I can't register in our forum because I don't receive the activation e-mail and can't contact the board administrator in there: http://www.realism-invictus.com/forum/
Realism Invictus
- Thread starter Walter Hawkwood
- Start date
Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
That's a very good sum-up of the main drawback of RI.
We all know about this problem. We also all agree that Revolution will be the solution. Meanwhile we have to finish the current update to merge it in RI.
My personnal opinion is the same as yours. When a civ starts expanding I nearly always attack it to avoid the "critical size". The problem of such a behavior is that you slowly destroy your diplomacy. As I have already said, the solution is adding Revolution (modified for RI standard).
Sathar
Warlord
I'm glad to hear this, as I have the same issue. I was afraid that the current AI gameplay, with the snowballing empires and the 100+ unit doom stacks, was a conscious design choice (I was struggling to the Industrial era in my last Huge Earth game, but just gave up when I saw a stack of 75 artillery with about 50 cavalry and infantry support coming at me).
On that note, I think it's been discussed before, but any thoughts on toughening the overcrowding penalties? Maybe more worsening tiers at, for example, 30, 45, etc. units? Also maybe tying this to era or tech (start with a crowding limit of 5/stack, loosened as the game goes). I apologize if we've beaten this to death in the past.
Also, I see in the SVN notes that it looks like Great Artists are being reworked -- I'm eager to try the changes.
Antmanbrooks
Prince
There may be another solution. Once RevMod is implemented it may mean reversing this solution, but it's simple to implement as far as I can tell. Would it make sense to make increases to the city maintenance/distance costs across all 'government' civics and an increase in war weariness across the majority of other civics. This should make sustained war more difficult and maintaining a large army more difficult too. Currently not many civics accurately reflect the burden of war on the state or the happiness of it's population when at war. This can't be right when you think about how a war affects the ability of the state to function and even moreso the effect it has on the general public.
One of the things that ensures the survival of large Empires in RI is that they are not heavily hampered by an increasing support of their expanded territory. Quite the opposite. Extra territory more often than not means more income which in turn means more units and ever increasing returns for the Empire that gets the upper hand first.
I was reading about the collapse of the Roman Empire and I found a couple of interesting theories; 'The Empire relied on riches from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion).'
'With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.'
'...the decay of trade and industry was not a cause of Romes fall. There was a decline in agriculture and land was withdrawn from cultivation, in some cases on a very large scale, sometimes as a direct result of barbarian invasions. However, the chief cause of the agricultural decline was high taxation on the marginal land, driving it out of cultivation. Jones is surely right in saying that taxation was spurred by the huge military budget and was thus indirectly the result of the barbarian invasion'
This last quote sums up exaclty how I think Empires should fall in RI unless tightly managed. Extra taxes have to be raised, slowing research to the point where the military becomes so thin on the ground that barbarians and weaker states take advantage and strike when the Empires have over expanded without the means to support their expansion.
Obviosly there are many other theories about what caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, including the Huns, the Sassanid Persians, the reliance on Germanic mercenaries, the spread of Christianity. The list goes on, however this isn't the place to debate the reasons in full. I just used these quotes as a means to show how I forsee an increase in maintenance and war weariness would stem the flow of 'snowballing Empires'.
As a secondary thought, I really don't think a lot of the civics are well thought out enough. There doesn't tend to be many negatives which reduces choice a lot of the time. I've covered this before here. Are there any planned changes to the civics to allow for more choice between one civic and the next? How much impact on the AI does re-writing the civics have?
Although I agree with the big "AI" empire issue I'm not sure of the above.
In this game, managing your economy requires better planning, specialization and careful expansion than in any other mod (any). How would it make sense to increase maintenance/distance costs?
If we are talking about AI costs, then I agree that they require a tweak; if we are including the costs for humans then I don't understand. The game is difficult enough in micro and macromanagement.
