K-Mod: Far Beyond the Sword

Frukthandlarn said:
Hello everyone! I don't know if this is the right thread to ask support questions about the k-mod but I try it anyways. I've downloaded the k-mod rar and unzipped in the mods dir (Steam\steamapps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization IV Beyond the Sword\Mods). The mod doesn't show in the mod menu in-game. I've tried to restart the game and I've tried to restart steam without the mod showing up. Is there someting I missing? What should I do to fix this?

Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...

Try downloading the files from here, extract them and double click. Does KMod load launching a game like that?
 
I think the ai is always aware of your military status...so if you are trying to skate by with a small or outdated military, yes it will attack you almost in a garenteed way (and it should imo)

I think one of the secret problems is religious blocks lasting at peace too long. I mean even when protestant and catholic countries were at war frequently, they still went to war with nations of the same religion occasionally too, like catholics vs catholics and protestants vs protestants.

But really, if you werent, in some way, forced to have a minimum military, that take a huge chunk out of the challenge even if you were going for a space race/cultural win.

Everyone would super expand, raise a million great persons, and not bother defending cities...

To me, its just so painfully noticeable late game, who is trying to win in what way, and the ai just fades out without noticing/reacting...
 
Frukthandlarn said:
No, the mod does not seem load. Have you encountered this problem before?
Click to expand...
No - but this confirms that KMod is no available. What version of Windows do you have? You could try saving it to your Documents folder e.g. on Windows 7 ~\Documents\My Games\Beyond the Sword\MODS.
 
Charles555nc said:
I think the ai is always aware of your military status...so if you are trying to skate by with a small or outdated military, yes it will attack you almost in a garenteed way (and it should imo)
Click to expand...
One of the great things about Civ IV (and something they screwed up in Civ V) was the different personalities that Leaders have, not every AI should react the same to the same situation. I'll try building more military and see how I get on or maybe I'll just select "Always Peace" lol.
 
I think the minimum amount of military I feel safe with (emperor difficulty), early game, is about 4 units per city and city walls (exluding the extreme early game ofc) basically makes your cities near untakeable until catapults. Karadoc's ai is so good, if you try to block the ai from expanding by plopping down a city on their borders without any defense, then yes it will punish you (and it should), even if it has to send a stack of archers at you.

If someone blocks you from expanding with undefended cities...or is massively outteching you because they spend 0 on troops...war is the only counter strategy (other than trying to just copy their actions after they have the advantage).

Personally I think its genius...prevent war by having a strong military, its very realistic.
 
@Frukthandlarn, based on what you've said, the Steam version of BtS doesn't like to load mods from Steam\steamapps\common\ - which is surprising, because that's what I would have tried first. I don't think it's a permissions issue. I'm pretty sure that the mod should show up on the list even if all the files are read only. Normally the only requirement for getting on the in-game mod list is to have a folder inside the right mods directory.

It sounds like the issue has been resolved now, but I think it's kind of weird that it wasn't working for you the first time. I may need to tweak my "installation instructions".

Perhaps Civ4 is actually loading from some place other the steamapps directory. When you run Civ4, do you launch it through Steam? Do you have a second non-steam installation or something like that? Do other mods work when you put them in that steamapps mods directory?

(Don't worry about it if you don't feel like testing this stuff. I'm just a bit curious and I can't test it myself because I don't have the steam version.)

--

Re. the play-to-win discussion.. I'm interested in what's being said, but I'm just going to sit on the sidelines on that topic for the time being.
 
karadoc said:
Re. the play-to-win discussion.. I'm interested in what's being said, but I'm just going to sit on the sidelines on that topic for the time being.
Click to expand...
That's fine - I'm interested to hear other views.
 
Ok I'll review my opinion on "play to win"

I start a game, emperor difficulty, tech trading only what you've researched, and epic game speed. I get a religion early, stonehenge and oracle, like a dream start scenario, while at the same time expanding as quickly as possible. I quickly get connected to copper, get masonry and build walls. Several wars break out, I build up my cities and stay out of them. I build a massive number of cottages, some even on hills. But its clear my capital will be super well developed.

