[mod] Extra Realism [for Total Realism]

---Extra Realism for Total Realism Mod---


Requires:
Civilization 4 Warlords expansion v2.08
Total Realism Mod Gold v2.1.1 (Forum: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

_________________________________________________________________
DOWNLOAD:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/117564/Extra_Realism_1.01.zip
_________________________________________________________________


Author:
Jaroslav Kurcik, centurion@centrum.sk


Description:
This "mod of mod" changes this things in the Total Realism Mod:

(1.) Religions Founding.
This changes the way how religions are founded. They are founded in the approximately right historical dates and places. This process is automatic - no technologies, building or units are required.

Each religion has defined five cities where it can be founded (see python script file for details). Names of the cities are hard-coded in English so this mod probably won't function in localized versions.
Founding dates and places are:

HINDUISM: about 1500 BC in Delhi or near
ZOROASTRIANISM: about 1200 BC in Persepolis or near
JUDAISM: about 850 BC in Jerusalem or near
BUDDHISM: about 450 BC in Bombay or near
TAOISM: about 350 BC in Beijing or near
CHRISTIANITY: about 50 AD in Jerusalem or near
ISLAM: about 650 AD in Mecca or near


(2.) Combat Fatigue.
Every unit winning a combat (actually it must kill opposing unit) suffers a combat fatigue which lasts until next turn. There are three levels of fatigue so if the unit fights more times in a single turn it suffers more penalty. After first combat unit suffers -15% strength penalty, after second additional -20% and at last after third if suffers additional -25%, for total -60% strength penalty. Penalties are removed at the beginning of player's turn.

This brings two new aspects in the game: Attacking forces become more vulnerable to eventual counter-attack, while defending forces will have much harder times to repel attacking forces if attacker outnumbers them.


(3.) World wonders.
World wonders can be built only by those civilization that has built them in real history or was most influencing on them (e.g. only Greeks can build Statue of Zeus).


Installation:
1. make sure you have Warlords v2.08 and Total Realism mod v2.1.1 installed
2. unzip archive content into {civilization_install_folder}\Warlords folder. Click overwrite when prompted.


This mod is suggested to be played on the Extra Realism World map (included).


Changes log:
v 1.0: Initial release
- removed religions links to technologies
- removed Dualism technology
- Priesthood now requires Monotheism too
- Monotheism gives a free Great Prophet for the first founder
- Polytheism gives a free Great Artist for the first founder
- Divine Right gives a free Great Prophet for the first founder
- Fission gives a free Great Scientist for the first founder
- rearranged technology tree to be of standard height and without overlapping arrows
- added Jerusalem on the Earth map
- altered TR-config.ini file (activated local and dominant religions, lowered city razing rate)
- made necessary changes to python scripts

v 1.01:
- changed founding dates for Zoroastrianism and Judaism

Great job!

This looks very creative. Have you done all the scripting work (religion founding, combat fatigue) by yourself?

Hope you keep it up for our new upcoming version (coming in a week at most). It is a very major overhaul, and, as such most probably won't be compatible with this (actually I can't even have a look at your mod now, because, just as all the other team members, I have a recent TR update, which is very different from v2.1.1).

Just and outlook of ypur post. Dont take it too seriously, but those things makes me a bit "negative?" towards this mod. Tell me if thats how things are ingame, as i will not have much time for next few games, and i rather spend it outside rather than on PC.

(2.) So now to kill a tank in city i will use 3 warriors, so tank wins 3 times and gets fatigued to -60%, so next unit finishes him off easilly ? Good idea, but numbers seem too high.
Gerrison promotion gets a bit obsolate. Why have a unit that does not get damaged, when after one fight it acts as if it were damaged. Besides, strength offsets come 1st, than other bonuses. So -15% strength +45% defence =/= +30% defence.

(3.) I think it is inballancing. Some Civs like Zulu dont have a wonder and thusly, cant have their bonuses.

Giving extra great people isnt a good idea IMO. We allready added a lots of new buildings and wonders that boost their production rate.


Looks like you put some effort in it and thusly, you knew what were you doing. Lets await comments of those that have actually played this mod (with out mod). My comment doesnt have "power" as i didnt see it ingame, just your post.

Have you done all the scripting work (religion founding, combat fatigue) by yourself?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Hope you keep it up for our new upcoming version

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I'm very busy, so I can't promise that.

To Anaztazioch:
(2.) Yes. But it's very unlikely that warrior meets a tank in combat. I've made this for one reason: My attacking army outnumbers defenders 2:1 and after the combat I've ended with no units, while defenders was almost without scratch. I've expected to at least reduce the number of defenders, but was surprised with such result.

