-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
@Fabiusz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold 
Latest project: Rewriting New Order West event chain to fix possible errors and missing triggers.
@Lukaso: Aye, we're trying to find out what's going on. While we're waiting for our hoster to reply, i've sent you a PM.
Latest project: Rewriting New Order West event chain to fix possible errors and missing triggers.
@Lukaso: Aye, we're trying to find out what's going on. While we're waiting for our hoster to reply, i've sent you a PM.
Hey, can you or someone who has the file post an alternative(Mediafire, Mega or whatever) download link?@Fabiusz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold
Latest project: Rewriting New Order West event chain to fix possible errors and missing triggers.
@Lukaso: Aye, we're trying to find out what's going on. While we're waiting for our hoster to reply, i've sent you a PM.
Yeah, just host it on Mediafire. It's a quick, no bullshit upload/download service.
.png){kind=avatar}
Does the hotfix also deal with broken events for german surrender and possibly some other events?
I don't want to be rude, but why is there still no hotfix for gameplay-related issues? Why do you release a broken patch and call it a patch? If a patch breaks something a hotfix is due. It's been since march and there is still no hotfix. I am a bit disappointed, because I love this mod but your attitude shows that you are no longer enthuasiastic and/or care about your fans.
- 3
Concerning broken gameplay elements...well...indeed there aren't any that we've been informed about so far that are really game-breaking and would thus justify an interim patch. You may play several campaigns until 1945 without major problems. True, you can't research some late submarines and the latest heavy battleship...and there might be some strange results after some of the victory events...but that's nothing that would interfere with your normal game.
With all due respect, please be reminded...
...that we're just a very small team (in fact just two guys do all the coding and two to three others are helping with calculations, research etc.),
...that we do it in our free time (as long as we aren't sick like i've been during the last week),
...that we aren't well-known for releasing new versions every few weeks because we simply can't maintain them (beta testing, upload + communicating with our hoster, support),
...that we called it a 'hotfix' for the very reason that it's not a large patch,
...that we're of course still working on our next major release even if we don't talk about it every day. Indeed we already wanted to publish it some two weeks ago, but then we decided to give the New Order chains a major rework...which isn't finished yet. And just yesterday we were informed that there is a strange new engine behaviour concerning upgrade time calculation, which is why we'll have to rewrite some parts of our naval files.
Our attitude hasn't changed a bit. We still want to improve this game, get rid of flaws and errors and create an enjoyable piece of software. I'm sorry to hear that you're disappointed, but we just can't do it differently.
With all due respect, please be reminded...
...that we're just a very small team (in fact just two guys do all the coding and two to three others are helping with calculations, research etc.),
...that we do it in our free time (as long as we aren't sick like i've been during the last week),
...that we aren't well-known for releasing new versions every few weeks because we simply can't maintain them (beta testing, upload + communicating with our hoster, support),
...that we called it a 'hotfix' for the very reason that it's not a large patch,
...that we're of course still working on our next major release even if we don't talk about it every day. Indeed we already wanted to publish it some two weeks ago, but then we decided to give the New Order chains a major rework...which isn't finished yet. And just yesterday we were informed that there is a strange new engine behaviour concerning upgrade time calculation, which is why we'll have to rewrite some parts of our naval files.
Our attitude hasn't changed a bit. We still want to improve this game, get rid of flaws and errors and create an enjoyable piece of software. I'm sorry to hear that you're disappointed, but we just can't do it differently.
- 3
- 1
We add a hotfix for play TRP on DH 1.04 full. A hotfix for gameplay releted issues is not needed because there is no event or action that will cause CTDs or other stuff that would need a hotfix. A hotfix is a small update to fix or adjust something to guarantee a running game. All aspects are fulfilled by our hotfix.
And by the way: We are two active TRP devs. We dont have the time to fix everything in days. We need time to find solutions for TRP problems. Find open ending for event systems or fix events with wrong paramenters isnt as easy as you thought. A couple of this mistakes wasnt found for years. We are working on TRP but we are limited by time, resources and options.
And by the way: We are two active TRP devs. We dont have the time to fix everything in days. We need time to find solutions for TRP problems. Find open ending for event systems or fix events with wrong paramenters isnt as easy as you thought. A couple of this mistakes wasnt found for years. We are working on TRP but we are limited by time, resources and options.
