Bug List: 1.1 Beta 3

from GalCiv2 Forums
First, great job with the patches. I've been really impressed not only with the bug corrections, but the addition of features and the continuing effort toward game balance.

Here are some bugs:

- When there is no social production, it is displayed with arrows <<<< transferring over to military production. However, the military production transferred in this way is always in parenthesis (xx) and always has a build time of NEVER. This is not just a display problem, but in fact no production is transferred.

- Colony and Transport ships can not be launched with 0 Population. When this is attempted, the dialogue ends and no ship is launched. Instead, players must move 1 Population back and forth if they are using these ships to ferry population between planets.

- Minor races often build large piles of constructors and colony ships which they do not use, and leave sitting around on their homeworlds.

- When I create a new ship design with the name of an old ship, now instead of removing the old design, I have two ships available to build with the same name. If a planet is building a version of a ship with the same name, it builds the older design, regardless of which design I selected.

Possible Bugs/Features:

- Can not see planets/starbases of races I have advanced espionage on, if they are still covered by fog of war.
19,521 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
-Second point is not a bug - it is a conscious design decision. You cannot launch a transport ship empty. Has been that way from the start.

-Are you sure about the military production? I am not seeing that. If you go to your Economy management screen for your whole empire, you will see the numbers being changed on the right hand side as you mess with the individual planets military production.

-I build lots of extra constructors and colony ships too and leave them laying around for those times I need a quick build. Don't see the problem here. Eventually the minor race will use them if they can.

-Shipbuilder does have some bugs - however I see the opposite so far - it auto -obsoletes ships now. That has been addressed. I have not tried what you said, but the game does not recommend you to name a new ship the same as an existing design, and in fact gives you a dialog box with that warning. That is just asking for trouble IMO. Change the name - that's the easy and foolproof way.

-FOW is meant to hide things - if you could see things in it, what would be the point? Research down the Sensor tree or build the Eyes of the Universe to get this advantage.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
When there is no social production, it is displayed with arrows <<<< transferring over to military production. However, the military production transferred in this way is always in parenthesis (xx) and always has a build time of NEVER. This is not just a display problem, but in fact no production is transferred


You have to have at least 1% of overall spending going into military production for this to work.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
THE GAME TELLS YOU not to use the same name as an existing design when creating or updating a ship. If you do, expect problems. Simply use another name.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The game says "We recommend not using the same name for upgraded designs."

I should clarify that the bug is happening when changing military production from the Planet List.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Yeah the ship name thing is just user error. Don't do it. I don't think that's a bug. It will just go to the first one with that name.


But, if you insist, first stop all building of the old design with the same name and then over write it. There have been times when I make a design but forgot to add something and I immediately upgrade it and give it the same name. I have never had trouble as long as I didn't have it in que on any of my planets.


I found a funny one with the constructors, the computer will sometimes simply float the constructors around my planets, but never build anything. i just have 5 to 10 enemy constructors floating around my general area, I ofcourse attack them since that might be a prelude to invasion, but I find it strange.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
- Deleting a ship that is being built by a planet gets the planet into an odd state. It's shown as producing nothing, but the governor cannot change the production from Nothing to something else (the planets do not change). You have to go through all the planets and manually change their production.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If it's user error, then the game should prevent the user from using the same name.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
THE GAME TELLS YOU not to use the same name as an existing design when creating or updating a ship. If you do, expect problems. Simply use another name.


No it doesn't, it says it recommends not using the same name but up until now its actually upgraded the ship. What we are experiencing is clearly a bug and needs to be fixed. It is not accaptable for a game that has experienced as much success as GalCiv2 to have the 'fixes' be simply avoid doing that. If its just going to screw it up so it won't work and intended it to do so they could at least not let you have the same name because allowing us to makes absolutely no sense.

For me it also seems to be that the social/military production doesn't seem to be transfering properly. Yes it displays that it is, yes I have military production at at least 1%, but the build times still say never.

In conclusion, don't bite peoples heads off for presenting bug reports.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If I recommend that you do not jump off a bridge because you may get hurt, am I not telling you that you may have some problems if you go ahead and do it anyway?

It is not a bug - it is to prevent issues such as you are experiencing. What is so hard about not using the same name if you are currently producing that ship? It is convenient to be able to do that for modding purposes - the game does warn you about problems if you do.

I have not had that issue with build times. They are working fine for me. Do you have a screenie that shows this?

Most of what you posted were not 'bugs' - but just how the game works. If you would like them changed, perhaps making suggestions and not labelling them bugs right away would lead to better relations.

As far as biting heads off - i'm a Drengin today.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sorry, Oldstatesman, but you are wrong.

If the game will experience issues because of it, do not allow that to happen. It is not acceptable to say "don't do this". Either prevent it from the game or fix the issues that happen when you do it.

Either:
1. Pop up a message that says "You cannot name a new ship the same name as an existing design. Please enter a new name."
2. Pop up a message that says "You cannot name a new ship the same name as an existing design. Would you like to replace the design? (Y/N)"
3. Fix the code such that when you select a ship design of the same name, it actually builds the correct ship.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Agreed drawfour.

This isn't bridgejumping. It's a computer program that changed from one version to the next. In prior versions, upgraded ships with the same name first got the warning, and then replaced the older design. If the game "recommends" you not do something, it should at the very least clarify what will go wrong if you do it anyway, or not allow you to do it in the first place.