Why have a unit that does not get damaged, when after one fight it acts as if it were damaged.

Click to expand...

It's tired. Can you be at two places at the same time, fighting, and not be tired?

(3.) You are right. It's unbalancing. This is for those people (like me) who don't want Pyramids in Paris.

I've added extra Great people only for those few techs that would look useless otherwise.

Centurion96 said:

I've made this for one reason: My attacking army outnumbers defenders 2:1 and after the combat I've ended with no units, while defenders was almost without scratch.

Click to expand...

This means only one thing - you chose your army incorrectly for an attack. Only outnumbering doesn't necessarily mean winning even after time. Not too much realistic IMHO. Have you tested it?
Because the point you are showing here seems more rather like "I'm frustrated that my outnumbering forces do not win" rather than well tested and well justified point of modification.

About being tired - have you noticed how many years one turn takes in civilization? From 20 to 5 years IIRC, so how can you use the word 'tired' here? Only your society can become tired after many years of war and that's reflected by war weariness, but your units regenerate their strength easily after 20 or 5 years...

you chose your army incorrectly for an attack

Click to expand...

I think, my army was OK, but defenders did not suffer any loses. This is unrealistic, considering forces ratio.

I don't want that outnumbering forces must automatically win (and they don't, even with this mod). You know, typical unit can attack only once per turn, so why defending unit can fighting over and over again without any penalty.

Yes, I was frustrated, that I had to build countless numbers of units to capture one city guarded by few units. This is exactly why I decided to change it - this could be called the test. Because I want enjoy the game, not being frustrated by it. I have made this mod primarily for myself and I'm very content with it.

Your notice about turn duration is absurd, because only turn itself is important, no matter how much of virtual time elapsed (especially in Civilization where time progress varies throughout the game). Nothing would make sense if you consider turn duration in Civilization (e.g. digging the well more than 50 years).

About being tired

Click to expand...

Read about Westerplatte in WW II (i think it was WW II). And tell me, weather They got tired and lost.

Close thing happened in Warsaw, but in there it was civilians that oposed Axis, but unlike Westerplatte, where Germans saluted defeated defenders, civilians were executed.

Centurion96 said:

I think, my army was OK, but defenders did not suffer any loses. This is unrealistic, considering forces ratio.

Click to expand...

If you knew on what does the combat win or loss depends then you would choose your army right. If you think that forces ratio makes the result then you will never win this way. And no - combat ratio is not realistic.

Yes, I was frustrated, that I had to build countless numbers of units to capture one city guarded by few units.

Click to expand...

Next time go for proper technologies, proper promotions, don't forget siege units and stack aid promotions, rather than concentrating on getting only more units than there are defenders.
When I'm playing as Egypt one Warrior full of city Garrison promotions, behind city walls and with my high culture can easily repell stack of 4 barbarian warriors aided by 2 of their Archers. And I don't find this unrealistic, because I know that good defence position and much greater experience can easily win the war rather than just larger number of units.
Wasn't it the way both Americas were conquered? Technical advantage and military drill vs huge number of weak units?
If your 'realism' were true then there would be no conquest by Hernan Cortez, no USA... as conquistadors and settlers would be just wiped out by being outnumbered.

Because I want enjoy the game, not being frustrated by it.

Click to expand...

The way you change it is some way of course, but not realistic in other people's opinion. Are you here just to give your work to others or also to read the opinions?
I think the easiest way for you to not get frustrated is just to remove enemy units by WorldBuilder... the harder way is to properly build your attack forces, not only in numbers and thinking that outnumbering should win the war.

Your notice about turn duration is absurd, because only turn itself is important, no matter how much of virtual time elapsed

Click to expand...

As far as war is concerned then your argument about units being tired seems absurd as well. It is useful in turn based games where one turn equals one day for example. But in large scale conflicts that are visible in Civilization you can't forget the invisible forces that work in this scale, and timescale cannot be ignored that easily. In this epic scale there are always reinforcements, backups, fresh meat etc. So the only possible way of 'being tired' is already implemented - on a scale that fits civilization game scale - war weariness by your population. Units get damaged during fight, not only by fighting.

I'm not amazed that your mod suits you fine and you've tested it - it only lets you win by the way you think suits you best. But it does not seem realistic at all. So yes - in some way it is an extreme mod, but I disagree to call it extremely realistic.

If you read my posts carefully you will find that I never told that outnumbering must win any combat. Also I never told that you have to forget about strategy and research (I think, these are the most important things);

I want to hear your opinion about this:
How is it possible that attacker can normally engage in combat only once per turn, while defender can do it infinitely (they are both fighting and killing each other, they are both on the battlefield, they are both doing the same thing).

