Correct - the AI can't handle the revolutions. Each and every huge AI-empire will without doubt break down.
2nd: If you - as I - play on huge map with relative many nations, those "new" nations takes many ressources. So if you with your setup of the game "choose" to walk close to the limit of what the game-engine can handle, then you can be sure to get quite a number of CtD. And often you are not able to find the reason and have to abandon the game. Actually this IS the reason why I stopped having "Revolutions On".
In my experience on standard sized maps on Monarch, the separatism does tend to occur, but it doesn't seem to be a guarantee, and I do see civs maintain a dominant (or at least game-winnable) position throughout the timeline. Also, what about the difficulty this adds to the player? It is just a game after all, so if someone simply doesn't find having to manage that feature to be enjoyable, that makes sense, but from the strict standpoint of the game becoming too easy because of AI mismanagement, I find that it also restricts the player quite a bit. You can't do cheesy stuff like garrison enormous cities with a token force and let them simmer in their disgruntled hatred of you, while devoting all of our forces to the frontlines. I find it satisfyingly hard to maintain a large empire this way, unless you are equipped with the right institutions, infrastructure, garrison, more natural circumstances of culture and religion, etc.
I've been reading through this whole thread, and am about 75% of the way through it now. Some of the advanced players used to remark on being able to steamroll the map and win conquest by the middle ages, opining that the late game thereafter if they haven't already won is too easy. With this feature, I don't think that's very feasibly done anymore. (The higher industrial building costs helps with that too, I think.)
First of all, thank you for giving us this masterpiece. The amount of content is insane and very much appreciated. That said, there's 4 things I found in Dune wars mod that, hopefully, could be implemented that I found intriguing.
1. air combat experience, including experience for bombing missions / striking units. currently, it's practically impossible to level up bombers (be it tactical or strategic) and merely difficult to improve fighters. I do believe that bombing missions and partial interceptions should give at least some experience to units. Even bombers should get at least some experience for being intercepted, especially if they survive, also planes unable to sink ships... ruins immersion slightly.
2. Great general can join the city and provide bonus +2 experience to units built in that city. Up to 5 generals can join, giving rather large boost. Perhaps it could be limited by requiring
pentagon or west point wonder. To prevent exploiting
3. Spy handling - dune wars has extensive set specializations and promotions for spies, some enabling defensive bonuses, some enabling mission specific bonuses. makes spies much more valuable, as well as building (bulit by great spy) that gives bonus of +2 expereince to new spies. Would be great to have, but don't know if it's too much work.
4. air unit limit in cities /outpost (forts) - while technically mod has limits, they are not enforced, I can mass 50 planes in city. Not so in dune wars, there's strict limit of 3(7 with appropriate tech/building) for cities and 3 for outposts - forts. Perhaps limit should be higher for Realism invictus, with 4(11 with tehc/airport building).
Is "anti-clerical" really an accurate negative trait for Akhenaton? True, he strongly objected to the Egyptian priests, to put it mildly. But he rejected the pagan religion (which aren't represented in Civ as religions at all, mechanically) and forced everyone to follow his new monotheist religion instead, which came with its own priests and clerics and was - at the time - the closest thing in the world to a religion in the Civ 4 sense. That sounds like a closer match for fanatical than anti-clerical.
Mechanically, anti-clerical also really doesn't mesh well with spiritual, one of his other traits.
Is "anti-clerical" really an accurate negative trait for Akhenaton? True, he strongly objected to the Egyptian priests, to put it mildly. But he rejected the pagan religion (which aren't represented in Civ as religions at all, mechanically) and forced everyone to follow his new monotheist religion instead, which came with its own priests and clerics and was - at the time - the closest thing in the world to a religion in the Civ 4 sense. That sounds like a closer match for fanatical than anti-clerical.
Mechanically, anti-clerical also really doesn't mesh well with spiritual, one of his other traits.
That's a good point, especially since he instituted what is already deliberately modeled in the game as a major religion: solar cult. It could be an issue of combinatorics with Akhenaten though; maybe he would have the exact traits as another leader if anti-clerical was subbed out and a shuffle effect would be created. There's also the issue of the sun being integral to paganism in many societies which were still otherwise inclusively polytheistic, like Phoebus Apollo in the Greek pantheon or Huitzilopochtli with the Aztecs. Where the intentional line between miscellaneous paganism and deliberate solar cult is drawn isn't entirely clear to me, since running paganism isn't dissonant with a state religion in the game, so "exclusivity" shouldn't really be the reason...
