Realism Invictus

You sure?

Being three times better than before, I reap 30 :hammers: just out of religious buildings. I admit, I like it so much. And I admit I was a tad reluctant to report it because it feels so to have a building whose returns make the investment worth it.
Yeah, I suppose it is a bug. And surprised no one pointed it out. Or maybe not. Whatever.

Nope, and this is why I wrote "I think". We'll do that for 3.2.1 anyway.

Really? Oh well, then, I shouldn't have bought what others said to me because the game in which you see the AP bug was a huge strain as barbarian waves were so numerous. It made me stuck with one city for 3000 years. I decided to play with Raging Barbs because others said I played with skewed options, but it seems it wasn't that true. Still, it was an interesting gameplay as it made me learnt how to deal efficiently K-mod AIs and barbarians.

That was not to say that there isn't any pressure from barbarians on the World Maps. There is quite a lot of them, it is just that they don't really come from Raging Barbarians setting.

has anyone ever put anything inside of a reconnaissance car? what is the point of this? it is kind of a mysterious unit to me, like the gunboat. what is it for??

It's for getting recon aid and for having a quick unit to do recon with. Its combat usefulness is very limited.

should there be a limit to how many observatories you can build? there seem to be diminishing returns on how much you can learn from stargazing. as it is it is too much exactly the same as a university

Not really. They were quite crazy about observatories in the past. You see, it is not even about stargazing per se, but more about advanced maths and engineering required to get any meaningful results. Basically, observatories in Renaissance eras were the same as research institutes are now - a place where a lot of scientists were gathered to work on stuff; and the "stuff" in question could even be unrelated to astronomy.

perhaps the upkeep costs on battleships (ie predreadnaughts et al) should be increased? +1 gold per turn is negligible by the time you get them

It is quite hard to model the real amount of infrastructure needed to maintain a modern fleet in XX century; ideas welcome on how this could be modeled.

Ok, heres my latest gripe on unit balance which I have already modified in my game, and I'm happy with the results.
The medium cavalry are a flavor of light cavalry, but they are played completely differently as you can tell my their stats. One thing that was overlooked was the archers vs. medium cavalry. Since medium cavalry are technically light cavalry, archers get a massive 110% bonus against them. This is incredibly awkward to me, since I'd consider medium cavalry to be a counter to archers, not the other way around.

Currently medium cavalry is intended to be first and foremost the counter to light cavalry and recon units. Your suggestion is quite reasonable, yet that would leave no real counter for them, in turn. They are already very difficult to counter.

To make more realistic balance I gave all medium cavalry varients a hefty +50% bonus vs archers, and gave them a -50% penalty vs cities in exchange. Medium cavalry really don't add much to assaulting walls. This allows medium cavalry to reliably kill archers caught out in the open as they should.

Interesting. Maybe we'll do it like that.

Ok. Perhaps an industrial or late renaissance era improvement for jungles that has a good chance of spawning a natural-rubber resource? Now I understand why specific spices are not a good idea.

The problem here, of course, is that there is very few jungle left in the world by that time...

This works well in scenarios, but is not fun when a random map and random leader combines to give you a land-locked capital for a seafaring civilization. Perhaps I'm biased by how often I play random maps, but I would prefer to have a naval tradition and a less militarily-powerful seafaring trait.

That's not unreasonable. We'll think about it.

I'm well aware of the A.I.'s behavior in this case. Would the opposite be more palatable? (Have electric railroads provide +0.25 health.) Also, what about giving highways the same bonuses to tile production as railroads? That could only help the A.I.s, and would make highways interesting again.

Actually, I was contemplating just ditching highways. They don't really add anything significant to gameplay.

In your opinion, is it better balanced for one or the other right now?

I like the religious spread dynamics on random maps more. But it is certainly entirely playable on both.

About the net chance of epidemic when upgrading a building: I've observed this for Aqueducts replacing Wells, now. The game reports no change in epidemic chance, when it should be -1.5%. If my calculations are correct, a clinic obsoleting a bath and an epidemic colony should result in a net effect of +1.5%, but the game reports +3.0%. So this is still a bug, I think, unless it's already fixed in the SVN.

There's a hint that says "If you know too many civs to fit on your scoreboard, you can tweak its vertical spacing in BUG options menu!". BUG is wonderful, but I expect there are many casual players out there who have tried R.I. but haven't heard of BUG. Nowhere on the interface does it say "BUG Options" (except perhaps in the credits). This is why I think this (and other similar hints) should be changed to reference the "Interface Options menu" instead of BUG. Either that, or change the "Interface Options" menu to the "BUG Interface Options" menu.

