.08.

[calvinus]

Ok, do not worry. I kept note of all bugs since the old forum! I have the complete list...
I'll try to do my best to fix the most urgent bugs. Unfortunately the time is very very short... leure: