Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
I will have a look. I have a list of minor problems to correct. It will be done asap (I'm in holidays, far away from a computer, so ... be patient !
)
Realism Invictus
- Thread starter Walter Hawkwood
- Start date
I will have a look. I have a list of minor problems to correct. It will be done asap (I'm in holidays, far away from a computer, so ... be patient !
)
civcivcivcivciv
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 274
how about add mod "unit trade" ?
it ll be more realistic
and "fixed border" ?
it ll be more realistic
and "fixed border" ?
flitz
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 245
I will have a look. I have a list of minor problems to correct. It will be done asap (I'm in holidays, far away from a computer, so ... be patient !
Great, no need to hurry. I meant it as a possible fix for the future.
And while we're at it: have you ever thought of implementing the option 'military units start fortified' ? It can be really convenient to not have to put newly produced units to sleep every turn if multiple cities are producing simultaneously. Just in case you are interested
I saw this first in RoM, but there it's applied to all units, not just military.smb3master
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 5
Hey guys, I love the mod so far, I just have a question:
I noticed that you can have up to 62 AI, how well does the game handle it, and would all 62 AI fit properly on a Giant map?
I noticed that you can have up to 62 AI, how well does the game handle it, and would all 62 AI fit properly on a Giant map?
JeremyHussell
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 36
It's common to find landlocked cities that still have water tiles at the edge of their radius. Unfortunately, such cities cannot build fishing docks, lighthouses, or any other buildings that would improve those tiles. Similarly, cities that are not on a river cannot build levees, but often have tiles within their radius that would benefit from a levee.
I propose the location restrictions be lifted from Fishing Docks, Lighthouses, Levees, and any other buildings that only improve tiles within the city radius (possibly Industrial Shipyards?). Pros: some city locations will be more viable, including marginal choices sometimes made by the A.I.s. Cons: truly landlocked cities will be able to build useless buildings, cluttering the interface and possibly leading to A.I.s building them. (I think this won't happen, provided the A.I. is using the "Net Effect" calculations to decide what to build.)
Ideally, the game would allow these buildings if and only if they would improve a tile in the city radius, but I suspect that can't be done or would take too much effort. Current buildings seem to be available only based on whether a city is adjacent to a coast tile or to a river. Being adjacent to a fresh-water lake doesn't allow fishing docks etc. to be built but probably should, since large lakes are quite often generated by some map scripts. This may actually be possible, since lake cities can build ships, if I remember correctly.
A related suggestion: harbors should be buildable in cities by rivers. Consider historical examples like London (inland a fair distance on the Thames), Memphis along the Nile, or classical Athens' harbor at Piraeus. The latter example suggests that cities with any water tiles in their radius should be able to build a harbor, but harbors for river cities (and lake cities if possible) is a convenient quick fix.
Currently coastal cities get big bonuses to trade routes, to the point that I seriously consider restarting if my capital isn't on a coast. The long term effects of having an extra trade route (or three, if you mange to build the Great Lighthouse) are pretty impressive. Bonuses to trade route income from harbors and customs houses are also quite significant. (Cumulative +125% to foreign trade routes.) Is there any reason why customs houses should not be buildable in non-coastal cities?
I propose the location restrictions be lifted from Fishing Docks, Lighthouses, Levees, and any other buildings that only improve tiles within the city radius (possibly Industrial Shipyards?). Pros: some city locations will be more viable, including marginal choices sometimes made by the A.I.s. Cons: truly landlocked cities will be able to build useless buildings, cluttering the interface and possibly leading to A.I.s building them. (I think this won't happen, provided the A.I. is using the "Net Effect" calculations to decide what to build.)
Ideally, the game would allow these buildings if and only if they would improve a tile in the city radius, but I suspect that can't be done or would take too much effort. Current buildings seem to be available only based on whether a city is adjacent to a coast tile or to a river. Being adjacent to a fresh-water lake doesn't allow fishing docks etc. to be built but probably should, since large lakes are quite often generated by some map scripts. This may actually be possible, since lake cities can build ships, if I remember correctly.
A related suggestion: harbors should be buildable in cities by rivers. Consider historical examples like London (inland a fair distance on the Thames), Memphis along the Nile, or classical Athens' harbor at Piraeus. The latter example suggests that cities with any water tiles in their radius should be able to build a harbor, but harbors for river cities (and lake cities if possible) is a convenient quick fix.