Also, more small bugs:
  • Python error when goody huts spawn hostile villagers and one or more of the surrounding squares is a mountain, lake, or ocean. Doesn't seem to affect anything, but the visible error is irritating.
  • Military: Doctrines:RiteOfPassage links to itself instead of Military:SpecialPromotions:RiteOfPassage
  • Ulugh Beg's first contact text has question-mark characters in it where there should be some sort of exotic characters, I think.
  • Konrad Adenaur's first contact text starts "Dear Konrad Adenaur," (I think it should be "Dear [Player Name here],")
  • The Elite Swordsman quest mentions the "middle ages". Shouldn't that be "the medieval era"?
  • The Grandmaster Blacksmith quest caused my sawmills to get +1 hammer instead of my forges. This may be intentional, since forges eventually get replaced, but if so, the text needs to be updated.
  • Tiles producing 10 food show 1 loaf of bread, which means they look exactly as if they are producing 5 food. (This might not be so easy to fix, I guess.)

Thanks, it is all noted.

The Shwedagon Paya wonder might be improved by removing the tech requirement for religious communities. Right now, the S.P. doesn't help much, since the main advantages of free religion and cult of personality don't become available until the techs they require have been researched, and the other religious civics are available early. I think making the missionary units available early might be too much, but just the buildings would make the S.P. to switch to Free Religion much more attractive.

Well, using SP to run Free Religion or Cult of Personality is quite out of "realistic" scope, so I like how it is right now - you are able to do it, but if you're so ahead of time, you will get less from these civics than when it is their time to shine. It is mostly intended to give you freedom to choose all the state religion civics. Moreover, since this is the only incomplete civic category for now, there will likely be one more civic (probably Renaissance-era) to make SP more useful.

Lastly, I am feeling the need for a line of anti-barbarian promotions for naval units. Please?

Noted. Not a bad idea.

My Greek campaign still going great. I can't get enough of this game. As a huge fan of Byzantium I have a few things to offer. I'll start on the lighter side.

I found this finnish metal band who sings a pretty sweet song about the Varangian Guard. Worth a listen. I'm adding it to the civ 4 soundtrack :king:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x-5ZkTMyMc

Thanks, nice guys. Remind me heavily of Sabaton...

Now on a more serious note. After the debate with the Greek Water wheel, which doesn't make any sense for a variety of reasons, I brainstormed an idea for a significantly more ideal improvement. Forts. Asia minor is littered with them, and the Greeks absolutely depended on them for significant periods, especially throughout the byzantine era. Forts in many ways defined both the rise and the fall of the late greeks, and are worth receiving some attention in the game.

Now as for specifics, that's trickier. There's a lot of routes to take, and I don't know what the limits are for defensive improvements. Maybe an additional defensive bonus, a faster construction time, or an additional +heal bonus. i'm trying to research more for some better ideas, but researching the byzantine empire is a pain.

I am inclined to defend the water wheel. While it is true that the water wheel itself was not the cornerstone of Greek culture, it was symptomatic of one thing that was very definitely there - the extensive use of machinery to make a lot of agricultural and industrial tasks easier. They were the cradle of agricultural and industrial mechanization this side of Himalayas, and these advances were later carried to Europe by Romans and to Middle East by Arabs. We felt that this should be represented.

Along these lines. The Great walls of Constantinople should be strongly considered as a great wonder. The influence these walls had were far greater then the majority of wonders currently in existence, and their effectiveness was unmatched. At the very least these walls should provide a bonus to great engineers, a large cultural bonus, and a large defensive bonus. The walls are simply too significant to be left out of this mod.
Heres a little video on the walls, though this left out some other important aspects of the wall, such as the great chain. http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-city-of-walls-constantinople-lars-brownworth

I feel disinclined to include them for a simple (and probably idiotic) reason that as a wonder, they'd be called "Walls of Constantinople", which ties them to a single city, while in almost 100% percent of games, Constantinople would not be the place they'd be built.

Ancient great works aren't discontinuing when classic works appear, which makes for some odd scenarios, like, my people just completed rock paintings and adopted chivalry on the same year.

That's intentional, as they never discontinue. One might argue for Ancient works that if you "build" them later on, you've just made an important archaeological discovery.

Vassalism mechanic is so freakin broken on the world maps. I totally understand why it was turned off. I don't know exactly why the AI is doing this, but almost all of them beg to vassal into the top empires. They will do this even if they are doing perfectly fine on their own. This was never a problem in 3.1, so maybe its K-mod or barbarians? I think I'll try to make the best of it and spark world war. Me and my 5 vassals against russia and her 6 vassals. The sad thing is I gotta keep regecting more vassals every year.

That's true. I guess K-Mod has reworked the logic behind AI vassalization. We will likely have to disable it for our maps (and as the default option for random maps) until we can make it behave in a more reasonable manner.

Just a fast comment regarding your point doubling culture: it is right that early Great Works will have this doubling after 1000 years. But that only works for Ancient, Classical and Medieval Great Works somehow. Later ones won't have it in time. Let's suppose (because I don't play with tech trades off) Renaissance normally starts around 1000AD for a typical game, thus at the time the Renaisssance Art and Baroque GW will be constructed, 1000 years later is 2000AD, which is basically the end of the game and thus useless to consider the culture doubling capacity.

Anyhow, for the earliest GWs, that is a true fact though.

