Report - Current Bugs and Issues

[gaerzi]

I had this oddity in game 10116: a derelict colony at the same spot as a refugee colony.

Spoiler: show

Same game, save 10119: angry tinkerified colonists cause problems when they stop being angry.

[zolobolo]

This is not necesseraly a bug but seems like allies inherit the open ports agreements of allied factions
For me it would seem logical to only inherit the range of the faction one is allied with similarly how other treaties treaties are not inherited either such as research, trade agreements or even alliances)

So I guess that this is an unintended bug and inheritance of open ports agreements to third party allies was not intended with the concept

Alliance includes the benefit of Open Ports, so if that's what you mean, it's intended and not a bug.

What I meant is inheretance of Open Port greement to 3rd party: ally of your ally

Example:
Faction A is allied to Faction B
Faction B is allies to Faction C
=Faction C has the range of both A and B

In the example of research agreements, C does not get research agrement benefit from A just for being allied to B

[PrivateHudson]

Game_10249:

Code: Select all

Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@MoraleReports.lua:85: chibi is missing required field: race -> nil
Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@MoraleReports.lua:85:get_icon:
 Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@ReportNotificationIcon.lua:67:add_star_map_element:happy_colonists:
  Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@ReportIcons.lua:823:
   Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@ReportIcons.lua:812:report_elements:happy_colonists:
    Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@MapElement.lua:297:gather_map_elements
warning! missing function callback for key "772"
warning! missing function callback for key "617"
Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@MoraleReports.lua:85: chibi is missing required field: race -> nil
Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@MoraleReports.lua:85:get_icon:
 Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@ReportNotificationIcon.lua:48:
  Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@ReportIcons.lua:694:
   Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@ReportIcons.lua:733:
    Lua state\GUI\~GalaxyMap\@ReportIcons.lua:927:draw_reports


In case this is related to unhappy colonists becoming happy: the only unhappies in my empire were harmonized Lummox.

[PrivateHudson]

Me and my ally attacked enemy colony. Ally's ships have captured space station, and my troops captured colony. This resulted in ally's space station over my colony, not very useful for both of us (I can't scrap it).

[PrivateHudson]

Assimilation of allied empire did not removed request from them to colonize in one of my systems.

[PrivateHudson]

AI probably should not ask permission to colonize planet bearing his own outpost. Also, when two allies in one turn asked permission to colonize the same planet in my system, and I permitted it to one of them, message from the second wasn't recalled.

[gaerzi]

That reminds me. If you have an outpost transport in the system, and deploy it on the planet, the request to colonize will still be there. You can then give them authorization for brownie points, but of course you keep the planet for yourself as they can't actually colonize it now that there's an outpost.

[PrivateHudson]

That reminds me. If you have an outpost transport in the system, and deploy it on the planet, the request to colonize will still be there. You can then give them authorization for brownie points, but of course you keep the planet for yourself as they can't actually colonize it now that there's an outpost.

And I've raised this question too: outpost commands, including Tinkers stations, should be disabled until diplomatic negotiations about planet rights aren't finished.

[zolobolo]

Tinker Destroyer is scaled up larger then Light Cruisers which should be larger and are correctly dispalyed as such in the ship designer and construction menu

The proportions issue only seem to apply to the fleet overiew tray:

Sizing.png (801.83 KiB) Viewed 37477 times

[Dragar]

Fusion Warheads enables Fusion Anti-Missiles even without researching Anti-Missiles. Is this intended?

[Dragar]

Fairly serious crash out on the development branch in the late game (I'm pretty sad I won't get to see this game end; it has been pretty interesting). I'm not sure how to attach files here; I think I've managed to submit a bug report. It looks similar to the stacktrace reported by PrivateHudson.

[zolobolo]

Had a scenario now where I was in an alliance with a faction that had larger pop then me and who would have won the game if I vote on them
I voted on myself of course to get a final confrontation but there was no backlash from the AI, no negative impact in diploamcy relationship

I have reported this issue before but thoght i might have only not applied because the AI would not have won either way
It makes some sense to not have the penalty if the AI would not win as otherwise there can a scenario where the player would need to vote on one of two larger pop allies but can of course only vote on one. Now if the faction who the player has voted on is the largest faction then the smaller one would get upset at the player for not voting on them even though they themselves voted on the largest ally member

So its ok if the AI does not get upset if the player does not vote on them if they would not have won anyhow but the effect needs to be applied if the outcome is influenced so the player can get a natural resolution for the alliance instead of breaking it up themselves whenever they want and gear up as much as they want (draging on the endgame)

This effect was actually applied for a while shortly after its implementation long ago but havent seen it for quite some time now so would classify as bug and might have been broken by a subsequent change