Currently coastal cities get big bonuses to trade routes, to the point that I seriously consider restarting if my capital isn't on a coast. The long term effects of having an extra trade route (or three, if you mange to build the Great Lighthouse) are pretty impressive. Bonuses to trade route income from harbors and customs houses are also quite significant. (Cumulative +125% to foreign trade routes.) Is there any reason why customs houses should not be buildable in non-coastal cities?
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
I do hope none of the Realism team minds me doing a bit of advertising here, but it's the only way I feel I can get this game off the ground! To anyone who might be interested, I'm going to be hosting a succession game using the mod, located here. Considering the lack of activity in the Succession Games forum, I thought it might be a good idea to let players of the mod know. Perhaps one or three of you might be interested in playing a game!
LittleJohnII
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1
Hi,
I've faced the same problem. After downloading some tools to unzip exe archives and renaming/moving some files from what was extracted, I _almost_ managed to frankenstein the mod onto the steam install (Program Files (x86) folder). I was missing some (lots of) UI buttons and sounds for some units were missing, but it run!
Anyway, then I found out that the file the installer asked for (Civ4BeyondTheSword.exe) and which is not in the base BTS folder [1] is one folder further [2] and it is this folder that you have to select. The installer finally understood (or rather, I did) and everything now runs just right (except my empire).
I can't say whether this will solve the problem for you but I'd guess that it will. Have fun!
[1]: Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization IV Beyond the Sword
[2]: Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization IV Beyond the Sword\Beyond the Sword
Darkphoenix
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Messages
- 201
Coming back to play this after a long time, still fun.
Because it's been awhile, I'm note sure if this a bug or just a mechanic I don't remember: (r4780)
Playing as Egypt, I was destroying Arabia, and had just whittled down their capital's defense to a measly 1%, and was preparing to go for the kill. Russia was coming down with a small stack to the Suez Canal area, but who cares. Russia declares war, I get my defenses bolstered and moving towards their stack...
And then notice my Arabian invasion force has been teleported out of Arabia, meaning I have to spend 4 turns just getting back into range of the city.
This is still classical era, no vassals or defense pacts or any of those shenanigans going on. Still at war with Arabia, no peace out via event or anything. Not expecting another civ's wardec on me to take me out of my other enemy's territory.
Because it's been awhile, I'm note sure if this a bug or just a mechanic I don't remember: (r4780)
Playing as Egypt, I was destroying Arabia, and had just whittled down their capital's defense to a measly 1%, and was preparing to go for the kill. Russia was coming down with a small stack to the Suez Canal area, but who cares. Russia declares war, I get my defenses bolstered and moving towards their stack...
And then notice my Arabian invasion force has been teleported out of Arabia, meaning I have to spend 4 turns just getting back into range of the city.
This is still classical era, no vassals or defense pacts or any of those shenanigans going on. Still at war with Arabia, no peace out via event or anything. Not expecting another civ's wardec on me to take me out of my other enemy's territory.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
Ah, I see. That's the limitation of the generator itself it seems. Anyway, I wouldn't really recommend to put too many civs on one map - it can mess with the map generators in many ways.
Firstly, one food makes quite a lot of difference, IMO. Secondly, in earlier eras, when the revolting units are quite weak, the revolts are actually more of a free XP source than a penalty, especially if you have some cavalry with anti-barbarian promos. But I can see how this particular mechanic might be annoying, and we mean to change it somewhat.
When early on your cities work 3-4 tiles each, a boosted pasture can make a world of difference. If all of your cities have at least one animal resource, I believe early on Nomadism is no-brainer. It becomes progressively less useful with passage of time, as it should be.
On a different note, on multiplayer games have you found that the slot one player (always the host unless you play pitboss) is unevenly picked on? Playing mostly multiplayer games and me always hosting the game I am relegated to slot one (assuming we don't use pitboss) and it seems like I am unfairly picked on in the game -- with barbarian invasions, bad events, and just plain vindictive AI. Perhaps its just my imagination.
I don't have any hard data on it, but if it is so, all the more reason to use pitboss! It has no real drawbacks.
Yep. Huge world map is only intended for people who are very good at waiting. I personally hardly ever play it.
Just like IRL, this amount of bombards isn't really practical. They are supposed to be cumbersome, expensive and not really effective, until better artillery arrives later. But anyway, artillery is a purely support unit, your trusty infantry and cavalry (and tanks later) should do the main bulk of fighting and killing.
Just my observations so far -- I love the flavor of all the civs. Oh by the way, my players are yearning for North American Indian civs to play. Just had to add that!
This well might happen in future.
Good thinking and thanks for pointing out the non-obvious flaws. Maybe we'll handle it this way.