Please, imagine this simple situation:
Two units of Swordsmen attacking one unit of Spearmen. At first, the first Swordsmen attack the Spearmen, then the second Swordsmen make their attack. But in real life, it doesn't work like this. In real life, both Swordsmen would attack simultaneously, effectively almost doubling their strength. It's much harder to fight two men at the same time, than fight them in sequence.
This is considered in my mod. When you send 10 units against 5 units, think of it as a large battle, not as a succesion of individual fights. Some of the defenders will be forced to fight with more then one attacker, and eventually become "tired" or "split".

Wasn't it the way both Americas were conquered? Technical advantage and military drill vs huge number of weak units?

Click to expand...

No. Not exactly this way. Especially south America was conquered by political trick, by turning natives to fight each other (Aztec), or making use of civil war in progress (Incas). And there wasn't any empire in the north America, only scattered tribes looking only for themselves.


You have said "combat ratio is not realistic" and at the other place you have said that changes in my mod is not realistic. But I was trying only to solve this unrealistic combat ratio. How many Legionaries did Romans have. Ten thousands or ten millions? "Tired" effect removes the need of vast armies, that in fact rarely existed in the history.

Centurion96 said:

If you read my posts carefully you will find that I never told that outnumbering must win any combat. Also I never told that you have to forget about strategy and research (I think, these are the most important things);

I want to hear your opinion about this:
How is it possible that attacker can normally engage in combat only once per turn, while defender can do it infinitely (they are both fighting and killing each other, they are both on the battlefield, they are both doing the same thing).

Please, imagine this simple situation:
Two units of Swordsmen attacking one unit of Spearmen. At first, the first Swordsmen attack the Spearmen, then the second Swordsmen make their attack. But in real life, it doesn't work like this. In real life, both Swordsmen would attack simultaneously, effectively almost doubling their strength. It's much harder to fight two men at the same time, than fight them in sequence.
This is considered in my mod. When you send 10 units against 5 units, think of it as a large battle, not as a succesion of individual fights. Some of the defenders will be forced to fight with more then one attacker, and eventually become "tired" or "split".


No. Not exactly this way. Especially south America was conquered by political trick, by turning natives to fight each other (Aztec), or making use of civil war in progress (Incas). And there wasn't any empire in the north America, only scattered tribes looking only for themselves.


You have said "combat ratio is not realistic" and at the other place you have said that changes in my mod is not realistic. But I was trying only to solve this unrealistic combat ratio. How many Legionaries did Romans have. Ten thousands or ten millions? "Tired" effect removes the need of vast armies, that in fact rarely existed in the history.

Click to expand...

and what about two swordsman against two spearman: also defenders can fight together.....

this situation we have simulated via StackAid promotion: so two swordsman together and each one can get stack aid melee promo

and what about two swordsman against two spearman: also defenders can fight together.....

Click to expand...

This not need any special handling, because this is normal one-on-one situation. Problem is only when numbers not match. Civilization has IMHO a very stupid combat system. There should be army vs. army, instead of unit vs. unit battles.

Centurion96 said:

This not need any special handling, because this is normal one-on-one situation. Problem is only when numbers not match. Civilization has IMHO a very stupid combat system. There should be army vs. army, instead of unit vs. unit battles.

Click to expand...

but you must think that one unit != one man, it represent some troop formation

It's absolutely clear to me. I know that one unit represents a regiment. These regiments cannot cooperate during battle however, instead they are thrown one by one into "the meat-chopper". I would prefer to have an army system (e.g. choosing from what units the army consist, what task these units have in the army, they all should move and fight together, they could even retreat from the battle when losing). That way, it would be pleasure to manage your forces!

Nice changes, I will try it ASAP, it will add more diversity to my favourite Civ's mods, thanks. Fatigue stuff seems interesting to me, but those values could be too high, nevertheless good job!

Centurion96 said:

It's absolutely clear to me. I know that one unit represents a regiment. These regiments cannot cooperate during battle however, instead they are thrown one by one into "the meat-chopper". I would prefer to have an army system (e.g. choosing from what units the army consist, what task these units have in the army, they all should move and fight together, they could even retreat from the battle when losing). That way, it would be pleasure to manage your forces!

Click to expand...

Managing forces in turn based strategies is impossible.