A nice fat penalty of -50 would ensure that the player would need to confront the stronger ally within 2-3 council votes at maximum and thus ensure a speedy resolution with some time to gear up if needed
Its rare in strategy games for the AI to have a sence that it actually aims to win but here all the tools are given and the pieces are in place to close that circuit

Note: As far as I recall there was a report that an ally voted for the player evne though they had a huge fleet and the player would have rather wanted to fight them. It was then mentioned that the formula for voting on other factions might be adjsuted to acomodate such scenarios and if I recall correctly it was after this that I havent seen the penalty anymore
Maybe the penalty might have been temporarily deactivated for editing and testing of the new voting rule which then never got finished
IMO total pop based voting is ok as it is intuitive on hte voting UI and does represent the rough power level of a faction well

[Dragar]

Fairly serious crash out on the development branch in the late game (I'm pretty sad I won't get to see this game end; it has been pretty interesting). I'm not sure how to attach files here; I think I've managed to submit a bug report. It looks similar to the stacktrace reported by PrivateHudson.

I've narrowed this down - it looks to be related to having too many types of species on one planet? Removing all the Threshers from Bacab seemed to fix it.

[zolobolo]

Fairly serious crash out on the development branch in the late game (I'm pretty sad I won't get to see this game end; it has been pretty interesting). I'm not sure how to attach files here; I think I've managed to submit a bug report. It looks similar to the stacktrace reported by PrivateHudson.

I've narrowed this down - it looks to be related to having too many types of species on one planet? Removing all the Threshers from Bacab seemed to fix it.

How many types of pops do you have on the colony?
If some of them are restless then that can furhter increase the count - I think I had 3 raws of pop types already in some cases but not more (if its related to the bug)

Savegames are tool arge for directly uploading with the below option yes: I have used dropbox in the past and paste the URL here

It might help if you note the bug report number here that is returned once the bug report has been sent from within the ingame options menu

[zolobolo]

Had a scenario now where I was in an alliance with a faction that had larger pop then me and who would have won the game if I vote on them
I voted on myself of course to get a final confrontation but there was no backlash from the AI, no negative impact in diploamcy relationship

I have reported this issue before but thoght i might have only not applied because the AI would not have won either way
It makes some sense to not have the penalty if the AI would not win as otherwise there can a scenario where the player would need to vote on one of two larger pop allies but can of course only vote on one. Now if the faction who the player has voted on is the largest faction then the smaller one would get upset at the player for not voting on them even though they themselves voted on the largest ally member

So its ok if the AI does not get upset if the player does not vote on them if they would not have won anyhow but the effect needs to be applied if the outcome is influenced so the player can get a natural resolution for the alliance instead of breaking it up themselves whenever they want and gear up as much as they want (draging on the endgame)

This effect was actually applied for a while shortly after its implementation long ago but havent seen it for quite some time now so would classify as bug and might have been broken by a subsequent change

A nice fat penalty of -50 would ensure that the player would need to confront the stronger ally within 2-3 council votes at maximum and thus ensure a speedy resolution with some time to gear up if needed
Its rare in strategy games for the AI to have a sence that it actually aims to win but here all the tools are given and the pieces are in place to close that circuit

Note: As far as I recall there was a report that an ally voted for the player evne though they had a huge fleet and the player would have rather wanted to fight them. It was then mentioned that the formula for voting on other factions might be adjsuted to acomodate such scenarios and if I recall correctly it was after this that I havent seen the penalty anymore
Maybe the penalty might have been temporarily deactivated for editing and testing of the new voting rule which then never got finished
IMO total pop based voting is ok as it is intuitive on hte voting UI and does represent the rough power level of a faction well

The changes are acutaly listed in hte Development Changelog
So according to that this was the sequence of events:

2018-12-13(37896) 'live'
Galactic council votes can now influence reputation.
2019-10-29(38584) 'live'
In the Galactic Council, AIs will no longer vote for allied empires if those empires have fleets that they judge to be weaker than their own.

So the adjustment regarding military power based voting does seem to have been implemented but while I can confirm the 2018 change has been working for a while I have never seen the effect of the 2019 change and the 2018 change does seem to have ceased to apply

I have checked in my current game and my ally is both stronger in pop and military (even if just slightly)
And we get no reputation penalty no matter if we remained allied, or if I break the alliance before or even if we are at war (the latter does make sense of course as why would I vote on someone I am at war with even if they would win with my votes )

Some additional testing has revealed that the AI does in fact not vote on the player if they have identical Council vote number (with player having slightly higher pop) but the AI does vote on the player if the player have a higher vote count evne if the AI has clearly higher military power (by around 10% in the test)