Zulus to my left declare war on me around when I get currency. The war lasts a long time maybe 45turns. (They were the ones who declared war and moved their ships next to my city, but didnt unload the troops until the next turn). I finally can bribe them into peace, and then maybe 30 turns later zulus (who are stuck on a sizeable island) they declare war on India (and I think about invading them).

The game progresses and I build epic saga (whatever its called 2x military production) in my capital and build up troops. India and Greece (my neighbor) declare war on the Celts and they start losing cities. I send my military (which I was gonna send against the zulu) to the east to invade Greece and accept The Celts as my vassal. I run through Greece extremely quickly, but they do a good defense (except maybe suiciding too many cats and not following up sometimes-like I mentitioned on the last page of this thread). Even the Incas take about 3 Greek cities. I accept Greece as my vassal. I check gnp and someone, somewhere has double my gnp (even with religious gold and a massive number of great people and cottages) I have only average gold gnp.

Likely suspects are one of the Incas/Persians/Carthage are equally divided, land territory wise, in a massive continent across the ocean. (Rengar is vassal to the Incas but is rather small). The tech period is now around Rifling globally around my continent and including island nations like the Romans.

Time passes and I continue my expansion by declaring war on India, I take 2 cities and they quickly become vassals to the Zulu.

War then breaks out with the Zulu, and I start to get depressed. The "continent of perpetual peace" Incas/Persians/Carthage has just been teching for 100s of turns at this point and not attacking or expanding. Just tech tech tech. Corporations are exploding over that continent.
They arent even hostile by canceling trade agreements or anything like that.

I start beating the Indians and Zulus, but Zulu had a massive navy and army I had to beat.

I start to check the victory screen...its around the 1850s and Persians are close to getting a culture win, Incas are exploding through tech and building space ship parts, and Carthage has nukes but isnt try to win at all. Just occasionally shifting its navy around...

So, to me, its clear that I lost. Even if I make peace with the Zulus I will have to do 2 things...take 15 turns to sail across the ocean, burn down one of the Persians top cultural cities to stop their win, and then burn down the Incas Capital to stop their space race...I will have to do this with infantry and artillery and cruisers vs tanks and nukes and battleships.

Who will actually win? Probably a coin toss between the Persians and Incas. Does either one actually realize the other is close to winning? No. Will they do anything to stop the other from winning? No. After the struggle of the whole game, they could care less if they win or not. Carthage/Rome are the saddest of all, no chance to win, and neither have tried to do anything for 100s of turns.

I probably got outplayed. Thing is, I dont feel that way. I feel like the distant ais went to sleep and did nothing but acquire tech. And that is SO BORING to me. Even if they sit back and tech, they should, IMO, at least keep track of other ais or the player, who are close to winning and act against them.

In other games, when I had been building culture all game, and was about to win a culture victory...I'd feel like total crap when none of the ais even noticed, as turn after turn, I get closer to the win, and they do nothing...taking no notice at all.

Im a little shocked if it turns out if I'm alone on this. After a loss like this, I really find it hard to start up a new game.


-Charles
 
No tech brokering reslly screws the AI, not sure why you chose that.

You have the Zulus fighting hard against you and two other AIs near to wins, what's your issue? If all the AIs play to win logically we would never see another diplomatic win, no one would ever trade or become a vassal etc etc
 
I think you didnt pay any attention to the details of what I wrote and the mentition of time periods...that far away continent has been at peace since the tiny Greece-Inca war...peace for 2/3rds of the game. Might as well be afk. If they were a human player they would be just pressing enter, over and over again. Pick tech, then press enter for another 10 turns.

I was at war with tiny India and middle sized Zulu. And I was winning it strongly and quickly, not losing it. I wasnt even sending troops against India, Greece And Celts handled him. My tech rate was barely effected.