And that's why all works after medieval era will get a gradually increasing cultural output from now on, with modern ones ultimately getting 20 culture.

Bug i reported some time ago still exist. It's, a crash when screen jumps to units piechota or piechota liniowa (infantry and line infantry for Poland). I don't think its MAF because when i upgrade my piechota to later unit, crashes stop. If it will help i can provide saved game from earlier svn (downloaded just before official release 3.2).

Heh, I remember trying to fix that one. As a matter of fact I feel I've learned quite a lot about how Civ 4 graphical engine works since then, and I'm ready to give this one another try. But I'll need a save game, since I can't reproduce this issue myself now.

If unit aid was changed to be front-loaded it would greatly help the stack of doom problem, and better represent diminishing returns on roles already present in the stack. Rather then giving a bonus to the third Aid I suggest giving a bonus to the first aid, and reducing the third.

Interesting notion. We'll discuss that.

This is a bit more out there (and difficult), but consider giving pikemen a larger base strength, and penalize them with -% bonuses vs targets to make pikemen more appealing to keep later in the game for its aid bonus. This would better represent gunpowder armies of the next era since they continued to keep pikemen for quite a while. (or just give pikemen something to keep it from going obsolete as fast?)

That's actually a good idea. Pikemen should be an "all-purpose" unit.

The culture flipping mechanic IS broken by K-Mod: at least, it was the case in an older version, I did not check a recent one.

I also realised that no cities were culture flipping in my games since a long time. When I had an obvious case in a game, I searched for the codes. In CvPlot.cpp (void CvPlot::doCulture()) I reverted one line of code back to the original BtS one and tested it: the city in my game immediately culture flipped to me.

For the sake of it, this was the line of code in question:
Spoiler :
Code:
							//if (pCity->isBarbarian() || (!(GC.getGameINLINE().isOption(GAMEOPTION_NO_CITY_FLIPPING)) && (GC.getGameINLINE().isOption(GAMEOPTION_FLIPPING_AFTER_CONQUEST) || !(pCity->isEverOwned(eCulturalOwner))) && (pCity->getNumRevolts(eCulturalOwner) >= GC.getDefineINT("NUM_WARNING_REVOLTS"))))
							if (pCity->isBarbarian() || (!GC.getGameINLINE().isOption(GAMEOPTION_NO_CITY_FLIPPING) && (GC.getGameINLINE().isOption(GAMEOPTION_FLIPPING_AFTER_CONQUEST) || pCity->getPreviousOwner() != eCulturalOwner) && pCity->getNumRevolts(eCulturalOwner) >= GC.getDefineINT("NUM_WARNING_REVOLTS"))) // K-Mod

PS: I do not play RI and don't know if this is relevant.

Checked the source code, and the line is different there. I guess we use a later version of K-Mod that fixed this issue already.
 
The comments about rubber and jungles compelled me to point some things out. Everyone seems to take Civ4 jungles for granted, so I'm not advocating change, simply mentioning an observation. The idea that iron working is necessary for jungle clearing is ahistorical. Mesoamerican societies never acquired iron working. Not even true bronze working. They nevertheless succeeded in completely deforesting the Yucatan peninsula--a gigantic area, with the stone technology available. So much so that the decline in rainfall, and its subsequent impact on agriculture, brought the Mayan civilization to collapse. Pretty good clear cutting for a civ with no iron working. On a smaller scale, the same thing occurred to the Anasazi of Chaco canyon, also with no iron working. Because of this, I WB all jungles on the random maps I generate into normal forests. I like the way this works because being randomly placed at the beginning of a generated game in a mass of jungle is too adverse to continue the game; bee-lining to iron working isn't an option in RI as it takes far too long (as it should--not a complaint.)

While I'm at it, might as well commit another heresy--the SOD "problem." With virtually no exceptions, I seem to be the only person in (civ4) existence that has no problem with large stacks of military units. Historically, these were known as an army. I have no complaint about the new stacking/logistic limitations, but then I've only experienced the initial phases of this because not able yet to play this new version. The almost universal condemnation of "stacks of doom" is incomprehensible. A large, single army was, with the exceptions of the Mongols and the French under Napoleon, the only way that military force was projected on land until the middle of the 19th century and the advent of industrialized warfare. The fates of empires were decided, much more often than not, by one large army engaging in battle with another large army. The pejorative nomenclature "stack of doom" is, imo, simply a negative preferential statement about gameplay, not history. Is a "stack of doom" sometimes tough to counter? It should be. I have yet to see any counter-argument that is in any way historical. Once again, if RI's theme is a more accurate portrayal of history, then armies are the right way to go. Logistic limitations are good too. I've recommended these myself in other places. But I tire of seeing "stacks of doom" presented as a problem. They are not.
 
Hi, I'm having an issue with this mod. Everytime I try to load it, the game crashes on restart. Any ideas?
 
3.2 is wonderful!

Currently in the late middle ages of my second game (huge/realistic/big&small/monarch) as Egypt.

Currently, the only balance issue I have found that I think needs to be looked at are the medieval slaves/serfs.

