Realism Invictus

[Sathar]

5237, the BUG error message (or a new one that looks just like it) is still there (yes, I started a new game).

To amplify what [Y] said, I don't build a lot of irregular units in the early game but I will make liberal use of the Draft button once available. Many obsolete irregulars eventually get disbanded (though a few might remain to manage Revolutions since a short-swordsman is as good as a tank when parked in the city square), some highly experienced ones get upgraded, and a very few might get moved to the Regular line (for anywhere from 300-1000gp) -- typically a high-level melee NU that I want to preserve (though even then most stay as irregulars). In general however, it's usually more efficient to just draft new irregulars.

 

[zhardan]

TBH, in many such cases (as is your previous) I don't fix the root cause of the CTD. I just fix the save for people who want to continue. That's not to say that I don't sometimes smash real bugs while doing that - but it wasn't the case here. Do you want this save looked at?

Thanks, it's not necessary. I prefer to play with the latest version.

 

[ETyrell91]

- Warehouse no longer obsoletes at Metal Casting, now the first building of Workshop upgrade chain (and as such upgrades to Workshop when it becomes available)

Great! Never had a reason to build that one.

- Great Library loses scientist slots, now provides a flat +10% global research

FUG. And there goes my early-game strategy...

 

[2popbulb]

FUG. And there goes my early-game strategy...

Build the Mids,then use GE to build GL,hire 3 scientists and use GS's to build science wonders in GL city. Go for Calendar and build Cheomseongdae. And fly through classical and medieval era at warp 10 speed. Go for Paper and build medieval science wonders for even faster researching. This works on Noble,even works on Monarch if you manage to build the Mids. Is this your strategy?

 

[ETyrell91]

Is this your strategy?

Never went for the Mids part - I always put Engies into long-term use instead of cashing them in on wonders. I rush Weapon Smithing/Skirmishers first for defense, then Literature/GL/Sci Wonder Spam immediately after. That lets me mostly tread water with other civs (I play Monarch, .5x speed)

You sound like you're playing this guy -

 

[SR-71]

Everytime I try to startSVN 5238 get the stupid error screen shown below... I have made all the steps one by one and packed the Art assets as hundreds of times before, and now have this error. Really don't know why don't mind how many times I review and repeat the proccess I have the same so I cannot try SVN version as ever did

...

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

In which files can I set to erase scrub tiles when some improvement is built on them just like forests and savanna?

Yeah, forgot to implement that - but this should now be in the latest SVN.

5237, the BUG error message (or a new one that looks just like it) is still there (yes, I started a new game).

Saves with reproducible errors always welcome. I don't get those during automated testing runs - may specifically need to be a human player for that.

Great! Never had a reason to build that one.

FUG. And there goes my early-game strategy...

Hence the reason for both changes. If something never gets built or always gets built, it should be changed.

Everytime I try to startSVN 5238 get the stupid error screen shown below... I have made all the steps one by one and packed the Art assets as hundreds of times before, and now have this error. Really don't know why don't mind how many times I review and repeat the proccess I have the same so I cannot try SVN version as ever did...

This usually points at something done wrong during mod installation, or it being kept under a wrong path. You still keeping SVN version in Mods/Realism? When did this error appear? Upon simply running an SVN update? Because that's highly unlikely, something else should have been changed.

 

[SR-71]

This usually points at something done wrong during mod installation, or it being kept under a wrong path. You still keeping SVN version in Mods/Realism? When did this error appear? Upon simply running an SVN update? Because that's highly unlikely, something else should have been changed.

SOLVED!!! What a stupidity but it was only that it was in a folder called "Realism Invictus", and when I change it to only "Realism" IT WORKS. Thank you for pointing that

 

[2popbulb]

You sound like you're playing this guy -

Well,I have to do everything I can to tech fast because I go for space victory. Going for domination or conquest would be tedious on huge map,I don't want to micromanage all those cities,workers and units. Cultural victory is boring,diplomatic victory is difficult because of constant AI requests that I refuse. But,I'm not going for Calendar after Literature. First some economy techs(Weaving,Sailing)and then military(WS and HBR if I have horses). After that it's Math->Priesthood->Calendar time. Even with this strategy my space victories are late,spaceship lands in 2nd half of 20th century. It is difficult to find right balance between power and research speed. If I have fewer cities I will tech faster,but some warmonger will crush me. If I have lots of cities my research rate will be too slow for space victory. So,I usually have about 15 cities. This is for Noble. I've played one Monarch game just to see how it will go. I managed to keep up with AI's in tech,but I had lots of problems with unhappiness until late Renaissance. Low base happiness on Monarch is huge problem early on. Small cities=weak economy.

