Assorted questions

[Waterhouse]

Hi, I'm a long-time user, first-time poster
I've just dl'ed this mod, and am all worked up about it. My main problem is to find a couple of days or three to pull out of the calender, pull down the shutters, lock the door, switch off the phone, and indulge.
I haven't had the time to properly explore it all yet, but even after the initial glance, it still seems amazing, and I just can't wait to play. I really support the basic idea of making it seem like an official, coherent expansion, and not just a heap of extra, seemingly random, civs and LH's. So: great job. Really. I sincerly hope Firaxis are keeping a constant eye on this site.

Anyhow, I've got a couple of questions. I might've been able to find answers by browsing the board, but I'm too lazy and impatient. So I hope some one will take the time to enlighten me

First off, what merits the choice of civs?! Why would you take out HRE, and why oh why would you include an extra North American Indian and Vietnam, but omit serious empires that IMO deserved a place even in one of the official expansions?? I realize there's a lot of debate about who to include, and the list is potentially all but infinite, but Indians and Vietnam?? Am I allowed to say WTF?! Shouldn't someone like Sweden (I even see there's a splendid Gustavus Adolphus LH available) be in way before 'Nam?
Anyway, I hate to sound . .. .. .. .. .y, and please don't let it undermine my overall excitement

Secondly, HOW COME SOME CIVS HAVE MORE THAN ONE UU? And how come, then, that it isn't all of them?? What gives? And how does it work in-game? Doesn't it unbalance it somewhat (I'm merely wondering, since I have no way of knowing)?

Thirdly, does it work in MP? I read that all the revolution stuff apears on both players screens, but apart from that? I mean, "can it be done", or is it simply not possible?

Lastly, I noticed that Lach Walesa features in the Sevopedia (what's the story with that name, btw??), but is not available to choose. I guess you just forgot to delete him?

 

[phungus420]

Hi, I'm a long-time user, first-time poster
I've just dl'ed this mod, and am all worked up about it. My main problem is to find a couple of days or three to pull out of the calender, pull down the shutters, lock the door, switch off the phone, and indulge.
I haven't had the time to properly explore it all yet, but even after the initial glance, it still seems amazing, and I just can't wait to play. I really support the basic idea of making it seem like an official, coherent expansion, and not just a heap of extra, seemingly random, civs and LH's. So: great job. Really.

I like seeing the enthusiasm. While LoR is close to a "final release" state, please keep it mind it is still considered a beta. The next update of RevDCM includes many improvements in the RevDCM core (the core of the mod), and will drastically improve performance, and other issues such as Revolution effects exposure. After that update, MP is the next focus of the RevDCM team, and once MP is working properly the mod will be in 1.0 final form. While Legends of Revolution is certainly fully developed from the perspective of other Civ4 modpacks, I want LoR to fully function like a Firaxis built XP; so it must have working MP, and some of the current minor issues like Revolution Index exposure needs to be better handled to meet that standard.

First off, what merits the choice of civs?! Why would you take out HRE, and why oh why would you include an extra North American Indian and Vietnam, but omit serious empires that IMO deserved a place even in one of the official expansions?? I realize there's a lot of debate about who to include, and the list is potentially all but infinite, but Indians and Vietnam?? Am I allowed to say WTF?! Shouldn't someone like Sweden (I even see there's a splendid Gustavus Adolphus LH available) be in way before 'Nam?
Anyway, I hate to sound . .. .. .. .. .y, and please don't let it undermine my overall excitement

The short answer is that LoR is built out of the Wolfshanze mod, and Austria, with dropping the HRE, and including Vietnam comes from that mod. Splitting the Native Americans into two civs was my doing though. I did this because Native America is in no way a nation, a peoples, or a culture. It's ludicrous, every other "civ" is at least an independent cultural, nation, or peoples, and I'm not going to have NA be this bizzare thing. Plus I rather think the Iroqious are cool. Also, I brought up the idea of changing things here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=334708
But the overwhelming majority of users wanted to keep things how they are now in the mod. So I intend to oblige. Though personally, I'd be happy to drop Austria, and Poland and reimplement the HRE. Vietnam though, I just like having that Civ. They are actually going to get a second leader, Trung Trac, in one of the upcoming updates. Reagan and Lenin will be getting cut at that time as well, I see no reason in having 4 leaders for a civ, and I see no reason to include Reagan period.