For example: In my last game in a random map on Emperor I vassaled 3 civs and destroyed one in the medieval era very quickly. Regarding the cities of 2 of those civs I couldn't keep a single city. I also didn't want to raze. Result: I few turns later those 2 civs broke free although pleased and friendly and in another war with me (makes sense...). I got pissed turned back and just razed everything in sight. I couldn't keep even just some their cities because of the huge costs that I would have. It was not worth it. New cities can take dozens of turns until they start paying for themselves.
In any other mod you can end up keeping everything one way or the other even if it's not worth it. Not here. Impossible to keep cities or vassals with all cities: only one option: to raze. Result: a grind and red diplo situation.
How is it easy to have a big empire?
But if I managed to have and sustain a big empire then I deserve to win, plain and simple.
Now, regarding the AI, yes, their bonus are a little bit too much and the handicaps should be tweaked, imho (not that my opinion matters and I can tweak them myself, anyway). They just expand/conquer like its nothing. A human has to expand by steps while for the AI: the more the better.
Another emperor game I was checking in cheat mode the biggest empire, mongolia. 23 cities in the medieval era, more that 150 units (majority outside borders) - not a single cottage and hardly any specialists used: not a problem, tech lead a sure thing. How can this make sense? Its just bonuses, no economic management. Granted, the grazing ground does give a bit of commerce, but still... Not even running monarchy or republic or rudder. Revolutions will fix this?
For the human, it should be hard to acquire a big empire, but not hard to keep it (big empires deserve to win then and that's the nature of any civ iv mod (even with revolutions which are just hiccups)). If it's hard to keep it then it should be easier to expand. Hard to expand and hard to keep makes no sense to me. The game is supposed to be fun; although I admit that with "hard to keep mechanics" it would make more sense to finish a game until the very end (still, fighting internal problems can't be as much fun as fighting another big empire... you know what I mean?).
Regarding war weariness: above noble the AI doesn't really suffer much of that, so is the increase for humans? Wars can take a while in a game supposed to last hundreds of turns fighting giant armies. It would be harder to keep conquered cities and still go on fighting if the opponent doesn't want to give up. Meaning: raze...
Just for a war of attrition (has more value in this mod than in any other really) one would think twice.
Yes, the point is to be harder but the game is difficult stuff already. Why go hardcore?
The AI would still continue to deploy fat armies, regardless. That's what they do.
War weariness is a weird mechanic: You even get more of that outside borders! How is it that citizens get more discontent with something far from their eyes even if their army have not lost a single unit (just from killing: meaning - glory!)? War weariness should affect the army, but anyway...
Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
Hi All,
There's a major change in RI.
Many were complaining about the "culture bomb" and we agree it's a problem. We brainstormed and have found a nice solution. Both AI and players will be able to use it.
The new culture system:
There's also a few minor changes to implement. Nothing important for players but interesting for the Team.
You should update up to revision 4478 This one is stable.
The best to do is now trying the new system.
We wait for feedbacks and comments.
We need them !
There's a major change in RI.
Many were complaining about the "culture bomb" and we agree it's a problem. We brainstormed and have found a nice solution. Both AI and players will be able to use it.
The new culture system:
- no more "culture bomb" from Great Artist.
- Eleven Art Eras (Ancient - Classical - Medieval - Renaissance - Baroque - Romanticism - Realism - Impressionism - Postimpressionism - Mass - Cotemporary). Unless the first which is free, all other Art Eras are represented by a simple low cost National Wonder that gives an interesting +10% culture to all cities.
- Five Great Works can be built per Art Eras. Examples: Nefertiti Bust (ancient), Discobolus (Classical) or Star Wars (Contemporary)
- Each Great Work is linked to one Art Era. You must build it before beeing allowed to build the Great Work. In one word: an Art Era is a pre requisite.
- The Great Works can only be built by a Great Artist. That's the new role of the Great Artist: building a Great Work.
- A Great Work built is (more or less) limited to its age. I mean there that after a certain tech, a Great Work build will be no more authorized.