I was similarly confused why Theodore Roosevelt's favorite civic is Free Market, since he's well-known for being a trust-buster. I think a more appropriate favorite civic for him would be environmentalism, due to his conservationism and program of creating national parks.
I think you can build farms in tiles with scrub, but of course building a farm removes scrub, so you're stuck with that slave farm for the rest of history!
I think you can build farms in tiles with scrub, but of course building a farm removes scrub, so you're stuck with that slave farm for the rest of history!
Are saves from 3.55 meant to compatible for 3.57? I installed the latest version from (what I assume to be) 3.55, but I get a CTD when I try to load an old save. (Also, how do you see what version you're in? I think I was in 3.55 but I'm not absolutely sure).
On another note: @Walter Hawkwood, could you use French translations? I had been filling up missing translations in the text files with Google Translate, so I could practice my French reading in-game material. It's not everything I've translated into French, but it is a fair amount.
In game terms, I always thought of it as "laissez faire," (which obviously would mostly lack this) but since it shares a successive alternative early on with Mercantilism (which it's often better than anyway), and then State Property (which is situational, though I haven't played with it in RI yet), the dichotomy doesn't really represent regulations as an alternative civic, and the tech which unlocks it is "market regulation" if I recall, anyway.
Still, though, isn't this a very modern, almost contemporary reality? Equating Free Market when it becomes available with a modern regulated economy overlooks all of the tumult of capitalism's early triumph, which was seldom bridled with any kind of significant regulation in a contemporary sense until long after it had defined the economic landscape in places where it was the de facto modus operandi.
The game's timeline is supposed to end with the Cold War, and it wouldn't have been until the late 19th century that major regulatory legislation went into effect, like the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 in the United States, at the same time that market capitalism really began to gain traction outside of the Atlantic states, with places like Meiji Japan's Zaibatsu conscientiously resisting this, for one example. On the other hand, market economics as a cogent theory is a product of the late 18th century, with proponents running up to the present day (indeed, resurgent even in the 1980s in many places, nominally the game's end), so this is a rather large gap for a major difference in concept to be occurring within the same civic.
Earlier in this thread, there was discussion about the overlap between economic and labor civics. I would actually argue that the regulations you're mentioning are more aptly applied to Labor Union or Welfare State than Free Market, and the former is probably a better candidate for TR's favorite civic, for what little that matters to the mod.
I was thinking about goods produced, such as motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, fuel, basically, later stage derived resources. It hit me that it would be great if each nation or maybe each grouping of nations could have their distinctive variety of produced good. For example when English build Vauxhall, they wouldn't produce motor vehicles, but rather Rolls Royce or Aston Martins or whatever that could be exported to other countries for happiness. Additionally, some civs exports could generate built in improvements in units, for example importing Japanese motor vehicles, could give flanking promotion or something similar.
Same with furniture and clothing, maybe Swedish could produce IKEA Furniture, each nation could produce it's own consumer goods etc, so that while I could build my own civilization flavor of each specific resource, I could also import other nations and export my own. Additionally, I don't know if it's possible, but maybe importing other natural gas could decrease maintenance in my cities by 1% or such similar number or give a single hammer boost.
There issue of "decaying" resources. For example, elephants lose function in later stages, but could allow building of Zoos that while decrease health, give happiness boost. Horses could give hippodromes that give commerce. Also hemp has so many modern industrial applications that it should be processed into something useful, such as biofuel or textiles or something similar.
I imagine it's a lot of work, but I think it could give a nice late game boost and add additional flavor.
I was thinking about goods produced, such as motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, fuel, basically, later stage derived resources. It hit me that it would be great if each nation or maybe each grouping of nations could have their distinctive variety of produced good.
I have had (still have actually) something like this rumbling in my head for some time.
But I also know, that Walter "demands" good reasons just to consider changes like this - I do remember some of his questions/comments (fx. back on page 415 about using Highways as a new route for all and not just for the germans):
Have to admit, that all above are reasonable questions/views.
My wish is that each and every bonus becomes so valuable, that a civ is ready to go to war if it really are in needs of it and can't get it by trade.