Secondly, HOW COME SOME CIVS HAVE MORE THAN ONE UU? And how come, then, that it isn't all of them?? What gives? And how does it work in-game? Doesn't it unbalance it somewhat (I'm merely wondering, since I have no way of knowing)?

Again a feature implemented due to the mod's origin, the Wolfshanze mod. However at this time the mod is balanced around the second UUs for civs that have them. In general a civ with a single UU has a very strong one, and those that have two have two weaker ones. It's pretty balanced. Though Korea has a pretty weak single UU, and will be getting a second as well.

Thirdly, does it work in MP? I read that all the revolution stuff apears on both players screens, but apart from that? I mean, "can it be done", or is it simply not possible?

MP works for some, doesn't for others. I don't know. This will be the last feature to be implemented for the mod to come out of beta. And is dependent on the RevDCM core fixing MP. I expect this will happen sometime around New Years.

Lastly, I noticed that Lach Walesa features in the Sevopedia (what's the story with that name, btw??), but is not available to choose. I guess you just forgot to delete him?

No he's not. At least I can't replicate this bug. Are you sure you are updated to the most current version?

 

[Waterhouse]

Well, that all makes sense
I agree 100 % with the Native American thing, and even that the Iroqouis are cool, it just seems a bit much to have TWO of them (but I guess they deserve as much presence as Celtia and Zululand (who btw has the Kenyan flag, I noticed? It looks "zulu-ish", but it's pretty wrong!? :O )).

OK, so now I gather that it's a question of a limited amount of leader slots? Why is that? Technical limit or fear of exaggeration?
I support both Austria and Poland 100 %, though I'd also very much like HRE back in. I'd remove one of the Indian tribes (and Nam, but I guess that won't be happening )any day to include a real empire, such as Sweden as I mentioned (and no, I'm not Swedish ;D ). And as someone has argued well elsewhere, I'd seriously consider changing the Vikings to the Danes, especially if one included Sweden independantly.

Oh, and did I mention that I love seeing Hitler here? It is just so deliciously politically incorrect (although I never understood why he's so much worse that Stalin, or Genghis Khan for that matter)

 

[Waterhouse]

Oh, and yeah, I'm certain I've got the latest version (got it yesterday!), and I'll be happy to send you a screenshot of Lach Walesa appearing on the "new leaders in LoR" page. Not that it matters, though, it purely an aesthetical detail

EDIT: Hirohoto is on that same list, but isn't among the available leaders (and both links are dead when you click them).

 

[Waterhouse]

Also, is it technically possible to introduce (just a couple of) new ressources? There're a few I've always felt have been missing. And if it indeed is possible, is it in any way likely you might do it?

*
Oops, I was actually trying to edit my last message, instead of writing a new one. Sorry for flooding; wasn't my intention


*
One more very important thing I forgot to ask: IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE "perfect world" MAP SCRIPT??

 

[achilleszero]

Well, that all makes sense
I agree 100 % with the Native American thing, and even that the Iroqouis are cool, it just seems a bit much to have TWO of them (but I guess they deserve as much presence as Celtia and Zululand (who btw has the Kenyan flag, I noticed? It looks "zulu-ish", but it's pretty wrong!? :O )).

Flags are another thing that were inherited from Wolfshanze. Not sure why he chose to go with all modern flags. Maybe some of them should be reverted back to thier vanilla counterparts.

OK, so now I gather that it's a question of a limited amount of leader slots? Why is that? Technical limit or fear of exaggeration?
I support both Austria and Poland 100 %, though I'd also very much like HRE back in. I'd remove one of the Indian tribes (and Nam, but I guess that won't be happening )any day to include a real empire, such as Sweden as I mentioned (and no, I'm not Swedish ;D ). And as someone has argued well elsewhere, I'd seriously consider changing the Vikings to the Danes, especially if one included Sweden independantly.