- A Great Work gives two bonus: +6 culture and something else. The last one can be a military bonus, a culture bonus or something special.
There's also a few minor changes to implement. Nothing important for players but interesting for the Team.
You should update up to revision 4478 This one is stable.
The best to do is now trying the new system.
We wait for feedbacks and comments.
We need them !
Antmanbrooks
Prince
Just the AI cost wasn't something I had considered and I certainly hadn't explored what the AI was doing, like you have below. So you might be on to something?
This is fairly typical for the human player, I agree. I would like to see the AI having the same issues but in practice they don't have the same issue with this, or any issue whatsoever it seems. I have been experimenting with a sparsely populated huge map recently to see how the AI deal with developing on their own. I started with 6 AI civs. By about 900 BC I checked the map to see how things had progressed. I had been plagued by barbarian raids, doing all I could with 4 cities to hold off a tide of barbarians. To my dismay the other AI's all had a minimum of 8 cities and a fully developed infrastructure. Either I'm doing something very wrong or the AI just gets too many freebies on Monarch and above.
This sounds familiar too. Why does the AI consistently attack once it's beaten? I'm guessing it's really hard to train the AI to know when it's beaten if the only trigger for them delclaring war is their diplo rating? This is another frustration on RI. The beaten AI that keeps coming back for more, suicidally.
I disagree, why do you deserve to win just because you have a big empire? If that is the case we all might as well stop playing because it's going to get boring and repetetive. RI is too impressive in so many respects to be defined by a big is best win methodology.
My point precisely.
Did you reload and play as this empire to see how the state managed under player handicaps? That would be interesting to see if it collapsed or was still maintainable.
I disagree with this but can see your point. I don't want it to be too hard to develop a large Empire and keep it, I just want it to be a challenge for both the player and the AI. Growth should be steady and should require a good economy and infrastructure. Right now it appears to me that inevitably you end up facing a huge Empire at around about 1200AD (on average). Wouldn't it be more fun if Empires rise and fall, if the smaller, tighly managed civ competed more with the large Empires? You are spot on when you say it would make more sense to finish a game. I can't remember doing that too often on RI. Don't get me wrong it's still great fun, it's just I seldom get to the modern age because one AI has been on a borg mission and has devoured all in it's path by that stage and it's usually me verses them by that point.
You have a another good point here. Why doesn't the AI suffer from WW on all difficulty levels? If two AI nations go to war then a prolonged war will have no consequence and whoever gets the upper hand will continue until absolute victory is achieved. Then you have the snowballing Empire scenario as once that AI has all the other AI's cities it will out produce the next AI it faces and so on...
I agree, but that's a different issue altogether.
Peregrine
The Swift
Not sure how much these comments will add to the current topic of conversation, but here goes;
My experience w/RI and the snowballing/dominant AI was to do two things;
1.) Turn off the vassal mechanic. Without vassals or capitulation, a warring AI has to continue its fight either until the end--elimination of an opponent--or come to a diplomatic solution. Frankly, the vassal mechanic is not, IMO, realistic anyway, so no loss of verisimilitude.
2.) Move behind the scenes to maintain a balance of power. In several games, I've gifted Iron, horses, bronze, stone, and Ivory, in various combinations, to AIs caught up in war. In some situations, it just doesn't matter--they lose anyway. But in other situations, these resources can turn the tide of war. In a couple of cases this policy actually backfired and the AI that was receiving my war materials became more powerful than intended.
I do think that the way the game functions on monarch is questionable. The AIs ability to conduct war is not much better on monarch or above. Their garrisons are weak, their armies small until they reach 25+ cities, and their operational ability is nil. This is not good. However, their ability to tech is too great on monarch or above. I get the feeling that the former is supposed to be offset by the latter. A better solution would be to arrange the AI so that it conducts warfare more effectively and efficiently on monarch and above.