In the ancient era, by the time you get mining, you have access to huntsmen, strength 4 with a bonus attacking against melee. As soon as you hit medieval era, though, you are still using classical era military units for quite a while. You have the option of light cavalry (str 6), heavy cavalry (str 7), or swordsmen (str 6 with bonus vs melee, but slow). The slaves/peasants are str 6, and can pop up anywhere. I have plenty of trouble taking them out, especially if they're on my hills or forests pillaging away. This is made worse by the strength of your typical defensive units (still str 3 archers for the most part away from my borders and against the Mongol borders)

The problem dies down a little by the time you get the upgraded swordsmen, but I'm a little worried what's going to happen when I hit renaissance era as well. I find it extremely unlikely that 4'6" peasants armed with pitchforks and aprons would have been able to resist much against trained military units. When you couple that with the fact that you need to station military all over to deal with them... well... It's not a very fun mechanic. I can see the benefits of it, and I do like the flavor, I just think they need to be tuned down slightly so they can be handled with just a few units instead of double and triple stacking your peasant sweepers.

I would suggest either dropping the strength entirely, or giving a malus against a certain type of unit.

Honestly, the only purpose of these is to ensure some units have to be held in reserve. Do they really need to be so strong? Whack-a-mole gets tiring after 80 or 90 turns.
 
:sad: Maybe I'm just too old to get the new interface in World Builder but, for me, it's completely unusable now.

Revision 4663

Are there any instructions?
 
Walter i'm attaching saved game i created in world builder, because i started a new game and it will take some time, to advance to to late industrial era. So you load this game and try to fortify all groups of piechota liniowa scattered on map. This will game to crash when selecting one of the groups, if it doesn't joust wake every group and try to fortify them again (or just load game). Checking "single unit graphic" make crashes appear less often, so to reproduce this bug it is best to disable this option. Also sometime it crashes when you place piechota (infantry) or piechota lijniowa (trench infantry) in world editor (it crashed once when i was trying to create saved game).

Save is from official 3.2 with Greek quarry fix in xml.
 

Attachments

  • Piechota_liniowa.CivBeyondSwordSave
    87.2 KB · Views: 34
3.2 is wonderful!

Currently in the late middle ages of my second game (huge/realistic/big&small/monarch) as Egypt.

Currently, the only balance issue I have found that I think needs to be looked at are the medieval slaves/serfs.

In the ancient era, by the time you get mining, you have access to huntsmen, strength 4 with a bonus attacking against melee. As soon as you hit medieval era, though, you are still using classical era military units for quite a while. You have the option of light cavalry (str 6), heavy cavalry (str 7), or swordsmen (str 6 with bonus vs melee, but slow). The slaves/peasants are str 6, and can pop up anywhere. I have plenty of trouble taking them out, especially if they're on my hills or forests pillaging away. This is made worse by the strength of your typical defensive units (still str 3 archers for the most part away from my borders and against the Mongol borders)

The problem dies down a little by the time you get the upgraded swordsmen, but I'm a little worried what's going to happen when I hit renaissance era as well. I find it extremely unlikely that 4'6" peasants armed with pitchforks and aprons would have been able to resist much against trained military units. When you couple that with the fact that you need to station military all over to deal with them... well... It's not a very fun mechanic. I can see the benefits of it, and I do like the flavor, I just think they need to be tuned down slightly so they can be handled with just a few units instead of double and triple stacking your peasant sweepers.

I would suggest either dropping the strength entirely, or giving a malus against a certain type of unit.

Honestly, the only purpose of these is to ensure some units have to be held in reserve. Do they really need to be so strong? Whack-a-mole gets tiring after 80 or 90 turns.
The huntsman might be strength 4, but he has a 40% bonus vs. melee units (and an additional bonus vs. more advanced heavy infantry) which means the huntsman should typically beat a slave/peasant revolt in the medieval period despite being a cheap classical unit. The problem is that these revolts often happen in hills and they have an additional hill bonus. Peasants revolting on hills are very hard to root out of your lands, but it gives the revolt a more genuine feel. If your huntsman has the pacifier upgrades he should still be solid. Once a unit hits pacifier 3 he becomes nearly unstoppable. If your unit still has low odds consider sending more units to give him an aid bonus. You can also suicide archers against the revolters to soften them up.

I feel that huntsmen doesn't really qualify as a trained military force, and I feel the same way about most classical units. Units that represented trained military forces in this period are often given additional bonuses to portray that they are a cut above the rest. On the other side, the levies and the medieval revolters are more then simple peasants armed with pitchforks. It is not a coinsadence that some of the most effective weapons in the medieval period were modified farm tools.

RI has an upgrade path made specifically to counter revolts, and the revolts are intended to be strong enough to encourage the player to build units built specifically to subdue these miscreants when the army marches to war. If the revolts were made weaker they would just be considered a 'boon' because they would just equal free XP. They need to present a real risk that a player must adapt his/her playstyle to. It would be wierd if players decided to pick slavery so they could get free XP from revolts. It needs to represent a real issue.