Last edited:
I am glad that you are still improving the game, but I don't buy that it's difficult to upload and maintain new patches. I am a modder myself(not for DH, but other paradox titles), and I know what coding means. I wrote thousands and thousands of lines of code myself and I know that mistakes are inevitable. I also know that even the smallest mistake in the code can cause lots of problems and sometimes it's very difficult to find the root of the problem. However, I am a great believer that things like non-working surrender events need a fast fix. Are they game-breaking? Maybe not, but it leaves you with a sour taste. The AI is already dumber than a brick, so the least you can expect as a player are proper events and consistent game logic. I mean, you can sign a separate peace with Germany via event(which would be alternate history), but you can't fully mobilize as Great Britain so you are stuck with a small army the entire game? This is nor logical nor realistic. All I am saying is: "little" things add up and most people just move along and forget about the mod. Which is why constant updates are important.
Maybe you didn't get the fact that these guys don't get paid for their work and do it in their spare time just for fun, not to keep you happy, we should all be thankful for this fine mod and the work that goes into improving it.
- 1
Perhaps the time for coding isnt as long as the hole design process but keep in mind that we have to create event structures or we have to think about the balance of the event, ect, ect.
E.g. it took months to redesign the hole combat system. Everything had to be calculated with the new data values. To enter this new values was the short process but to balance all this datas and to get a logical system to work was a difficult task.
And when you are talking about events. The funny aspect about your example is the fact that this error wasnt reported for years. This errors are old, very old and no one reported this errors during the last years. Now Studti is working on this issues but it took a lot of time because he has to check all triggers and the event outcome to create a new working but logical structure. I'm working on some special events to add more content but all in all it is a slow progress because everything had to be check for TRP. Will it work in TRP. Will it break the game mechanic? Will it hinder the AI? Will it add to much objects/units/resources/advantages? Perhaps coding is the short part here but design the hole aspect isnt done in minutes (basing on the fact that we are working in the evening during our free time).
And a personal note: There is a bigger problem for a mod than releasing a patch/new version with long breaks... releasing stuff that is broken/corrupted/not working. I can tell you a story about the consequences of this situation. As developer of the CoH eastern front mod i learned a lot about modding and the mod community. And most of this lessons werent fun at all.
E.g. it took months to redesign the hole combat system. Everything had to be calculated with the new data values. To enter this new values was the short process but to balance all this datas and to get a logical system to work was a difficult task.
And when you are talking about events. The funny aspect about your example is the fact that this error wasnt reported for years. This errors are old, very old and no one reported this errors during the last years. Now Studti is working on this issues but it took a lot of time because he has to check all triggers and the event outcome to create a new working but logical structure. I'm working on some special events to add more content but all in all it is a slow progress because everything had to be check for TRP. Will it work in TRP. Will it break the game mechanic? Will it hinder the AI? Will it add to much objects/units/resources/advantages? Perhaps coding is the short part here but design the hole aspect isnt done in minutes (basing on the fact that we are working in the evening during our free time).
And a personal note: There is a bigger problem for a mod than releasing a patch/new version with long breaks... releasing stuff that is broken/corrupted/not working. I can tell you a story about the consequences of this situation. As developer of the CoH eastern front mod i learned a lot about modding and the mod community. And most of this lessons werent fun at all.
Last edited:
- 1
@Captain Frye:
Let me give you one example why we don't want to release small patches piecemeal:
For adding a new surrender event for Germany or for applying changes to an existing one, we'd have to edit at least one of the mostly touched files in our folders, for example germany.txt or england.txt. These files are constantly being worked upon. For germany.txt alone, our SVN log names nine edits since our last release in march. Sometimes it's just a small tweak like changing a single value, sometimes we add or delete hundreds of lines of code.
If we wanted to release an interim patch, we'd have to take all of these changes into respect. Some of them are connected to changes in other files, so they can't be released separately. Some of them are yet untested from the gameplay perspective. Some of them maybe aren't even ready yet because some projects take months to be finished. And some of them make use of new commands that are just available if you've got access to the latest Darkest Hour development files.