Ofc your statement is just ridiculous, that people would never trade/vassal/diplomatic victory etc etc. Both people benefit from trade and the ai should only be canceling trades/declaring war/engaging in extra espionage missions against someone if they are within 50/75 or whatever turns from winning. Not the entire game. And vassals are made by crushing an opponent or saving them from someone else...thats survival not "helping others to win". And I never see diplomatic victories, but when I do its usually one bully and its army of vassals that wins that.

Im disappointed you made the ultra extreme bad example of the ai not so much playing to win, but punishing itself illogically as a way of trying to discredit the idea entirely. Sad that you claim thats logic.

And AGAIN, if this is so too threatening for more casual players, have it as an option in the custom menu, or tie it difficulty level. Im not trying to force it on you, just increase replayability.
 
Charles555nc said:
There was some other stuff before the play to win discussion :D

You doing alright Karadoc?
Click to expand...
No.

Charles555nc said:
Just wondering whats going with Carthage, Persians, and the Incas, in this save of mine.

They have been at peace (with each other) the whole game I think and have roughly divided the continent 3 different ways (Incas also control Vikings as well)

Incas are clearly going space race
Persians are clearly going cultural win
And Carthage is massing nukes, but doing nothing with them...

Are the presence of nukes making war impossible for them? I can forgive the Incas and Persians for being peaceful, they are both close to winning, but what is Carthage doing? How does he expect to win?

Rome has been at peace most of the game too. Snore.

Take away questions: Do nukes cause a chilling effect on war for the rest of the game? Should nuclear weapons be harder to produce (including the cost of the wonder)? Should the effect of nukes be decreased so that war can still occur? Should the ai still engage in war and just not use nukes, unless it really hates a country?
Click to expand...
The nukes are not having a chilling effect. Nukes contribute significantly each civ's power rating, and that can help to ward off wars, but there is no special hard-coded effect like that. (At least, not that I can recall at the moment.)

In your particular game, the reason Hannibal is not declaring war is just that he's pleased with everyone (except Asoka, who's a vassal). Hannibal is not aiming for a conquest victory. He's most interested in a space victory. (He's currently building a full set of SS casings, and researching ecology to unlock another SS part.)

--

One thing I just quickly want to mention is that if AI players were driven to declare war to prevent any imminent cultural victory, that would devalue the role of diplomacy throughout the game. The AI already knows that war is more urgent if the target player is close to winning - but they still won't use that as an excuse to declare war on their friends. What I'm saying is that if they AI _did_ use that as an excuse to declare war on their friends, then there wouldn't be a lot of point trying to make friends in the first place; and it would be much much harder to win as a small civ; and it would be near impossible to win a peaceful game. - So, although I generally like it when games have a climatic finish, with everyone desperately trying to block each other from winning, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to try to make _every_ game like that.
 
Well it could be tied to Civ personality, so each game would be different.

Warlike civs= declare war, demands tech/resources
Tech civs= cancel trades and ask others to cancel trades, hire other ais to attack the close winner, wont trade tech to near winner
Espionage civs= blow up space parts, put cultural victory cities in revolt, change their civics etc etc


As far as diplomacy goes....I think it would be a good idea to "loosely" limit the number of "Friendly and will never betray" type relations to one per civ. I think that might cut down on peace religion island. I think religion could use a small nerf iimo.

My personal view point is that positive diplomacy benefits the player and ais 98% of the game, so maybe the last 2% of the game where people struggle to win the game, it would be ok for "best buddy" status not to matter.

Are you having a problem with your health? Ive had chronic pain issues for a couple years now and am finally finding some relief. I have actually read more than 10,000 articles on a wide range of medical issues, just because it interests me. And my father is a doctor as well. Perhaps I could suggest something.


Hope things go right for you,


-Charles
 
Charles555nc said:
tech trading only what you've researched
Click to expand...

