K-Mod: Far Beyond the Sword

[Gavagay]

I know it is pleasant about preserving the thought of a warless game, but what game can u get away with not having culture, tech, or any espionage. Every game, you will always need to use these. Having a game without war is unnatural in this context.

You almost surely won't have warless games with K-Mod. Any civ has a probability to switch into "conquest" mode in which it can declare a war at "friendly". In one of my recent games I had exactly the situation your have described: a continent of techers, one religion, everyone loves everyone.
Well, the more epic was the world war which ended this paradise.
(Elizabeth switching to free religion was the catalyst, just like in Karados's example. But at one point I was DOWed by Huayna Capac, which had +18 attidude towards me, so her turn to heresy wasn't even necessary.)

 

[TLF]

How can I tell if the mod is loading?

I clicked on K mod and I got a loading screen that said K-mod, but then I got a screen that looks like the standard BtS start screen.
It lists Play Now, ...Advanced. If I click advanced it again lists all of the mods.

If I click Play Now the game that loads looks like standard BtS.

I don't see any difference.

I tried to load my save game through the standard BtS shortcut, but it said I needed to load K-mod for it to open, so I guess K-mod is running.

It doesn't show any indication that the bug mod is running.
I don't see any extra information on the main screen.

I have played 160 turns and it seems like a standard game, though I only just started the first war.

 

[karadoc]

There is no special splash screen or any kind of fanfare for K-Mod. As you saw, it will just say "K-Mod" in the top right corner of the main menu (similar to all mods); and that's about all.

The best way to confirm in-game that you are running K-Mod is to look for a feature that you know is part of K-Mod. For example, open the economics advisor screen and see if there is an "environment" tab; or open the in-game options menu and see if BUG is mentioned; or check the civilopedia for any of the K-Mod balance changes or text bugfixes.

 

[TLF]

EDIT
____________________

Nevermind.
I decided to reinstall and now it is working properly.
_________________________________________


There is no "environment tab" or any mention of bug in options.

It seems that something is wrong.

The installation looks right.
BtS>mods>k-mod.

Inside the k-mod folder there is another k-mod folder, k-mod_v1_ 33.ini and k-mod_v1_ 33.ini.bak

One odd thing that the other mods don't have is that inside the k-mod folder along with the assets, info, etc folders, there is another k-mod.ini.

Is the installation somehow screwed up?

Sorry for the trouble.

 

[karadoc]

By the sounds of things, you unzipped the mod into a new directory called k-mod_v1_33 inside the mods folder. (and so you ended up with Mods/k-mod_v1_33/K-Mod, rather than just Mods/K-Mod.) The zip file already has all of its stuff inside a folder, so it's meant to just be unzipped directly into the mods folder.

I guess this kind of potential confusion is why people tend to like automatic installer programs.

... I don't like installer programs myself, because i like to see what-goes-where when I'm installing something.

Anyway, I'm glad you've got it working now.

 

[TLF]

Have you fixed, or considering fixing, the excessive tendency for nuclear plants to melt down.
It happens way out of balance with reality and makes me not want to use them.

In reality there have been maybe 2 partial meltdowns with Chernobal being the only serious one.
Then if you consider that France is nearly all nuclear without any accidents, the ingame meltdown risk should be something like 1/10 of 1% or less.
That would make nuclear tenable.

Presently, I don't use any power until I can get Hydro.

 

[teejing]

Yes he did TLF think it was even in the 1st patch.


(offtopic question/ignore me if you want:
Is there a mod that combines new units of the same type? Meaning building a 2nd swordsman doesnt give me a 2nd one but gives my existing one more strength.
Would love this chess like feeling also would make the game much faster. ^^)

 

[stolenrays]

Is FFH2's Naval AI something you also looked at for this mod, or is redundant?

 

[Charles555nc]

You almost surely won't have warless games with K-Mod. Any civ has a probability to switch into "conquest" mode in which it can declare a war at "friendly". In one of my recent games I had exactly the situation your have described: a continent of techers, one religion, everyone loves everyone.
Well, the more epic was the world war which ended this paradise.
(Elizabeth switching to free religion was the catalyst, just like in Karados's example. But at one point I was DOWed by Huayna Capac, which had +18 attidude towards me, so her turn to heresy wasn't even necessary.)

Like I said in the rest of my post, I was a smaller nation and by the time I could invade anyone, everyone on my continent was buddist and at peace. I quit in digust after ~200 turns of peace, because there was no way to catch up at that point. So maybe the WHOLE game wasnt entirely peaceful but, on a cotinent, 200 turns of peace just makes the largest, most built up nation win by default. Not much counter play. And this is further encouraged by the "you declared war on our friend" negative diplomacy factor.

So my idea was to increase the chance of war on a landmass with a single religion. Or get rid of the negative penalty against other civs for declaring war in that situation. Simple.

 

[Charles555nc]

Have you fixed, or considering fixing, the excessive tendency for nuclear plants to melt down.
It happens way out of balance with reality and makes me not want to use them.