Fundamentally an improvement shouldn't give anything but access to the associated bonus. That bonus has to be ....needed..... in one (or more different) specific workshop(s), where the bonus is consumed and - eventually - a new bonus produced in "a number", These new bonuses should also be used ...... eventually even a third or fourth time when a "reasonable" production-line is "available". As we already have for some bonus.
My reason for suggesting all this is not simply to put extra on. But for all bonuses to be used for its purpose. And not just to make more-or-less useless farms/what-ever. I want to "force" the human/AI to take active "meassures" when a ressource is used up.
Next step - plan for testing.
Edit: Test postponed. I found info on how-to add new buildings in the section for graphics modpacks, but nothing on new bonuses/ressources. So I'll wait for next official release of R:I and takes this up later (if needed).
Spoiler:
1: Start some tests made on present game I'm playing... it's suitable for the ancient, classical and medieval eras.
Guess if I export/save some "key-turns" in WB, then I should be able to reload those turns in WB even after adding new bonuses/buildings and make the needed tests......
2: Start with timber.
New bonus "Tree_Trunks" should be much more common than Prime_Timber. Improvement_Camp_Timber should require Feature_Forest.
Guess a new building - could be Timber_Yard or Lumber_Camp could be used side-by-side with the Carpenter in the tech-tree.
Lumber_Camps should use Bonus_Tree_trunks to produce new Bonus_Lumber (find a better name). 1 Bonus_Tree_Trunk gives 5 (or more?) Bonus_Lumber.
Carpenters should use Bonus_Prime_Timber to produce new Bonus_Prime_Timber_(something good name). 1 Bonus_Prime_Timber gives 2 (or more?) Bonus_(something good name).
Bonus_Tree_Trunks, Bonus_Lumber and/or Bonus_Prime_Timber is required alone or in combination for any building except those, that can be made without use of "manufactured timber" (always available, not a bonus).
It might also be worth testing the values of <PrereqAndBonuses/> and <PrereqOrBonuses/> in the unit files for higher levels of naval- and siege-units - and maybe other places too.
3: Problems (they will surely come faster than expected) - contact Walter
4: If I totally fail - abandon this test
5: If successfull after all? Stop testing and wait - no need to do a lot of changes before "one" knows what's with the next release .
Edit 19.Aug 2022:
I just made a new little test to see how far I could go with socalled "converter-buildings".
I tried to make a BronzeForge (Bronze_Smith) to consume 1 copper (standard value) and produce 3 copper and 3 bronze. And it worked(!). All the extra ressources were available for trade.
So it is possible to enable existing buildings to produce what-ever I want them to do (as long as the bonus exist in the game). No need for a new tree-bonus - Prime_Timber is enough, no need for a new building - the Carpenter can produce what-ever type of wood I would like.
That would make my "wish" much easier to do when I think I'm ready to go on. Just I still have to learn how to add a new bonus-type into the game...............
Everything that's not yours in the early game belongs to the barbarians. Don't you know that here are invisible trade routes connecting every resource on the map that only they get?
Now we are at horses. I'll bring my old crooked horse back to the market - hopefully it can be sold there this time
The canals - not forts, but real canals like the Panama- or Suez-canal with proper functionality and graphic. Last time we had it up here was on page 418..
So some graphic work is still needed - but if the canals is limited to 1 tile from the sea (or lake(!)) - as Samson wrote it might be and that I can confirm is so - then.... I say the Chineese Canal as we have it already could partly be used as master- just 2 or 3 times as wide and with no crossings and no sharp 90°angles (30° - 45°angles or soft bends would be perfect I think - afterall the canal can only be 1 or 2 tiles). And maybe an graphic-option, so a river can end into a canal - think that could look nice too - but this is not a strong wish.........
I've not seen anyone mention this, but in my games the AI doesn't build any seige units at all. I don't know how to correct this. In previous versions of RI the AI would build seige units but now, nothing.
One more thing I noticed is that the AI regularly chooses the desert upgrade for units when there are no/few deserts nearby. If the AI was restricted to the combat upgrade line it would probably be much stronger.
I'd go one step further. If AI made upgrades solely on a unit type it could become even stronger. I mean only city garrison and drill to city defenders (no guerilla for plain cities), combat for general infantry, city raider for shock troops, flanking 3 for mounted units, camouflage for recon units.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
- no need to do a lot of changes before "one" knows what's with the next release 
.