Also, in RI archers don't have the same role they used to. They are not simply city defenders. I think the best way to describe their role would be cheap defense/anti-light cavalry. Many civilizations have better units for city defense between the archer and the longbow. It really depends on your civilization, but many have great alternatives to achers as well, espesially if their archers are weak. In my playthroughs I play with the archer-weak greeks, and usually skip them entirely in favor of militia->spearmen->pikemen (although the very OP trained archers promotions often changes this).

I feel that the current revolters are more serious then wack-a-mole, and thats a good thing. Even with an active defense, I often have to damage my economic integrety to deal with the threat. Sometimes I need to leave a city undefended (and unhappy) in order to bring enough units forth to deal with the threat. Sometimes I need to wait for more serious units to come in, and lose some infastructure. Sometimes, my units must die just to stop the revolt. The benefits I get from slavery outweigh the economic strain, but it wasn't a decision made lightly.

Anyway, now you know that peasant/slave revolts are not a joke, and knowing is half the battle! (go joe:cool:). With this knowledge go forth and prepare, so that next time the peasants get rowdy you'll be ready. good luck!
 
I feel disinclined to include them for a simple (and probably idiotic) reason that as a wonder, they'd be called "Walls of Constantinople", which ties them to a single city, while in almost 100% percent of games, Constantinople would not be the place they'd be built.

Why not call them Theodosian walls?
 
Well, that's funny. If the map isn't too much unforgiving, raging barbs actually make the game easier as it gives better room for early critical wonders (the AI's are meanwhile busy with defenses) and if the warriors survive on the capital placed on a hill, once the early GG arrives, it gives free upgrade into an archer with lots of promos, allowing super defense against early AI invasions. It happened that the fight between my two super GG archers against 8 of their units, I won with losing only one super archer. Then the game went much easier afterwards. First game without any reload because of RNG screwing everything. I think I caught the idea how to deal early game on RI.
Also, I can't believe I could have done this with Askia of Mali, having the worst malus trait, which is revolutionary.

Looks like perfect strategy is settle on hill at all cost, beelining stone workings, steal workers, start SH first then Mids, let barbs suicide and get GG for super archer....profit.
Any other strategy avered too weak compared to that one.
Also, the idea of using the GEngineer from the Mids for the GLighthouse is BS. It was Titan difficulty and I had plenty of time to manually build it, provided my second city is coastal if not the capital.

Just a random comment...
 
The huntsman might be strength 4, but he has a 40% bonus vs. melee units (and an additional bonus vs. more advanced heavy infantry) which means the huntsman should typically beat a slave/peasant revolt in the medieval period despite being a cheap classical unit. The problem is that these revolts often happen in hills and they have an additional hill bonus. Peasants revolting on hills are very hard to root out of your lands, but it gives the revolt a more genuine feel. If your huntsman has the pacifier upgrades he should still be solid. Once a unit hits pacifier 3 he becomes nearly unstoppable. If your unit still has low odds consider sending more units to give him an aid bonus. You can also suicide archers against the revolters to soften them up.

I feel that huntsmen doesn't really qualify as a trained military force, and I feel the same way about most classical units. Units that represented trained military forces in this period are often given additional bonuses to portray that they are a cut above the rest. On the other side, the levies and the medieval revolters are more then simple peasants armed with pitchforks. It is not a coinsadence that some of the most effective weapons in the medieval period were modified farm tools.

RI has an upgrade path made specifically to counter revolts, and the revolts are intended to be strong enough to encourage the player to build units built specifically to subdue these miscreants when the army marches to war. If the revolts were made weaker they would just be considered a 'boon' because they would just equal free XP. They need to present a real risk that a player must adapt his/her playstyle to. It would be wierd if players decided to pick slavery so they could get free XP from revolts. It needs to represent a real issue.

Also, in RI archers don't have the same role they used to. They are not simply city defenders. I think the best way to describe their role would be cheap defense/anti-light cavalry. Many civilizations have better units for city defense between the archer and the longbow. It really depends on your civilization, but many have great alternatives to achers as well, espesially if their archers are weak. In my playthroughs I play with the archer-weak greeks, and usually skip them entirely in favor of militia->spearmen->pikemen (although the very OP trained archers promotions often changes this).

I feel that the current revolters are more serious then wack-a-mole, and thats a good thing. Even with an active defense, I often have to damage my economic integrety to deal with the threat. Sometimes I need to leave a city undefended (and unhappy) in order to bring enough units forth to deal with the threat. Sometimes I need to wait for more serious units to come in, and lose some infastructure. Sometimes, my units must die just to stop the revolt. The benefits I get from slavery outweigh the economic strain, but it wasn't a decision made lightly.

Anyway, now you know that peasant/slave revolts are not a joke, and knowing is half the battle! (go joe:cool:). With this knowledge go forth and prepare, so that next time the peasants get rowdy you'll be ready. good luck!