Not really. I feel it would be too unbalancing from gameplay point of view.
Maybe more "Unique religions" like what middle-eastern and Mediterranean civs have for solar cult? I'm drawing a blank on what any of them would be atm, but that's because my meager historical knowledge is kinda west-centric... I know, shame on me....
Well... In case of Solar Cult we were really lucky to have such a generic name and icon. I was thinking of implementing some advanced flavor polytheistic religions in Hinduism slot, but I see no elegant way of handling it from name/icon point of view. It would be strange to have Hellenic paganism represented by Aum symbol, for instance.
Republic is good for you when you are in confined quarters or don't really want to expand quickly - it's for "vertical" growth rather than "horizontal". If you want to grab more land quicker, Despotism is your best friend. And since that's how most players play all the time (I am guilty of overexpanding too often myself), Despotism seems to be the "human player civic".
We might want to think of more incentive for early "vertical" growth...
Nothing. It is purely there for AI. Oh, running another AI's favorite civic will give you a relations bonus. But other than that, nothing.
Coastal cities have more commerce as a rule, while inland cities have more production. I think it's fairly balanced.
We might want to handle espionage differently in future. We're not 100% sure of direction we want to take.
Spaceship race is already kinda scientific victory - first to research certain techs will likely win. Anyway, I am not really one of people "playing to win". I don't think I've ever formally won even one game of Civ 4...
I think Hamachi has gotten pretty terrible at connecting several players recently. Try handling this through pitboss and see if it works better for you.
My big overall wish for the religion system would be to have a "schism" mechanism so that, say, Christianity could be split into Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox, Islam into Shia/Sunni, etc.
These schismatic religions could perhaps have a random event triggered by a certain technology spawn them (much like the way they work in RFC: DOC) with buildings being replaced, etc.
Although I'm pretty sure I've said this on this thread somewhere like a year and a half ago
Yep, and I told you then that it is in our plans. It still is.
Well, lacking a strategic resource should hurt. Copper is one of those resources that you should really want to have. And such resources are usually designed to spawn so that there is a tangible deficit of them. Horses are another of those resources. Iron is actually easier to get, but that's because if you're out of iron, you can say that you've already lost - and also because historically, iron working was actually much more geographically accessible than bronze working - iron is found much easier on Earth than copper and tin.
Someone has already answered this one for you. Most big mods pack their assets into fpk files. You can unpack those with Pakbuild that you can find here in CFC downloads section. Our mod is no different in this aspect from even Civ 4 itself.
Yeah, we might have an option to unlock some civs we don't consider finished in the next version, mainly derivative civs like Finland or Mughals.
Hello RI, i wanted to ask you for what is electricity needed now after factory bonuses were moved to craftsman?
Thanks for making the best game ever!
Yann already answered this one above, but in short - right now for nothing. We lack one more component that will allow us to use electricity as we intended it with the new craftsman system.
Yes.
Really no idea, sorry. Have you tried running the installer in various compatibility modes?
Yes, see my answer above. This is by design. It is this way so that there are always some civs that end up with horses and/or copper and some that don't.
Maybe, in future.
And while we're at it: have you ever thought of implementing the option 'military units start fortified' ? It can be really convenient to not have to put newly produced units to sleep every turn if multiple cities are producing simultaneously. Just in case you are interested
Haven't really given it thought, but we might.
Well, I wouldn't recommend it, at least because I don't think any random map generator could put enough resources for 62 civs even on a Giant map. Also, you'd likely end up with a game that would quite quickly have very long turn wait times. Other than that, there is technically nothing that prevents you from doing that.
I can't say that I like your suggestion. Historically, coastlines were kinda big deal. If you look how human population was spread throughout most of history, you'll see that about 90% of humanity lived on or near the coasts. Even now if you look at the population density map of, say, USA, you'll notice that both coasts have much higher population density (and are much more economically advanced) than inland regions.
Playing as Egypt, I was destroying Arabia, and had just whittled down their capital's defense to a measly 1%, and was preparing to go for the kill. Russia was coming down with a small stack to the Suez Canal area, but who cares. Russia declares war, I get my defenses bolstered and moving towards their stack...
And then notice my Arabian invasion force has been teleported out of Arabia, meaning I have to spend 4 turns just getting back into range of the city.
This is still classical era, no vassals or defense pacts or any of those shenanigans going on. Still at war with Arabia, no peace out via event or anything. Not expecting another civ's wardec on me to take me out of my other enemy's territory.
Can't say I've ever run into anything like this.