 

[SR-71]

I'm completely fed up because everytime I try to download the SVN version connection gets interrupted and I have to make a Cleanup/update of the folder, but I'm not sure if it works because though I have started the game without packing any assets, I get this screens of below. Why these stupid disconnections everytime? Because if I'm the only one having this blank graphics it's for sure because bad SVN download

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Yup, looks like a bad SVN download to me. A couple of questions though:

1) You're not checking out the whole SVN each time you need to update? After you've established the SVN, you only need to run SVN update on it. It shouldn't be that much of a download.
2) Could it be that you tried packing incomplete assets and forgot to delete the packed ones afterwards?

But yeah, especially on bad connections, SVN downloads (and uploads!) can be frustrating. Also, sometimes it acts up on their side, and then there is nothing to do but wait.

 

[[Y]]

Also, sometimes it acts up on their side, and then there is nothing to do but wait.

That was probably it. I updated a day or two ago and was seeing connection/latency problems.

 

[SR-71]

1) You're not checking out the whole SVN each time you need to update? After you've established the SVN, you only need to run SVN update on it. It shouldn't be that much of a download.

The problem is that after bad connection interruption, I make a "SVN Cleanup" and afterwards an "SVN update" and then IT LOOKS LIKE it continues the corrupted download, but I cannot be really sure because I get those so annoying bugs

2) Could it be that you tried packing incomplete assets and forgot to delete the packed ones afterwards?

This time I didn't even packed the assets... then the game started but got corrupted as you see

But yeah, especially on bad connections, SVN downloads (and uploads!) can be frustrating. Also, sometimes it acts up on their side, and then there is nothing to do but wait.

Is there any other solution than retrying/deleting/retrying until a continuous download?
It's absolutely frustrating not to be able to have a SINGLE complete and continuous SVN download...
Thx for your answers

 

[ETyrell91]

Well,I have to do everything I can to tech fast because I go for space victory. Going for domination or conquest would be tedious on huge map,I don't want to micromanage all those cities,workers and units.

See, different playstyles here. I'm in it for RP, not powergaming - I consider it a loss if I've overpowered everyone else by the middle of the game.

 

[[Y]]

See, different playstyles here. I'm in it for RP, not powergaming - I consider it a loss if I've overpowered everyone else by the middle of the game.

Not a problem when playing on Emperor.

 

[2popbulb]

See, different playstyles here. I'm in it for RP, not powergaming - I consider it a loss if I've overpowered everyone else by the middle of the game.

That's why we love this game so much. You can play it in many different ways and still have fun. However,I find Noble level boring because AI's are so slow and weak. That is why I'm moving to Monarch. I want to force myself to try some different strategies. Low base happiness,frequent epidemics,stronger AI's and even barbs can be dangerous on Monarch.

 

[sazhdapec]

And another pack of issues and feature requests.
1) Why does animal food increase epidemic chances?
2) The borders of separated civs are often heavily compressed by maternal civ's culture (I hope there is no need to post screenshots). Is this intended? And if it's not is there anything that can be done?
3) I don't understand why you are so reluctant to nerf pastoral nomadism. Yes, it's not ubiquitous but it makes already strong starts even stronger. You've made an excellent job of making jungle starts better. I think you understand that too weak and too strong starts are bad for the game.
4) There is way too much unoccupied land in the early game. Not only it's historically inaccurate but it also makes expansion way too peaceful which is also historically inaccurate.

AI stupidity discussion
AI LOVES placing cities on resources. There are two advantages I can think of: the resource becomes available sooner and it can't be denied (by destroying the improvement). But since RI games are often long both of these advantages have very low value compared to the number of stats (hammers and commerce) AI loses. I suggest to prohibit placing cities on most (or all) resources. On the other hand this change will limit human player's options since we can weigh pros and cons. I want to hear people's opinions on this.