I concur. Also important to mention that +40% bonus is when attacking. Better not use natural defenses of tiles because that combat modifier against melee won't be taken into account for defensive battles.
I also found slavery is definitely pretty powerful and medieval revolts are manageable.
In fact, I have found minimizing the number of cities before 1AD is best for both logistics against revolts and tech rates.
The only remaining problematic is the arrival of renaissance slave revolts. Those ones are tough nuts not only because the revolting slave are stronger than my muskets (if I get them fast), but also my medieval units will suffer from the inherent bonus that any gunpowder unit has against them. Perhaps, toning down the renaissance revolts with a later tech pre-requisite, one that allows defenses against them. If well prepared, it is manageable, but it is pretty hard.
 
The huntsman might be strength 4, but he has a 40% bonus vs. melee units (and an additional bonus vs. more advanced heavy infantry) which means the huntsman should typically beat a slave/peasant revolt in the medieval period despite being a cheap classical unit. The problem is that these revolts often happen in hills and they have an additional hill bonus. Peasants revolting on hills are very hard to root out of your lands, but it gives the revolt a more genuine feel. If your huntsman has the pacifier upgrades he should still be solid. Once a unit hits pacifier 3 he becomes nearly unstoppable. If your unit still has low odds consider sending more units to give him an aid bonus. You can also suicide archers against the revolters to soften them up.

I feel that huntsmen doesn't really qualify as a trained military force, and I feel the same way about most classical units. Units that represented trained military forces in this period are often given additional bonuses to portray that they are a cut above the rest. On the other side, the levies and the medieval revolters are more then simple peasants armed with pitchforks. It is not a coinsadence that some of the most effective weapons in the medieval period were modified farm tools.

RI has an upgrade path made specifically to counter revolts, and the revolts are intended to be strong enough to encourage the player to build units built specifically to subdue these miscreants when the army marches to war. If the revolts were made weaker they would just be considered a 'boon' because they would just equal free XP. They need to present a real risk that a player must adapt his/her playstyle to. It would be wierd if players decided to pick slavery so they could get free XP from revolts. It needs to represent a real issue.

Also, in RI archers don't have the same role they used to. They are not simply city defenders. I think the best way to describe their role would be cheap defense/anti-light cavalry. Many civilizations have better units for city defense between the archer and the longbow. It really depends on your civilization, but many have great alternatives to achers as well, espesially if their archers are weak. In my playthroughs I play with the archer-weak greeks, and usually skip them entirely in favor of militia->spearmen->pikemen (although the very OP trained archers promotions often changes this).

I feel that the current revolters are more serious then wack-a-mole, and thats a good thing. Even with an active defense, I often have to damage my economic integrety to deal with the threat. Sometimes I need to leave a city undefended (and unhappy) in order to bring enough units forth to deal with the threat. Sometimes I need to wait for more serious units to come in, and lose some infastructure. Sometimes, my units must die just to stop the revolt. The benefits I get from slavery outweigh the economic strain, but it wasn't a decision made lightly.

Anyway, now you know that peasant/slave revolts are not a joke, and knowing is half the battle! (go joe:cool:). With this knowledge go forth and prepare, so that next time the peasants get rowdy you'll be ready. good luck!

And do you honestly find this to be an enjoyable mechanic?

I can take care of the revolts. You just need three or four light cavalry, and maybe one or two swordsmen in case they run to a forested hill.

If they are meaningful revolts, they shouldn't happen every other turn.

Medieval lasts for what? 150 to 200 turns on realistic? Honestly, it is my least favorite part of the mod so far.

If I had free reign, I would make either the same amount of spawns, weaker, or less frequent spawns more powerful.
 
Currently medium cavalry is intended to be first and foremost the counter to light cavalry and recon units. Your suggestion is quite reasonable, yet that would leave no real counter for them, in turn. They are already very difficult to counter.
Yeah, the more I looked into it the more I realized the scope of the issue. Really medium and light cavalry share very little in common other then that they both ride horses, and that they would be better off as their own unit class, but that would be a real pain.
Some things I noticed about medium cavalry.
* Spearmen/pikemen should probably be even stronger against them.
* They should have a -% vs heavy cavalry. This would be interesting since it leads to a paper-rock-scissors. Medium cav. counters Light, Light counters heavy, Heavy counters medium. Its a very sane and logical counter system for mounted units.
* National units are exempted from the penalties/bonuses associated with medium cavalry. For example, their are various spear replacements to swordsmen with a % bonus vs. mounted who should also have a bonus against medium cavalry.

Moving on, there are a few issues with the special promotion lines...