My experience w/RI and the snowballing/dominant AI was to do two things;
1.) Turn off the vassal mechanic. Without vassals or capitulation, a warring AI has to continue its fight either until the end--elimination of an opponent--or come to a diplomatic solution. Frankly, the vassal mechanic is not, IMO, realistic anyway, so no loss of verisimilitude.
2.) Move behind the scenes to maintain a balance of power. In several games, I've gifted Iron, horses, bronze, stone, and Ivory, in various combinations, to AIs caught up in war. In some situations, it just doesn't matter--they lose anyway. But in other situations, these resources can turn the tide of war. In a couple of cases this policy actually backfired and the AI that was receiving my war materials became more powerful than intended.
I do think that the way the game functions on monarch is questionable. The AIs ability to conduct war is not much better on monarch or above. Their garrisons are weak, their armies small until they reach 25+ cities, and their operational ability is nil. This is not good. However, their ability to tech is too great on monarch or above. I get the feeling that the former is supposed to be offset by the latter. A better solution would be to arrange the AI so that it conducts warfare more effectively and efficiently on monarch and above.
Cruel
King
Go to interface options -> Scoreboard -> click in attitude icons
It's already checked. I unchecked and checked it again... still no little attitude icons show.
Also of note: My Realism Invictus folder is on its own drive. The game runs fine but I'm wondering if this is why I'm missing the attitude icons.
That's what I've been saying.
To be fair, this problem is related to the BTS original code, I think, but can be frustrating, for sure. Well, it's better for them to do something than nothing, but too many times it's just silly and the war diplo penalty keeps on increasing because of them not us...
But you fought and did proper management to get big in good timing, right? That is you're playing better and getting results: it's the nature of civ iv: develop a big empire - the fatter tends to win. You're not getting the empire with bonuses like the AI, in fact you may even be handicapped from the start.
Actually, I get it, and people in BTS also complain about this. In the end, it's a matter of taste. I like the struggle to develop an empire and then fight off another big one. If there's no big opponent, then, indeed, the game becomes stale because you know you've won. But, personally, an increase in internal problems would not bring me any fun (this mod creates enough economic and happiness problems, I feel). Just more grind. That's just my opinion, of course.
I think that ajusting the AI bonuses would help the "too-fast-AI-fat-empire" problem. Because the problem to me isn't someone eventually getting big. It's the easiness for the AI (and only the AI) in getting that way, as we agree.
I tell you this: One game on Emperor I reloaded from the renaissance a save state in the medieval era and let the game proceed in auto play to compare the AI development with mine. In the last auto play turn the AI was at 30% research, no deficit. When the auto play stopped, I was losing nearly 400 gold - At 0% research!
How's that? Lol....
This is true.
For sure it does. Just not for the decent level AI.
Yes, your facing it, it's not us that's getting it at that time. Again the AI bonuses. I would prefer a more even game for longer, than seeing a huge fast empire falling because of some mechanic or randomness.
Small civs should make permanent alliances more often to get the positives from it and fight big civs, btw, although the AI does not know proper war team work...
The vassal mechanics are not perfect for sure, and AIs vassal to other AIs a little bit too easily sometimes, but... wouldn't be tedious to completely destroy or take every city (expensive) to dominate more land?...
Unfortunately, it's not a simple problem.
Darkphoenix
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Messages
- 208
I'm also missing the attitude icons (and using the pak'd art, never realised that might have been the cause). They've been missing for awhile, now that I think about it. I can get the "worst enemy" indicator, but not the attitude icons.
Cruel
King
I made some tests and identified the revision who has lost icons: 4424. We will fix. It´s also know a bug with same icons in passage of Era.
Clifton III
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 43
Hi All,
There's a major change in RI.
Many were complaining about the "culture bomb" and we agree it's a problem. We brainstormed and have found a nice solution. Both AI and players will be able to use it.
The new culture system:
- no more "culture bomb" from Great Artist.
- Eleven Art Eras (Ancient - Classical - Medieval - Renaissance - Baroque - Romanticism - Realism - Impressionism - Postimpressionism - Mass - Cotemporary). Unless the first which is free, all other Art Eras are represented by a simple low cost National Wonder that gives an interesting +10% culture to all cities.