In reality there have been maybe 2 partial meltdowns with Chernobal being the only serious one.
Then if you consider that France is nearly all nuclear without any accidents, the ingame meltdown risk should be something like 1/10 of 1% or less.
That would make nuclear tenable.

Presently, I don't use any power until I can get Hydro.

Fukushima also, so adjust that accordingly.

 

[karadoc]

Is FFH2's Naval AI something you also looked at for this mod, or is redundant?

I haven't actually looked closely at the FFH2's AI (even though it's been suggested to me before); but I'd be inclined to say that it's redundant. -- Well actually, I think it's not unlikely that FFH2 has some bits which are better than the current K-Mod naval AI; but it's not necessarily easy to dig through stuff to work out which stuff is better and which stuff is worse... and it's a bit of a chore doing stuff like that. I find that writing my own AI a bit interesting and challenging; but sifting through other people's code looking for something which may or may not be worth copying... is not something that I enjoy doing. -- In any case, there will be some minor updates to the naval AI in the next version. (Nothing exciting... just a couple of improvements to fringe-cases were the AI isn't sure whether it is ready to launch its invasion force or not.)

Like I said in the rest of my post, I was a smaller nation and by the time I could invade anyone, everyone on my continent was buddist and at peace. I quit in digust after ~200 turns of peace, because there was no way to catch up at that point. So maybe the WHOLE game wasnt entirely peaceful but, on a cotinent, 200 turns of peace just makes the largest, most built up nation win by default. Not much counter play. And this is further encouraged by the "you declared war on our friend" negative diplomacy factor.

So my idea was to increase the chance of war on a landmass with a single religion. Or get rid of the negative penalty against other civs for declaring war in that situation. Simple.

I don't think that's a very compelling argument. ... It sounds to me like you're saying you were behind in this game, and you couldn't see how to catch up, and so you quit. Your rivals didn't want to kill each other; therefore the game should be changed.

As I said, I think it's good that it's possible to have a peaceful game; and it doesn't happen very often. -- Let me add to that by saying something kind of obvious: it is possible to win the game without being big, and without fighting any wars.

Have you ever tried a one city challenge game? That's an extreme example of how the biggest civ doesn't 'win by default'. And in OOC games, you don't even have the option of getting a cultural victory, which I'd say is the normally the easiest way to win as a small civ.

--

By the way, regarding nuclear meltdowns. I think the probability of them is still the same, but the consequences are far far less severe. In the original BtS rules, a meltdown was the same as being hit by a nuclear bomb. It would kill units, buildings, population, and spread fallout. -- In the new rules, the only thing it does is spread fallout (and destroy the nuclear power plant itself). It doesn't damage units, or other buildings or anything like that. So, it basically just means that some land might be unworkable for awhile if you don't have the tech required to 'scrub fallout'.

 

[Charles555nc]

I get a little annoyed when someone summarizes a long explanation and then says it basically sucks. But maybe I didnt have enough bullet points.

-If I wanted a no war game, I would disable war in the custom settings right? You guys can too, if you want no war.

-If you are a smaller nation (which you almost always are) in an entire continent full of peace/same religion/friendly (ON HIGH DIFFICULTY) its almost impossible to get a cultural win unless you are geared toward it from the very start (but u have no idea which games are low/no war). So unless you have alot of luck with getting religion/ wonders/stone marble etc etc and then realize there is going to be very little war...you are golden. Ofc if you havent prepared and there was war, you could even the odds.

-the ai techs likes a beast (not fun), so even if you were the same size, they clearly and sizeably outtech you...and your only tool of evening the odds is (war!). So there goes space race, if you even want to sit through the 300 turns+ of boring, bland peace (i play on epic speed to try and enjoy the different time periods)

-the ai almost always dislikes the human player (for stupid reasons usually, like you didnt give them free tech) more than the largest ai nation, so diplomacy victory basically isnt something I have any kinda chance at (without WAR). I also do NOT want to sit around for diplo victory. O LET ME GIVE RESOURCES/TECH AWAY and spam religion on my cities incase I need to switch religions...and end my turn, and then end my turn, and then wait and end my turn...

So points victory (mostly based on size/pop), diplomatic victory, cultural victory, space race, no, no, no, and no chance.

If I have missed some major fact/strategy/excitement filled aspect here please tell me, I dont see the path to winning without at least a little war, and if they/you declare war after 200 turns of peace they WILL have an age worth of better troops- like trebs vs cannons type stuff.

Final summation: Boring and nearly impossible to win at higher difficulties (without war). Boom, nailed it.

Edit:
Ive played alot of ranked games in civ4, but One city challenge is one setting that has never held my interest. Camping, wonder, and great people whoring...is all I remember about it. I really dont know why you brought it up. Since its impossible for any civ to be "large" and you cant win culturally according to some rules, how would that have anything to do with a no war, or barely any war scenario? Maybe its too early in the morning for me.