I don't really understand your question.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
And I specifically invite you and other Hungarians here to discuss the newborn Hungarian playable civ.
That would be quite useful to have in RI as well.
I don't think a second UB is required. Only a few civs in RI have it, and only when the first one comes too late to be useful in most games (see Germany, Russia).
Since we already have almost exactly that for Spain, to implement it for Hungary, we'll need something new and cool for Spain.
It would be cool if you provided some pictures if you think we're missing some unit art. Then I will be able to make those units.
As for Fekete Sereg, I will actually argue with you here. Firstly, at maximum strength it was about 20000 people, which for these times would mean something like 4-6 Civ units. Secondly, it had a much higher amount of gunpowder weaponry per soldier than any other European army of that era; they were the first European military unit to actually rely on gunpowder for causing major damage (or the second if we count Hussite infantry of Hussite wars). Of course it was still only no more than 1/4 of soldiers who had arquebus, but that can also be said about all other early gunpowder armies as well. Only by XVII century infantry could get rid of purely melee soldiers in their formations (pikemen were the last to go, with the arrival of bayonets). Even much later, in 30 Years War era, musket formations didn't have more than 50% of people armed with actual muskets. So I think classing Fekete Sereg as a gunpowder unit is quite justified.
I think we handled those well. Any comments on leaders?
That would be quite useful to have in RI as well.
I don't think a second UB is required. Only a few civs in RI have it, and only when the first one comes too late to be useful in most games (see Germany, Russia).
Since we already have almost exactly that for Spain, to implement it for Hungary, we'll need something new and cool for Spain.
It would be cool if you provided some pictures if you think we're missing some unit art. Then I will be able to make those units.
As for Fekete Sereg, I will actually argue with you here. Firstly, at maximum strength it was about 20000 people, which for these times would mean something like 4-6 Civ units. Secondly, it had a much higher amount of gunpowder weaponry per soldier than any other European army of that era; they were the first European military unit to actually rely on gunpowder for causing major damage (or the second if we count Hussite infantry of Hussite wars). Of course it was still only no more than 1/4 of soldiers who had arquebus, but that can also be said about all other early gunpowder armies as well. Only by XVII century infantry could get rid of purely melee soldiers in their formations (pikemen were the last to go, with the arrival of bayonets). Even much later, in 30 Years War era, musket formations didn't have more than 50% of people armed with actual muskets. So I think classing Fekete Sereg as a gunpowder unit is quite justified.
I think we handled those well. Any comments on leaders?
I have another question. Why is gold so scarse in the new generators? i think its ok to be scarse, but not to the point that I played 3 times in large maps and in one continent there is gold but in the other there is none. I think there should be at least 2 gold in the other continent (in my games the old big continent had just 5-4 gold) and just 1 civ out of then had more than 1 gold (just 2).
Thanks for making this game, it is really awesome!
Thanks for making this game, it is really awesome!
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
Which I think is a good feature as well. Scarcity is definitely a good thing.
I'm just finding that some worlds will only have 3 or 4 sources of copper and horses for an entire "large" sized map. I've also gotten trapped on very large continents where there was no horses, or copper and only 1 or 2 sources of iron.
Perhaps this problem is a bit exaggerated for me due to the options I choose for the terrain generation and the amount of civs?
I usually pick "perfect world," or the "mongoose" map scripts and play with 20 or so civs on a large map, so approximately 25% of the civs or less will have decent access to key resources. Fighting wars with only archers and basic spearmen until the iron age, or further can be a bit of a drag.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
I have another question. Why is gold so scarse in the new generators? i think its ok to be scarse, but not to the point that I played 3 times in large maps and in one continent there is gold but in the other there is none. I think there should be at least 2 gold in the other continent (in my games the old big continent had just 5-4 gold) and just 1 civ out of then had more than 1 gold (just 2).
Thanks for making this game, it is really awesome!
I don't think it is, at least there shouldn't be less of it than of other resources. What we did change relatively recently is that gold now doesn't "cluster" and should be dispersed, but that doesn't seem to what you're reporting. What are your settings?
I ran the PerfectMongoose script a couple of times just now to check, and the amount of copper instances per large map was on average 15-16. Granted, at least 4-5 end up in the polar regions. Are you able to reproduce it, and if you are, what are your settings for the generator itself?
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
In my experiences gold and silver are fairly uncommon, but the distribution seems to be fairly realistic.
I played these maps awhile ago (haven't had much time for civ lately) and it looks like I was a bit fuzzy on some of the details. I saw someone mention a few things about the distribution of resources and it jogged my memory.