Its been acknowledged that trained archers is overpowered somewhat. I want to emphasize just how overpowered the promotion is, since I feel its borderline gamebreaking in many ways. If we consider a first strike roughly equal to a +10% strength bonus, and a first strike chance equal to a 5% strength bonus, then trained archers grants a total of +75% strength without penalty. That's only 15% less then ferver which comes at a significant penalty. But even this assessment is untrue to the power of trained archers, since the archers become hard counters to any unit which may possess immunity to first strikes. This makes the first strike bonus worth more then the equivalent strength bonus. Longbows have a 25% attack vs recon, a 50% bonus vs light mounted, and trained archers also grants them +60% vs mounted (who also have a -20% defense vs longbows).
Add all of this up, and for 10 xp you have an absolutely uncounterable medieval era unit able to decimate melee, recon, light/medium/heavy cavalry, and other archers making them the strongest unit in the game even for factions with weak archers. They finish many battles without even taking damage, and are fantastic on both the attack and defense.
In historical context trained archers is looking at the hundred years war, and its being way too romanticized. The English still lost most the battles (and the war). English longbows didn't hard counter knights, but the fact that they were effective against knights at all was game-changing. Knights were expensive, and limited. The fact that a peasant could do anything to a knight at all was all the change needed.
In comparison, in the game, Longbows can charge at knights and decimate them, and trained archers can take out knights in the open field without breaking a sweat.

I wouldn't be at all opposed to making all knights a national unit, increasing their cost, strength, and relevance on the battlefield.


Also, random side note, Chivalry 3 grants immunity to first strikes, yet every iteration of heavy cavalry has immunity to first strikes already. This makes chivalry 3 a very weak option.
 
And do you honestly find this to be an enjoyable mechanic?

I can take care of the revolts. You just need three or four light cavalry, and maybe one or two swordsmen in case they run to a forested hill.

If they are meaningful revolts, they shouldn't happen every other turn.

Medieval lasts for what? 150 to 200 turns on realistic? Honestly, it is my least favorite part of the mod so far.

If I had free reign, I would make either the same amount of spawns, weaker, or less frequent spawns more powerful.

All the defenders in my inner cities are melee units with pacifier upgrades. On top of this I have a couple medium cavalry ready to respond, and that's all I normally need. In extreme cases I will send other defenders out from nearby cities to stack aid, or to cover for a bad roll.

What you really need is the pacifier upgrade line, which grants huge bonuses vs barbarians. Consider the following.
1. K-mod AI doesn't suicide against cities
2. Archers are only good as cheap city defenders
3. The greatest threat to inner cities under slavery/serfdom are barbarians.
4. The k-mod AI heavily weighs its decision to declare war based off how strong your borders defenses are, which encourages one to have extra defenders beyond 1 per city across your empire already.
After adding all of this up I've decided the best city defenders are the ones who can attack, and have anti-barbarian upgrades rather then defensive upgrades. This works two-fold since I'm training my city defenders in the early game while I'm defending against barbarians. These defenders work far better then the traditional view of fortifying an archer in a city and forgetting he exists.

You do not need to pick slavery or serfdom at all, and many choose not to for the reasons you described. That's totally an option.

Whether the revolt is meaningful really comes down to your reaction. If the revolt was quickly suppressed it wasn't meaningful, otherwise it was. History doesn't pay a lot of attention to revolts. Most aren't very interesting, but it does document a lot of them. They were very common, and many resources went into suppressing them.
 
wat is first strikes exactly? is it realy some kind of strength?
how do know for sure weak borders defenses get to be attacjked. i saw some weird bug wher the ai left their city undefended and the neighbour attacked somebody else.
do you have some some article that explains how the ai decides to attack who and who?

k-mod makes the ai fu-cking crazy.
 
wat is first strikes exactly? is it realy some kind of strength?
how do know for sure weak borders defenses get to be attacjked. i saw some weird bug wher the ai left their city undefended and the neighbour attacked somebody else.
do you have some some article that explains how the ai decides to attack who and who?

k-mod makes the ai fu-cking crazy.
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/combat_explained.php
First strikes are free chances to hit the enemy before combat begins. Those units with more first strikes are more likely to damage the enemy (with low odds) or take less damage (with high odds). If you want a unit to defend against multiple attacks, you need first strikes. A typical longbow with trained archer 2 would have 3-5 first strikes without aid bonuses. Granting him a strong chance to outright kill attacking units while taking no damage if he holds a good defensive position.

The k-mod info was from this forum, and from experience. If you march your army to war and leave your cities with minimal defense theres a pretty good chance a otherwise peaceful AI will decide to attack.
 
Вальтер, подскажи, почему мод не позволяет править исключительно хмл файл, отвечающий за мор. юниты TR_Naval_CIV4UnitInfos (при запуске мода вылетают ерроры)? Остальные можно править без проблем. Что можно сделать, очень хочется подправить кое-что (например убрать селс дестроеры)?
 
All the defenders in my inner cities are melee units with pacifier upgrades. On top of this I have a couple medium cavalry ready to respond, and that's all I normally need. In extreme cases I will send other defenders out from nearby cities to stack aid, or to cover for a bad roll.