 

[karadoc]

I'm sorry if my summery of your game was annoying. I don't aim to annoy. ... I just don't think talking about a single game like that in isolation is a good way to make a point.

Well, I don't know what else to tell you. I've personally won countless games with a small civ. I don't make a special point of doing so; but I've just played an awful lot of games, and sometimes war just isn't the best way to win. This is particularly true for games with a weak starting position. -- From my point of view, winning without war is a bit uncommon, but I think it's a valuable part of the game. If every game played out the same way, then the replay value would be greatly diminished. -- Some games are filled with war, and some filled with culture struggles and tech races, and some with massive espionage, and so on. Not every game has every thing; and the winning strategy in one game might be a dead-end strategy in the next game. That's what I find fun; and that's why I wouldn't tell the AI to just start fighting each other just for the sake of having some fighting.

Playing with "always peace" turned on is completely different from playing a game where war is always possible, but just doesn't happen. "Always peace" doesn't only remove war from the game; it effectively removes diplomacy; and removes the value of all military units and tech; and thus changes the game completely.

...

In one city challenge; only the human player is restricted to one city. The AI players can have as many cities as they like. The reason I mentioned it is that winning one city challenge is an extreme example of how the biggest civ doesn't always win.

 

[Charles555nc]

Could you tell me what difficulty level and how you did it? this is really news to me...

My "winning" strat is basically to built up a nice civ with plenty of cottages without over expanding, avoid early wars if I can and then expand around the medieval period...then consolidate and expand some more. I know I never have a chance at keeping up with tech on equal land owned basis- I mean the ai always beats me to liberalism, rifling, and steel now.

So I try and expand before that.

Only way I can see you getting a cultural victory, is if you always prepare of a culture win every game. Like just in case.

I think a big problem of mine, is that I get mega scared of "tech ais" that have much better technology, but probably a smaller army...

Ahh, never heard of someone playing a one city challenge against the ai with those rules lol. Seems painful.

 

[stolenrays]

Is land transport AI in your mod. I haven't seen any yet, but if anyone could pull it off, it is you.

 

[Leoreth]

@Charles555nc:
It's hard to analyse your playing style from just a quick summary, but to me it seems that your problem is diplomacy. If you say that all AIs hate you because you didn't give in to their demands, you're likely doing something wrong. It's often crucial to decide who you want to be your friend and who your enemy, and then stick to it even if it costs something. This way you shouldn't end up in the unfortunate situation where everyone is more hostile to you than to anyone else.

 

[TLF]

I just gave up on a game where my stack of 6-7 currs and 6-7 cannons and about 7 spears couldn't beat a city with 5 elephants and 4-5 longbows.

Then, I was away for a while (during just 1 turn) attending to various cities and when I came back to the stack I left sitting 3-4 tiles away from the city I had been attacking I found that the stack was completely gone.

If mounted rifles and cannons can't beat bows and elephants, what's the point of getting the techs?

 

[noto2]

Karadoc I noticed the AI does some interesting things while at war now. It's happened a couple of times - where I'm at war with a civ on my continent and we fight on land, but he also launches some "sneak attacks" at some of my cities from ships, usually attacking the backside of my empire where I have few defenders. It's incredibly annoying and shocking...but also really cool! Good job on that change!

 

[Charles555nc]

I just gave up on a game where my stack of 6-7 currs and 6-7 cannons and about 7 spears couldn't beat a city with 5 elephants and 4-5 longbows.

Then, I was away for a while (during just 1 turn) attending to various cities and when I came back to the stack I left sitting 3-4 tiles away from the city I had been attacking I found that the stack was completely gone.

If mounted rifles and cannons can't beat bows and elephants, what's the point of getting the techs?

You use the cannons to bombard the city defense down to 0%, wait a turn and have them suicide attack the city for collaterol dmg, and then attack with the curr.

I feel like I used up all my complaining time recently, so lets not all do it at the same time plz lol.

I'd actually be proud of the ai for living through that btw.

 

[Charles555nc]

@Charles555nc:
It's hard to analyse your playing style from just a quick summary, but to me it seems that your problem is diplomacy. If you say that all AIs hate you because you didn't give in to their demands, you're likely doing something wrong. It's often crucial to decide who you want to be your friend and who your enemy, and then stick to it even if it costs something. This way you shouldn't end up in the unfortunate situation where everyone is more hostile to you than to anyone else.

I do very well, its just this last game I played made me mad. I was a smaller nation, I was declared war on once, fought them off, got a sizeable army and was about to attack when Everyone became friendly and buddist. So I waited and waited for an opportunity and the huge Japs, just destroyed tech after tech (and after mid game, every wonder) and had a huge culture start...and if I had invaded them, the rest of the continent wouldve gone after me for breaking the peace.

Tech ais annoy me to no end, but thats my own perference clearly. And it just seemed like Japan had this this undeserved alliance because we were all friendly and buddist...so I didnt feel I had any options. On emperor the ai bonuses are significant. Not saying Im the best player btw.