The limited number of leaders is due to that all available trait combinations have been taken up already.

For what civs to include, I always thought that we were playing "Civilization" not "empires". Even though most have the name of a nation or empire. They are all refered to as Civs. I wouldnt mind if HRE is put back in, but its no worse than either of the indian civs. HRE was a conglomeration of nations, no different than Native America as a whole (except they were never under one rule), or the 5 nations under the Iroqoius (which were all basically iroqoius type tribes). And both Native civs had a huge effect on the development of America (to its expansion and growth and even its laws and constitution). Also it gives more representation to other parts of the world. The map is already overwhelmingly flooded with european civs.

Oh, and yeah, I'm certain I've got the latest version (got it yesterday!), and I'll be happy to send you a screenshot of Lach Walesa appearing on the "new leaders in LoR" page. Not that it matters, though, it purely an aesthetical detail

EDIT: Hirohoto is on that same list, but isn't among the available leaders (and both links are dead when you click them).

Oh it does matter. Its pretty low on the importance list, but it should be taken care of if we can isolate it.

One more very important thing I forgot to ask: IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE "perfect world" MAP SCRIPT??

Should be. Isnt there a perfect world option available in custom games by default already?

 

[Waterhouse]

For what civs to include, I always thought that we were playing "Civilization" not "empires".

Touché.

And of course I hadn't thought about the matter of available traits. That obviously makes sense What have they done in those mods with a billion civs? Simply had doubles?

I've just checked with the PW map script, and you're right Only, there are two of them, one called Perfect World2, and one called Perfect World201_RevDCM. What's the difference? And what are their differences compared with the "original" PW?
Also, there's one called Planet_Generator_0_68. Sounds intriguing Is it similar to PW or what?

 

[achilleszero]

Touché.

And of course I hadn't thought about the matter of available traits. That obviously makes sense What have they done in those mods with a billion civs? Simply had doubles?

Pretty much. They dont have much of a choice if they have 120+ leaders. Unless they do like RoM and have a ton of rather benal traits and give 3 per leader. There are some mods that dont have duplicate traits combos, by adding several new traits. But many of the new traits out there arent very well thought out/balanced, or are pretty lame as in not actually being a trait of a person.

A few of the better new traits can be found in Berenthors Leaders & legends add-on (strategic,seafaring,mercantile). Though there are some bugginess to one of them I think, but their core concepts are good.

I've just checked with the PW map script, and you're right Only, there are two of them, one called Perfect World2, and one called Perfect World201_RevDCM. What's the difference? And what are their differences compared with the "original" PW?
Also, there's one called Planet_Generator_0_68. Sounds intriguing Is it similar to PW or what?

Hmm, never knew there were 2 of them. I never play anymore, and the only time I load a map is to test new art. And PW takes way too long to load for my purposes, though when I did play it was the only script I used.

No idea what thier differences would be. I do know that Avain made a version for Quote Capita, that I would like to see included. It does away with the super restrictive "one continent per type of resource" placement, and goes back to default vanilla resource placement.

 

[phungus420]

Oh, and yeah, I'm certain I've got the latest version (got it yesterday!), and I'll be happy to send you a screenshot of Lach Walesa appearing on the "new leaders in LoR" page. Not that it matters, though, it purely an aesthetical detail

EDIT: Hirohoto is on that same list, but isn't among the available leaders (and both links are dead when you click them).

Ah I see, I forgot to update the LoR concepts page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, definatly a bug, a minor text bug, but a bug none the less. Will be corrected in the next update.

 

[phungus420]

Speaking of traits, achilleszero I've been toying with the idea of adding a second Trait, probably Strategic with a -50% upgrade cost, and +10% Espionage. The main reason I want to do this is to increase the # of civs that have a single leader, and give them at least 2. But the question is, are there enough quality leaderheads about to justify this ( Keep in mind Reagan is getting the axe no matter what, and we *you* will need to rearange the traits, and add enough leaders to use all new combinations)? What's your oppinion?