A pinch of civic balance.
1) There is still little to no incentive to adopt monarchy after despotism. It's economically weaker (since distance maintenance is lower than number of cities maintenance), it has more happy faces either with combination with weak civics or after printing press, it loses a separatism reduction bonus.
2) Monastic order becomes obsolete with critical thought. I don't know how accurate this is historically but gameplay wise it's not good. First, monasticism is neither strong nor popular. Second, monastic order's working time is less than an era. Third, food deficit caused by a tech research is to say the least quite inconvenient. And finally, in renaissance most of its effects become obsolete on their own.

 

[[Y]]

3) I don't understand why you are so reluctant to nerf pastoral nomadism. Yes, it's not ubiquitous but it makes already strong starts even stronger. You've made an excellent job of making jungle starts better. I think you understand that too weak and too strong starts are bad for the game.

I also agree that it needs nerfing. It's gotten to the point now where I just restart any game where I don't have access to at least 1 non-horse pasture resource, because starting without one feels like a handicap.

4) There is way too much unoccupied land in the early game. Not only it's historically inaccurate but it also makes expansion way too peaceful which is also historically inaccurate.

Agree and disagree.

I think it is historically accurate, in that lack of cities/borders doesn't mean those lands aren't settled. They're settled by "uncivilized" tribes of people that don't merit placement on the map outside of barbarian units. Later they get barbarian cities, which later flourish into civilization. I think it's very accurate in this regard.

But I agree that there can be too much space to settle and not enough war early on, but two comments on that:

1. Add in more civs or use a smaller map size, since that's entirely in your control.
2. For a long time I liked the idea of limiting cities to Fresh Water tiles until Aqueduct is researched. This reduces the viable city locations by a large factor, and encourages war to take the best of them. And I feel it's somewhat historically accurate, as historically civilizations came and went with changes to fresh water availability.

AI stupidity discussion
AI LOVES placing cities on resources. There are two advantages I can think of: the resource becomes available sooner and it can't be denied (by destroying the improvement). But since RI games are often long both of these advantages have very low value compared to the number of stats (hammers and commerce) AI loses. I suggest to prohibit placing cities on most (or all) resources. On the other hand this change will limit human player's options since we can weigh pros and cons. I want to hear people's opinions on this.

This has bothered me tremendously, but I've learned to live with it. It's always a shame, but I don't think it's necessarily a game-breaking problem. And if the AI is bad enough at it, you can always increase the difficulty level. The bonuses from increasing difficulty are going to more than compensate for the lost hammers/food/commerce.

 

[2popbulb]

I have one suggestion: Sextant is a dead end tech,maybe it should be prerequisite tech for High Seas Warfare.

 

[sazhdapec]

Agree and disagree.

I think it is historically accurate, in that lack of cities/borders doesn't mean those lands aren't settled. They're settled by "uncivilized" tribes of people that don't merit placement on the map outside of barbarian units. Later they get barbarian cities, which later flourish into civilization. I think it's very accurate in this regard.

But I agree that there can be too much space to settle and not enough war early on, but two comments on that:

1. Add in more civs or use a smaller map size, since that's entirely in your control.
2. For a long time I liked the idea of limiting cities to Fresh Water tiles until Aqueduct is researched. This reduces the viable city locations by a large factor, and encourages war to take the best of them. And I feel it's somewhat historically accurate, as historically civilizations came and went with changes to fresh water availability.

1) Adding more civs decreases the number of already scarce resources on the map. And I like big maps and long games)
2) Ha! Death to seashore cities!

This has bothered me tremendously, but I've learned to live with it. It's always a shame, but I don't think it's necessarily a game-breaking problem. And if the AI is bad enough at it, you can always increase the difficulty level. The bonuses from increasing difficulty are going to more than compensate for the lost hammers/food/commerce.

The thing is AI prioritizes it over anything. In my current game one of AI players put one of its cities on copper very close to its capital but one tile away from sea and another city 6 or 7 tiles away on to be discovered sulfur thus it had a ton of unused tiles and no more cities in this second direction. If I want to conquer such cities I have to raze them just because of degenerate placement.
Another thing is increasing difficulty makes earlygame harder but the consequences of bad city placement manifest itself more in lategame.