I did manage to find one of my old saved games. I counted 4 sources of copper on that map when I checked just now. It appears to be a Large Tectonics map with 3 continents, but I'm not 100% certain. I was also playing with 31 civs, not 20 some.
I also just generated a few new maps on PerfectMongoose (large map) and got about 10 sources of copper, so about the same as you did. Probably playing with 31 civs caused me to remember the copper being quite a bit more rare than it actually was. Also given that some sources spawn on polar caps, so only about 1/3 of civs or less would have had access to copper made the distribution seem quite low playing with that number of civs.
I guess for now we can write off the map with 4 sources of copper as an isolated incident, since I'm not sure what the settings were. I did have that happen to me 2x in a row oddly... I do still have a saved copy of one of the games if you care to look and if I come across it again and am able to reproduce it I'll let you know.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
Actually playing with 31 civs can cause copper to become more scarce. Since the map generator tries to place enough of all resources for every civ, it of course simply runs of placement places if the map size is not adequate to the number of civs, thus causing some resources to be barely present at all. The first victims are usually crops - on an overcrowded map you will be lucky if there is more than one instance of corn or rice present.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
Well that makes sense then. I always assumed that the game didn't taken into account the number of civs when generating a map. In that case I'll play with far less civs in the future. Thanks for the insight.
Now that you mention it, wheat, corn, rice etc. Were all pretty scarce. I just didn't notice because I'm a bit of a warmonger and they aren't a strategic resource.
JeremyHussell
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 36
Well, I think the reality is more complicated than that. Population tends to cluster along major transportation routes, whether those are shipping routes, roads, rail, or something else. At the very least, major rivers and lakes attract population just as well as oceanic coast. The Great Lakes, for example, are home to the 3rd largest U.S. city (Chicago) and the 1st and 2nd largest Canadian cities (Toronto and Montreal). However, climate has a much larger effect. Most people live where food is easy to grow, and only secondarily congregate where food is easy to transport to.
U.S. population density, 2005 (image, 439kB) The largest pattern in the U.S. is the divide between east (high density) and west (low density), not coastal vs interior.
Africa population density, 2000 (image, 405kB) Here's a clear example of population density around lakes and rivers as well as coasts (the rift lakes and the Nile). Population density along major roads is also visible in some places on this map. Climate has a huge effect on population density, with few people in the Sahara or Namib deserts, and many where rainfall, and thus food production, is high (western sub-Sahara, Kenya, eastern South Africa).
Central Asia population density (image, 108kB) Another great example is India, where there's a band of population density along the base of the Himalayan mountains, where rain and snow-melt create the most fertile areas. (Edit: also, this)
If you have any maps showing historical population density, I would love to see them.
Anyway, as interesting as that is, it's a bit of a digression. My main point is that it's quite common for cities to be slightly inland, but still benefit from nearby coastal areas. My favorite example of this is classical Athens, with its Long Walls. Cities on lakes should also be able to build lighthouses and fishing docks, as well as ships.
MilesBeyond
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 444
Is there a comparison of all the different civs floating around anywhere? The more I play this mod, the more I love it, but the more I wish there was an easier way to see how one civ's unique and national units and buildings stack up against another's without having to pour through the Civopedia.
EDIT: Also, apologies if this is a stupid question, but after reading the manual and searching the forums, I'm still not really sure why every trait says "Max 3 turns of anarchy." Is it possible to have a lower or higher amount of anarchy? AFAIK they all have max 3.
EDIT 2: Hey, since I'm asking questions, is there any chance of RI picking up C2C's system of "leader evolution," where, if the option's enabled, your leader grows over time and acquires new positive and negative traits?
EDIT: Also, apologies if this is a stupid question, but after reading the manual and searching the forums, I'm still not really sure why every trait says "Max 3 turns of anarchy." Is it possible to have a lower or higher amount of anarchy? AFAIK they all have max 3.
EDIT 2: Hey, since I'm asking questions, is there any chance of RI picking up C2C's system of "leader evolution," where, if the option's enabled, your leader grows over time and acquires new positive and negative traits?
JeremyHussell
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 36
Well, if generic names and icons are good, why not make some of the existing religions more generic? Ancestor Worship (Taoism, sort of), Polytheism (Hinduism), Monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and whatever the technical term is for a non-theistic religion like Buddhism. Oh, and Dualism (Zoroastrianism). Then you can treat them all like Solar Cult. Existing art/icons can be used for one of the regional variations. Maybe the planned schism mechanic would work well with these sub-religions, too.