All in all, we usually can't just take the latest revision from our repository, add some new lines and release it. Rather, we'd have to grab the old file from our latest release and edit this one. From this time, there'd be two file versions (internal development version + patch version) that we'd have to administer and double-check if there's a new error report. And that's just one tweak to one single file. Now think of dozens of files for several small interim patches. It's just not managable for a small team like ours.
@Sparler: Thx
@MrArkatus: What exactly do you mean?
Let me give you one example why we don't want to release small patches piecemeal:
For adding a new surrender event for Germany or for applying changes to an existing one, we'd have to edit at least one of the mostly touched files in our folders, for example germany.txt or england.txt. These files are constantly being worked upon. For germany.txt alone, our SVN log names nine edits since our last release in march. Sometimes it's just a small tweak like changing a single value, sometimes we add or delete hundreds of lines of code.
If we wanted to release an interim patch, we'd have to take all of these changes into respect. Some of them are connected to changes in other files, so they can't be released separately. Some of them are yet untested from the gameplay perspective. Some of them maybe aren't even ready yet because some projects take months to be finished. And some of them make use of new commands that are just available if you've got access to the latest Darkest Hour development files.
All in all, we usually can't just take the latest revision from our repository, add some new lines and release it. Rather, we'd have to grab the old file from our latest release and edit this one. From this time, there'd be two file versions (internal development version + patch version) that we'd have to administer and double-check if there's a new error report. And that's just one tweak to one single file. Now think of dozens of files for several small interim patches. It's just not managable for a small team like ours.
@Sparler: Thx
@MrArkatus: What exactly do you mean?
Sorry but i dont understand your question. With the hotfix you can play TRP on DH 1.04.
I am really enjoying a somewhat historical Japanese playtrough, and so far (i am in mid 1942) i have noticed two issues with the USA AI:
1. The US never built a single battleship, they entered the war with the same ones in service in 1936, which seems a bit unrealistic. Also the british did the same, never building a single battleship.
2. I have noticed that by spring 1942 the US AI has gone into "national defense" mode, building mainly land and air units, and stopping building naval units, except a couple of destroyers and sometimes a carrier- no subs, no cruisers, no BBs (howewer it started the construction of several CVs at the onset of the war). To me this seems reasonable if the US mainland was in danger of invasion, but so far i have made realistic conquest in the Pacific, taking (from US owned territories) Guam, Wake and the Aleutinian Islands - not even Midway nor Pearl Harbour.
I have had a look at the ai event file, and the US AI is set to go into "national defense mode" when loses 2% of its national provinces. I think this treshold should be way higher, something like 10% - or change the trigger to the US having lost control of Pearl Harbour and their other pacific bases. At the time i think it is enough for a Jap player to conquer Wake, Guam and some of the Aleutinians to make the US ai almost stop building naval units - except for some carriers, whose production is governed by another event as i see.
Finally i have noticed that by 1942 the US are bit too much behind in aircraft, subs and capital ships techs, still building Yorktown class CVs, 1936 submarines and biplane bombers. This was also noted in several other playtroughs.
1. The US never built a single battleship, they entered the war with the same ones in service in 1936, which seems a bit unrealistic. Also the british did the same, never building a single battleship.
2. I have noticed that by spring 1942 the US AI has gone into "national defense" mode, building mainly land and air units, and stopping building naval units, except a couple of destroyers and sometimes a carrier- no subs, no cruisers, no BBs (howewer it started the construction of several CVs at the onset of the war). To me this seems reasonable if the US mainland was in danger of invasion, but so far i have made realistic conquest in the Pacific, taking (from US owned territories) Guam, Wake and the Aleutinian Islands - not even Midway nor Pearl Harbour.
I have had a look at the ai event file, and the US AI is set to go into "national defense mode" when loses 2% of its national provinces. I think this treshold should be way higher, something like 10% - or change the trigger to the US having lost control of Pearl Harbour and their other pacific bases. At the time i think it is enough for a Jap player to conquer Wake, Guam and some of the Aleutinians to make the US ai almost stop building naval units - except for some carriers, whose production is governed by another event as i see.
Finally i have noticed that by 1942 the US are bit too much behind in aircraft, subs and capital ships techs, still building Yorktown class CVs, 1936 submarines and biplane bombers. This was also noted in several other playtroughs.
- Status