 

[SHS`]

Hey phungus420

Having played Berenthor's Leaders & Legends Add-on for LoR (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8209611&postcount=1) which already has a Strategic trait and that I've played as Taizong a few times, think I'm qualified () to make some comments.

Firstly, in the current version of the add-on, upgrade cost is actually b0rked and are free (yay!). That probably explained why Hammiburi (the other Strategic leader on the Earth map) was eating Poland (Casmir), Germany (Bismark) and Russia (Lennin) for breakfast at the same time and even with myself cash-rushing units, could only get the power ratio from 0.6(!!) to 0.8, before I finally launched a successful war against him.

Berenthor's "correct" upgrade cost at 25% off feels a little underpowered to me though extra unit XP and more Great Generals are always handy. Can't speak much about espionage as rarely use it (and if it's off, that just becomes extra culture right?) so can't really say if 10% is too much or too little. The cash of gold at the start is also nice for deficit funded research at the start!

But thinking about what actually makes a strategic leader. If waging war... then this is certainly being able to keep supply lines functioning well. What could this translate to in Civ4? Well... I'm thinking any combination of:

1) Being able to upgrade in enemy territory (one already can upgrade inside Permanent Alliance territory... though not vassals, this a bug?)
2) Being able to pacify captured cities sooner... so less turns to come out of revolt (50%?) and/or spreading state religion? (One of the leaders in the History of Three Kingdoms mod, captured cities don't even revolt at all and assimilate culture... the latter probably being analogous to influence driven war?)
3) All units have 1 extra squares worth of visibility?
4) Other stuff?

Speaking of traits, achilleszero I've been toying with the idea of adding a second Trait, probably Strategic with a -50% upgrade cost, and +10% Espionage. The main reason I want to do this is to increase the # of civs that have a single leader, and give them at least 2. But the question is, are there enough quality leaderheads about to justify this ( Keep in mind Reagan is getting the axe no matter what, and we *you* will need to rearange the traits, and add enough leaders to use all new combinations)? What's your oppinion?

 

[achilleszero]

Speaking of traits, achilleszero I've been toying with the idea of adding a second Trait, probably Strategic with a -50% upgrade cost, and +10% Espionage. The main reason I want to do this is to increase the # of civs that have a single leader, and give them at least 2. But the question is, are there enough quality leaderheads about to justify this ( Keep in mind Reagan is getting the axe no matter what, and we *you* will need to rearange the traits, and add enough leaders to use all new combinations)? What's your oppinion?

Awesome, awesome, awesome. New military trait will be useful. So that means we need to find 12 new quality LH's. It will be cutting it close with the available ones out there. And also possibly means having to add a new civ, if quality of LH takes precedence over history.

One thing Ive been thinking about with strategic on closer inspection. At first it seems like a military trait, but the saved gold and cache at begining of game seem more like a financial trait. Not sure about everyone else, but I rarely have problems upgrading my units. Sure I ususlly cant do them all at once but I can usually always up grade the ones I need to continue any wars. Then the straglers get upgraded when I have a chance. How powerful do you reckon Strategic to already be? Could a military aspect be added in somehow? I would like it to be as innovative as enlightened is without overshadowing the other traits.

Another thing is, how does this effect the power level and overall mechanics of Leo's Workshop?

Regardless of all that, I am for adding Strategic in some form another. Provided that there is enough Firaxis quality LH's.

 

[Waterhouse]

Hey guys,
Decided it was time to check back and see what's up. Looking great; I'm almost wetting my pants in anticipation of a forthcoming MP-supportable version. You think around new year is still plausible? If you set up a donation function, like the one wikipedia is currently running, I'd be honoured to support you

Also, is there any news on the matter of LH's/civs? It seemed like you were considering changing a bit, or perhaps adding a few (cf. above) - did any of this happen? -Yeah, sorry I'm too lazy to search the forum through

Keep up the great work!