I don't quite see how this could be viewed as intentional. If I opened up a Word doc, added a few paragraphs, and saved over the original, I wouldn't expect to find two copies of the same file that only open up to the earlier version no matter which one I open.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The game didn't work correctly 100% of the time before when you didn't rename but used the same name. Sometimes it would build the old version with the new version selected. It isn't new and it isn't really a problem to avoid. There are dozens of other things that can stand to be fixed or added first even if one grants you that as a bug. Search the bug forums and you will see that people experienced the same problems before and at times different problems. It causes the game problems sometimes to use the same name. The problems are not even always the same.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If it causes problems, it should be prevented. Simple. (Note: the game is smart enough to check to give you a warning. Why not just do the easy thing and instead of popping up a warning, just pop up a dialog that tells you that you can't do that, and then don't let it happen?)
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The new possibility of upgrading Core ships is wonderful but bit buggy.

If you upgrade a Core ship it strips down the extras too

If you enable the option "do not remove function items from ship" everything stays on ship as it should.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top


Magnumaniac: Yes, I generally play with 0% military production. Thanks for the tip that 1% is required to get the transfer to work, but that still seems like a bug?
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
but that still seems like a bug?


More of a design decision than a bug, and it assists in reducing micro-management.

If you're playing on a gigantic with lots of planets, the colonisation phase lasts quite a while and I have many planets building colony ships by the end. Once done I switch mil prod to zero and focus on building the social infrastructure - the last thing I want is for a planet to finish it's social queue and then automatically redirect all production into producing another coloniser - if 0% military didn't disable all ship production I'd have to ensure every planet was not building any ships (easy enough to do via the governor, but just another micro task that isn't required IMO).
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Drawfour, it is useful for modders to be able to use the same ship name. That is why that should not be disabled.

A simple warning, which the game gives, telling you that if you proceed you could have issues is enough. I dislike anything that makes me have to do something. I have enough sense of personal responsibility for my actions to understand the repercussions if I proceed down a path I was warned could be dangerous, or not to complain about the results if I don't heed the warning.

This name thing has been around since the game was released. It is not new. It is not even a bug - simply the result of doing something that the game tells you it is not good to do.

It is frustrating to read things about the game that folks don't quite understand being called bugs. It takes the atttention away from real bugs. And makes the game look really bad to new users who are checking out the forum, when in truth the game is top notch and relatively bug free in it's production release version. It would be much better if they asked first - and if it is a feature they don't like or understand, fine. Offer a suggestion to change it - SD is very responsive. to fans. If it turns out it is a bug, that is reproducable by others, then Shout it out to the masses that it a bug. But not until.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Here is a very tiny "bug" that may or may not effect anyone but me.

When I switched to playing in a window (full resolution) I started having mouse focus problems. I would have to move the mouse around to find the click point. Zooming in made it easier in the main screen but there are other screens that can't be zoomed and hitting the click point was almost impossible and very annoying sometimes.

Anyway I switched back to full screen and all is well
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It is a "usability bug". It is something that can cause indesired side effects, such as selecting a ship to build, but having another ship built instead. That is certainly a bug. It doesn't matter that you were warned. The simple fact is that a ship chosen to be built is not being built, and another ship is being built instead. BUG.

Make it so that the ships are not keyed off of names but instead something else. Then you can have as many ships of the same name as you want.

I agree that this is not a bad bug. I understand the need to fix serious bugs. This is something that can be safely punted for a while. There is a warning, and there is a workaround. That doesn't mean it's not a bug. It just means it's not a bad bug.
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
Agreed, drawfour. I use standard names for my ships, such as "3 FF01" or "4 DD03".

These names are based off of official Navy hull designations: CA for Cruiser, AK for Cargo Ship, AB for Crane Ship, LS for Landing Ship, etc. When I go to a new game and create my first Battleship design "5 BB01", I have no idea if I'll break the game or not. The game just doesn't seem ... stable.

Oldstatesman, it's possible to enjoy the game while still realizing that it has... issues. I realize that you're a big fan, but the naming issue is firmly in the "bug" category. Disclaimer or no disclaimer. You wouldn't accept it if Microsoft Excel had a "don't click here - doesn't work" button.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The game seems plenty stable to me. The beta versions are not - but they are beta versions.

Anfd I am a big fan - but I will criticize when it is deserved - loudly and longly - but not before I can verify that I am indeed having an issue and not just misunderstanding how the game works.

Of coarse CG2 has bugs. I will agree this ship naming thing is a bug.. but it is a known bug - It is something that the code does not handle well, and we are warned about it. It has been posted about since the beginning. SD knows about it and has chosen not to do anything else about it. Perhaps because it would take an extensive code re-write to change. My issue is in people being warned about this behavior, told not to do it or that problems could occur, go ahead and do it anyway, and then complaining that they have problems nad have found a 'new' bug.

And BTW Excel does have those buttons- just that MS has not seen fit to lable them as such, but it has it's quirks- that regular users learn to work around. All software has those quirks. None is perfect. At least inthis case we are warned by the software itself.

Thanks for the reply - I am an cantankerous stubborn old cuss to deal with at times when my Irish is up.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Drawfour, it is useful for modders to be able to use the same ship name. That is why that should not be disabled


I don't see how this is possibly more useful for modders than players. The display name doesn't have to match the internal name, and you'll have big problems if you do have the same internal name for designs. That's why you can't name your ships the same as core designs. IMO, it's worse for modders because a user could overwrite a ship they created.
You shouldn't allow a user to do something that could cause problems, even to make it more convenient to the user.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Since this subject is refering to bugs with 1.1b3... I've got an issue where when I install b3 all the buttons in game lose their text... is this a known issue or just me? Could it be a resolution issue? 1280x1024 is what I'm set to... Also running an ATI Radeon 9600...