First of all, as I mentioned already, that is a huge handicap to the AIs so if you feel they aren't strong enough perhaps you should consider not selecting that.

Charles555nc said:
The "continent of perpetual peace" Incas/Persians/Carthage has just been teching for 100s of turns at this point and not attacking or expanding. Just tech tech tech. Corporations are exploding over that continent. They aren’t even hostile by cancelling trade agreements or anything like that.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that is a problem but I'm not sure why? Civ is a game about building a civilisation, it doesn't have to be a big civ to be competitive. A tight number of cities with a couple of good tech partners can lead to diplomatic / space or culture wins. In most of my games I rarely have more than 9 cities, often less.

Charles555nc said:
I start to check the victory screen...its around the 1850s and Persians are close to getting a culture win, Incas are exploding through tech and building space ship parts, and Carthage has nukes but isnt try to win at all. Just occasionally shifting its navy around...
Click to expand...

So you have 2 AIs trying to win - that's fine by you presumably? Do you think Carthage should start nuking it's trading partners because they're going to win? I would hate a game like that to be honest. Why should they turn on their friends just out of spite? As Karadoc says it would make a mockery of the whole Diplomacy system.

Charles555nc said:
So, to me, it’s clear that I lost. Even if I make peace with the Zulus I will have to do 2 things...take 15 turns to sail across the ocean, burn down one of the Persians top cultural cities to stop their win, and then burn down the Incas Capital to stop their space race...I will have to do this with infantry and artillery and cruisers vs tanks and nukes and battleships.
Click to expand...

You're losing because the other continent has not had to make a huge investment in war and thus has teched way ahead of you, to me that's a good thing.

Charles555nc said:
Who will actually win? Probably a coin toss between the Persians and Incas. Does either one actually realize the other is close to winning? No. Will they do anything to stop the other from winning? No. After the struggle of the whole game, they could care less if they win or not.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your analysis here - both the Persians and Incas are heading for a victory but you think they should give up aiming for a win and instead concentrate on stopping the other one winning?

Charles555nc said:
Carthage/Rome are the saddest of all, no chance to win, and neither have tried to do anything for 100s of turns.
Click to expand...

So if they have no chance of winning they should just turn into idiots disregarding all the relationships that have built up over the centuries?

Charles555nc said:
I feel like the distant ais went to sleep and did nothing but acquire tech. And that is SO BORING to me.
Click to expand...

I think this is the nub of our disagreement, you enjoy war games and I don't. War is a necessary part of a game like Civ but it's not the main point. What type of victories do you normally get / aim for? 70% of mine are Cultural, about 15% space ship, 10% diplomatic with 5% Conquest / Domination. I regularly have games where I am not involved in a single war and that's fine by me. It sounds like my games would bore you silly :-) (@Karadoc - would be interested to know what type of games you prefer, I suspect you are a war mongerer as well lol)

Charles555nc said:
Both people benefit from trade and the ai should only be cancelling trades/declaring war/engaging in extra espionage missions against someone if they are within 50/75 or whatever turns from winning.
Click to expand...

Why should relations magically change just because someone is close to winning, that would just nerf the whole diplomatic system and be a mess. Fair enough if Shaka or Monty do it as they are aggressive psychopaths but not everyone please.

Charles555nc said:
I’m disappointed you made the ultra extreme bad example of the ai not so much playing to win, but punishing itself illogically as a way of trying to discredit the idea entirely. Sad that you claim that’s logic.
Click to expand...

I think it's totally logical - if you don't like where "play to win" leads perhaps you need to re-consider? Under a play to win scenario why would any AI ever vote for anyone but itself?

Charles555nc said:
And AGAIN, if this is so too threatening for more casual players, have it as an option in the custom menu, or tie it difficulty level. I’m not trying to force it on you, just increase replayability.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by Casual players - certainly I play at Noble / Prince if that's what you are getting at. I definitely think K-Mod plays 1.5 - 2 levels higher than Standard BtS, I would like to see the balance restored so that Noble is a good challenge but not impossible for ordinary players. Certainly an option would be great if that were feasible, that could keep everyone happy.

