Really annoying problem with installation

[Micha]

Hello fellow civfanatics,

I remember the Civ3 mod TAM being hugely satisfying so I d/l'ed this one for Civ4. I am not exactly illiterate when it comes to computers and have already successfully installed a wide variety of mods. This one, however, I just can't get to run.

This is what I did:

1) Clean install of Civ4 Complete
2) Update to BtS 1.17 (although it seems as if that wasn't really needed)
3) Download and Installation of TAM_BTSv082 to /Civ4/BtS/Mods
4) Download and Installation of TAM animated leaderheads to the same folder
5) Download and Extraction of TAM BTS PublicMaps v082 to /Civ4/BtS/Public Maps
6) Download and Installation of TAM9-20CvGameCoreDLL to /Civ4/BtS/Assets (replacing the old file)
7) Start Civ4, Load TAM mod (no issues)
8) SinglePlayer -> Play Scenario -> Mediterranean 16 civs -> Roman Empire
9) Leave all options (standard speed, noble difficulty etc.) -> Start

The game always crashes to desktop with a standard error message (... needs to be closed / Do you want to send an error message blablabla) while loading the scenario, albeit it does on different parts of the loading procedure (sometimes immediately, sometimes 2/3rd through).

How can I play tis mod??? I believe I messed up with the cvgamecoredll, so what do I need to do?

 

[Micha]

Ok, so it seems as if I was supposed to replace the DLL in /Civ4/BtS/Mods/TAM/Assets. It works now.

Since I am sure others are being confused about this, too, maybe you could add more detailed instructions to the first post in the Info-Thread. Like what file goes where and who needs to do what...

On a gameplay note: Did anybody succeed as the Romans? Ever? I am getting beaten so soundly on Noble difficulty... No way these Germans could field such a large army... They seem to be a bit overpowered, ranking #1 since the first dozen turns...

 

[graywarden]

On a gameplay note: Did anybody succeed as the Romans? Ever? I am getting beaten so soundly on Noble difficulty... No way these Germans could field such a large army... They seem to be a bit overpowered, ranking #1 since the first dozen turns...[/QUOTE]

Micha,

I have not tested as the Romans yet on Version 2.082A. But I can share that you will find a broad range of Dominant Civs the more games you play. I have tested games where Rome was taking charge in the previous version, but it was noted that it wasnt as often as maybe as it should be. I am finding very few "bug" bugs so I am paying more attention to play balance issues.

I test on the Huge 24 Med map and either on Noble or Warlord Setting. Noble for a clean test, and Warlord for a Tech Tree/Wonder test.

Im working down the list as they appear in pull down menu on the custom scenario, but will make an effort to jump to Rome if I continue to see posts regarding Rome. Keep me posted as you continue to play.

thanks for adding your posts

 

[Micha]

Hello Greywarden,

I have abandoned the failed game and started a new one - again as the Romans on the 16 civ Mediterranean map, again on noble difficulty. Having learned my lessons from the previous game, I placed my first two cities at the "entrances" of the Appenine peninsula. This was much more successfull! In that game, I was able to trap about ten units of various nations in Northern Italy, eating upkeep while being useless for anything other than moving randomly... Hehe...

Expanding aggressively while concentrating first on the tech which allows building the tavern (I found culture to be the most strangling issue), I was quite successful. With a massive spearmen build I could invade half of Gaul and get all their techs in the peace, finishing the conquest several turns later. I was at peace with all other civs and they basically left me alone since I was quite strong militarily.

My findings (balance wise):

Other civs are extremely unwilling to trade tech. With the need to maintain a large military to scare off attacks, almost all civs were pretty stagnating in tech. I went for the infrastructure techs early, taverns next, then spearmen and then concentrating on getting legionaries. My first legionary was trained in 300 AD... And I was leading in tech at that time. As of 400 AD, I have just begun facing bowmen units. The civs are about on par tech-wise, the level being bowmen / swordsmen / biremes / city states / imperial roads / Judaism. I have recently entered Imperial age, but have yet to be able to adopt the corresponding civic. All in all, I think technological advance is going too slowly - mainly because of the lack of tech trade and the century-long 20% tech investment due to large military and city maintenance.

My second finding is culture. It is exactly the other way round that it should be. The Gauls and Germans are leaders in culture, often flipping my conquered cities (or at least causing frequent uprisings. This last point might be good for realism (makes holding conquered territory almost impossible as long as the original civ is still around thus facilitating conquest), but the vast cultural superiority of the barbarians seems a bit over the top. Most cultural buildings come too late for the mediterranean civs if they want to compete military-wise. Since tech-sharing is literally turned off, I have to research all those little culture techs myself, limiting my military capabilities and thus allowing the barbarians to spread out further.

Next, resources. With grassland/forest being 2-1-0 the Germanic cities are flourishing. The Barbarians have larger cities than I have. Rome is capped at size 11 while some Bavarian town is size 19 and churns out woodsmen every two turns. I would make dense forest less nutrient-rich in order to recreate the historical situation in Germany - settlements only along the rivers, almost no population in the deep dark woods and in the mountains.

Lastly, health is absolutely unimportant. Unlike reality, where the large cities were stinking pits of human waste, I have yet to see a negative health rating of more than two (positive is usually above ten). This is because of the abundance of healthy food and the neglection of city population. I only build aqueducts because I need them for public bathes, which I only build for their culture point. This feels totally wrong. Make population cost health on a one-to-one basis. A city of 10 pop should also have 10 bad health plus whatever building it has (smithy etc.). Then it would be a limiting element for the barbarian super-metropoli and would make the high-cultural advancements of Roman architecture worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong - I absolutely enjoyed my game, it was great fun and not half as frustrating as Rhye's and Fall of Civilization. But the slow tech progress, the vast cultural and population-wise overpowerment of the barbarians and the absolute unimportance of classical Roman architecture make it much less historically satisfying than it could be.

 

[graywarden]

Micha,

what version are you playing? it sounds like you are playing an older version OR possibly that map isnt synced with the latest version. as i said in my last post, i always test on the Huge 24 map, and that difference makes my tests out of alignment with the scenario you are playing.
check to make sure you have the latest version AND maps and try the 24 huge mediterannean, i think you will find it very interesting or i hope so anyway.

http://tam.arbolingo.com/

after quickly reading your notes, it seems that you are on an older version. one of the things that had been addressed in the latest was the change in years/turns. you should spend most of the game in BC now......

double check everything and let me know if we are on page......

enjoy

 

[Micha]

Micha,

what version are you playing?

v0.82. I wrote down the exact d/L and install procedure in the first post of this thread... I am absolutely sure I am playing that version. Will try the 24 civ map next, although I fear my system might be too old for the task... Thank you for your replys, they're appreciated!

Have a nice weekend,

Micha