What you really need is the pacifier upgrade line, which grants huge bonuses vs barbarians. Consider the following.
1. K-mod AI doesn't suicide against cities
2. Archers are only good as cheap city defenders
3. The greatest threat to inner cities under slavery/serfdom are barbarians.
4. The k-mod AI heavily weighs its decision to declare war based off how strong your borders defenses are, which encourages one to have extra defenders beyond 1 per city across your empire already.
After adding all of this up I've decided the best city defenders are the ones who can attack, and have anti-barbarian upgrades rather then defensive upgrades. This works two-fold since I'm training my city defenders in the early game while I'm defending against barbarians. These defenders work far better then the traditional view of fortifying an archer in a city and forgetting he exists.

You do not need to pick slavery or serfdom at all, and many choose not to for the reasons you described. That's totally an option.

Whether the revolt is meaningful really comes down to your reaction. If the revolt was quickly suppressed it wasn't meaningful, otherwise it was. History doesn't pay a lot of attention to revolts. Most aren't very interesting, but it does document a lot of them. They were very common, and many resources went into suppressing them.

You won't have medium cavalry until much later in medieval. Archery training is practically all the way to renaissance.

I think you are just ignoring the point I am trying to make by covering it up with assuming I am having difficulty dealing with this design. I assure you, I am not. I am aggravated, not having difficulty.

Slavery in ancient eras, you have huntsmen and possibly light cavalry which outclass the spawns by a factor of two - before any promotions. As soon as you hit one tech in medieval age, the best you can do is 7 vs 6 with heavy cavalry until long into the medieval era.

With one tech, they go from a nuisance to a hassle, and I'll repeat: whack-a-mole is crappy game design. There is a reason they got rid of pollution spawns going from Civ 3 to Civ 4. After 20 turns of it with 120 left to go, it's nothing more than a chore.

'end turn' 'ok. Only two this turn. Derp de derp. Lost one cavalry, let me que up another and reroute this other one and NOW get back to crushing the Mongols.' 'end turn' 'ok, just one this turn' repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat (and repeat and repeat).

They need to be either reduced in strength so they can be handled on autopilot like in the ancient era, or increased in difficulty but made less frequent so you need to focus on them when they happen, but they're not burning 2 hours of game play before you can switch to free commoners.
 
You won't have medium cavalry until much later in medieval. Archery training is practically all the way to renaissance.

I think you are just ignoring the point I am trying to make by covering it up with assuming I am having difficulty dealing with this design. I assure you, I am not. I am aggravated, not having difficulty.

Slavery in ancient eras, you have huntsmen and possibly light cavalry which outclass the spawns by a factor of two - before any promotions. As soon as you hit one tech in medieval age, the best you can do is 7 vs 6 with heavy cavalry until long into the medieval era.

With one tech, they go from a nuisance to a hassle, and I'll repeat: whack-a-mole is crappy game design. There is a reason they got rid of pollution spawns going from Civ 3 to Civ 4. After 20 turns of it with 120 left to go, it's nothing more than a chore.

'end turn' 'ok. Only two this turn. Derp de derp. Lost one cavalry, let me que up another and reroute this other one and NOW get back to crushing the Mongols.' 'end turn' 'ok, just one this turn' repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat (and repeat and repeat).

They need to be either reduced in strength so they can be handled on autopilot like in the ancient era, or increased in difficulty but made less frequent so you need to focus on them when they happen, but they're not burning 2 hours of game play before you can switch to free commoners.
Sorry there is the medium cavalry 'class' and there is the medium cavalry 'unit' and its terribly confusing since medium cavalry are technically light cavalry, but I was referring to the greek 6 str medium cavalry.
Don't forget the unit aid bonuses. My str 6 horses can't beat a rebel on a hill, but he provides my defending spearmen with a free first strike.
Light horsemen have better odds then what I was using since they are str 6 with a bonus vs melee. Your ignoring the bonuses and maluses which are a bigger deal then the base strengths. the str 4 huntsman for example will win against a str 6 medieval rebel because of his +40% vs melee bonus.

I'm not trying to cover anything up. It is by design not supposed to be something you handle on autopilot, because revolts are supposed to be bad, but free XP every few turns is a good thing, which is awkward. I'm confused by your whack-a-mole description, because I would consider having to kill a str 3 rebel every few turns whack-a-mole. Its a pointless boring task with no consequences or suspense which isn't adding anything to the game experience. IT seems like difficulty with rebels presents an experience that is less similiar to whack a mole because its a real problem with real consequences that you must adapt your playstyle to. Have you considered just ignoring slavery altogether?

To answer your previous question. Do I like the current slavery mechanic? Yes I do. Its especially nice between wars, much less boring. It gives great XP to inner city defenders, and it presents me with more diverse tasks for my military force.
In 3.1 I choose to ignore the slavery mechanic because I felt the food penalties were too harsh, and I just kept the default labor civic all the way through to industrial era.

EDIT: I'm not saying that I have no issues with slaves either. I know full well how terrible they can be when they pop up in a bad place, or when a bad roll happens. I had a slave cut my iron supply the very turn I declared war. Very painful, but, on the flip side. I gained a lot from slavery. Its a very strong civic, so I weigh that in my head when something bad happens.
 
Top Bottom