Charles555nc said:
Tech civs= cancel trades and ask others to cancel trades, hire other ais to attack the close winner, wont trade tech to near winner
Click to expand...

Yuk, I think the peaceful Civs have been nerfed enough in K-Mod. Recent game with Ghandi and Mansa on the same continent as me I gave up after they both demanded multiple techs from me over 20 turns, I had level power with Mansa and was stronger than Ghandi. It wasn't a real threat but it meant either screwing up diplomacy or letting them have the fruits of my labours for nothing. Not an enjoyable game.

Charles555nc said:
As far as diplomacy goes....I think it would be a good idea to "loosely" limit the number of "Friendly and will never betray" type relations to one per civ. I think that might cut down on peace religion island.
Click to expand...

Again hate this idea - if it was to be implemented perhaps do it the other way around and limit the number of aggressive relations per civ. Don't really like that either but would prefer it to your idea.

Charles555nc said:
I think religion could use a small nerf iimo.
Click to expand...

Oh man don't get me started on that, religion is badly nerfed in K-Mod IMO :-) Because the AIs don't switch so readily to a religion you see less religious blocs and the possibility of religions disappearing is cool in theory but makes cultural games a lot more of a micro-management drag.

I hope I have properly engaged your points this time, it's a good debate but I suspect the root of the disagreement is that we enjoy different aspects of the game.

Take care.
 
There should be an internet term for kids that take your post and write clueless comments next to each sentence of your post in a reply, after not reading/comprehending any of the other recent posts. Probably a hysterical teenager thing.

I JUST SAID IN MY LAST POST.
My personal view point is that positive diplomacy should benefit the player and ais 98%of the game, so maybe the last 2% of the game where people struggle to win the game, it would be ok for "best buddy" status not to matter.

Then you JUST SAID "derp, why should people turn on their friends just to win the game"! (Even the last 2% of the game?) "No benefit to diplomacy!" "Why vote for anyone else other than yourself!" (the whole game).

Your lack of understanding is disgusting. You can disagree but saying that 98% of the game -possibly having several other countries having great relations with you- is ZERO value because of the last 2% of the game, is nonsense.

I stopped reading after that, I'd be here all day correcting your childish comments. You try and tell me what I meant by things (which you get horribly wrong) and its clearly you trying to come up with stupid excuses. I believe its called a straw man argument. And you did it twice in a row now.

You claim "logically no one would trade if ais "played to win"". And "thats totally logical and if you dont like that logic you should reconsider "play to win" idea"

I have replied to this once already...which u are probably 2 braindead to notice. Why would they never trade if they are trying to win? Im trying to win and I trade with people! I use diplomacy! But if its gonna take me 40 turns to win a culture win, and the ai is 30 turns from a space race, I got to/ought to do something near the end, RIGHT? (cancel trades, declare war, use espionage). You clearly have no idea what logic means and you are so heavily biased that you must play nothing but cultural and tech wins...whereas I aim for a variety of different wins.

Do not reply to any of my comments from now on and I hope your childish false logic trolling catches up with you.

Moderator Action: Flaming is not allowed, trolling is not allowed, and this whole post is overall not appropriate for this forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Loaded mod - But my game is still vanilla BTS?
Replies
0
Views
54
jerminor
J
C
Modmod: K-Mod plus AdvCiv's UI enhancements
Replies
1
Views
848
f1rpo
f1rpo
B
Bandit's plot tooltip [Early portotype]
Replies
0
Views
41
bandit_heeler
B
B
Beyond the Sword 3.19 - How to get it?
Replies
13
Views
609
Rodnok
R
bmaupin
Reload mod changes without exiting the game
Replies
2
Views
439
Ryan F. Mercer
Ryan F. Mercer
Back
Top Bottom