I applaud your enthusiasm, and your willingness to contribute your own free time to making the mod

Having said that I don't think I'll try the mod. First of all, I play Civilization, be it modded or not because I like that "What if the world was different" feel to the game... it's that very "What if" concept which has historically made the franchise so popular. To have wonders etc dictated to me seems to me to defeat the concept of having them in game in the first place, unless you want a scenario to set up a particular game feel. A little realism is great. There can be too much of a good thing though...

In terms of combat fatigue, I'd disagree with you on a couple of points. Firstly in ancient times there were some absolutely huge armies. Alexander's Army was massive, numbering in the hundreds of thousands at one point.

And in terms of combat fatigue, Tanks vs Warriors may be a little over the top as an example, but I still fail to see how one side with a regiment of men which enjoys a decisive (not just minor or major, but decisive) technological advantage, would be "combat fatigued" after one engagement where casualties suffered are minimal and casualties inflicted are total.

Example - Put a regiment of Riflemen versus a regiment of Macemen, something quite possible in-game. Do you mean to suggest that there would be any combat fatigue to any great degree to the Riflemen Regiment, considering they're armed with rifled muskets with a rate of fire of 3-4 rounds per minute, per man, at a range effective out to a couple of hundred yards? You could throw multiple formations at the riflemen and they'd dispatch the macemen easily. If anything, up to a certain point, the morale, and thus fighting effectiveness of the riflemen could conceivably increase, since they know that their enemy is inferior.

I don't mean to denigrate or cheapen your efforts, and the fact that you've tried to make something positive is something deserving of praise, but I don't think I agree with the theories and concepts behind the mod. I hope you have fun using it and enjoying your own work, and I hope others have fun with it too...

But I don't think it's for me.... Good luck with it though

Managing forces in turn based strategies is impossible.

Click to expand...

Why? I think, TBS is ideal for managing forces.

And in terms of combat fatigue, Tanks vs Warriors may be a little over the top as an example, but I still fail to see how one side with a regiment of men which enjoys a decisive (not just minor or major, but decisive) technological advantage, would be "combat fatigued" after one engagement where casualties suffered are minimal and casualties inflicted are total.

Click to expand...

My first intention was, that combat fatigue will be calculated depending on current unit's strength, so when weaker unit attacks stronger one, the stronger unit suffer less fatigue than as if it fights with equal unit. This is hard to implement, so I had to use only three predefined values.

Having said that I don't think I'll try the mod. First of all, I play Civilization, be it modded or not because I like that "What if the world was different" feel to the game... it's that very "What if" concept which has historically made the franchise so popular. To have wonders etc dictated to me seems to me to defeat the concept of having them in game in the first place, unless you want a scenario to set up a particular game feel.

Click to expand...

I also like this idea, but only if there would be fictive civilizations, religions and wonders. Mixing alternate history with real history is not very good thing (some players tend to build some wonders or adopt some religion only because it's named after their favourite real counterpart. Some players e.g. don't like Judaism and never adopt it in the game, even if it would be advantageous for their current situation). Alternate history needs some general names and symbols.

Why? I think, TBS is ideal for managing forces.

Click to expand...

Becouse you are unable to determine what formation you want your units to use, what tactics, when to retreat, what traps to made, where to bait enemies etc.

I turn based you can do one action and have time to think about next, its more chess than combat. But in civ4 its more rock, paper, scisors rather than chess.

Becouse you are unable to determine what formation you want your units to use, what tactics, when to retreat, what traps to made, where to bait enemies etc.

Click to expand...

I meant global forces management, not battle management. Global management includes forming armies, assigning Generals, giving strategy orders, like where to move and what to do there. Battle management (tactics) is up to your Generals and their skills or promotions, however, you can easily pre-set even these things before battle (e.g. HQ (you) is ordering what cover operation to do prior to battle, whether to stay until last man or retreat for example when below 40% strength). There are countless possibilities how to do this management depending on the target complexity of the game.

Just a quick note about religions and their founding.
shouldn't Zoroastrianism be founded more around say 1200 B.C.E? this is a rough date that the late orientalist, Dr. Mary Boyce, who until 2006 was the world's leading expert on Zoroastrianism. This seems to more correspond with the supposed date of Zoroaster, as well as meeting the then societal requisites of the Gathas, the bi-partial society of priests and nomads/herders. To relate the founding of the religion to the life of it's founder in this case, seems more accurate than the date it was recorded by herodotus, as it seems to be the date that zoroaster made his religion mainstream and began to influence the world.

As for Judaism, the date Might want to be pushed up to around 860/850 BCE when the first book of the Pentateuch was supposedly formed, or for a more solid date, around 450ish BCE when the Torah was written in Babylon.

Those are really the main problems that I feel exist date-wise, general scholarly belief is in favor of the other dates you have there.