- Five Great Works can be built per Art Eras. Examples: Nefertiti Bust (ancient), Discobolus (Classical) or Star Wars (Contemporary)
- Each Great Work is linked to one Art Era. You must build it before beeing allowed to build the Great Work. In one word: an Art Era is a pre requisite.
- The Great Works can only be built by a Great Artist. That's the new role of the Great Artist: building a Great Work.
- A Great Work built is (more or less) limited to its age. I mean there that after a certain tech, a Great Work build will be no more authorized.
- A Great Work gives two bonus: +6 culture and something else. The last one can be a military bonus, a culture bonus or something special.
There's also a few minor changes to implement. Nothing important for players but interesting for the Team.
You should update up to revision 4478 This one is stable.
The best to do is now trying the new system.
We wait for feedbacks and comments.
Excellent news! Looking forward to trying this out in my next campaign.
As always thanks to the team for keeping my favorite Civ game interesting.
1Time4YourMind
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3
I'm trying out the new culture patch atm and there are just too many wonders. Nice work.
One super minor thing I noticed is that when I reach the classical age it says that I gain +0 unhealthy for all cities, even though it's +1. There is still the health cost increase, it just doesnt say it during the transition screen.
One super minor thing I noticed is that when I reach the classical age it says that I gain +0 unhealthy for all cities, even though it's +1. There is still the health cost increase, it just doesnt say it during the transition screen.
1Time4YourMind
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3
I do it myself by opening the XML file CIV4HandicapInfo and editing the values for the difficulty you are playing in. There should be a value like 75 or 65 for example, for maintenance distance and # of cities maintenance, and you can tweak those values to whatever you feel works best.
I have played the RevolutionDCM mod however and that was a much more innovative and fun way to deal with the massive empire issue.
SR-71
Terminator T850 model 101
Hello again RI guys!!
I'm currently playing a Ri game on last SVN (4387) from beginning to end, as I'm used to, and as always I'm enjoying it a lot, excepting an issue that is making it, not at all, but nearly unplayable:
Don't know if has something to do with the enemy civ (Polish) but the fact is that every turn I have a bizarre amount spy activities on my empire: sabotages, treasure pillage, and,which is the most annoying, technology steal
I've calculated and it's completely impossible for the Polish empire having enough espionage points for making all those things, even in case they dedicate all the money to espionage, and it happens EVERY TURN!! 
Specially in case of stealing tech, because there's no way I can strike back.
For a clear example, I have more cities (40 vs 30), and I'm a bit more advanced, and I need 80376 points
for stealing a f*****g tech... 
And they did TWICE, a turn and the following... And when I remove the techs from them with WBuilder, they steal them again 
As a reference I have accumulated around 10000 points in all the game... Numbers are very explanatory, I think
So please tweak this "spy rampage", because it had never happened to me in any other RI play. The other civs have increased their spy activity, which was fun, but I see something is wrong for sure, and I'm playing on Noble difficult only...
There are another issues, but much less important, some have been commented before, so I don't mind. One thing I've observed is that the "Pinch" promotion does not seem to be applied on combat. Please review this.
And another two little things: the Ironclad unit should be more powerful, or should appear before. At present it's a nonsense ship. And the same for the Humvee IMHO it's a pitiful unit that appears too late.
I'll continue playing until the end, but hope you'll investigate this issue, it's completely annoying
I'd upload a savegame if needed.
Regards
I'm currently playing a Ri game on last SVN (4387) from beginning to end, as I'm used to, and as always I'm enjoying it a lot, excepting an issue that is making it, not at all, but nearly unplayable:
Don't know if has something to do with the enemy civ (Polish) but the fact is that every turn I have a bizarre amount spy activities on my empire: sabotages, treasure pillage, and,which is the most annoying, technology steal
I've calculated and it's completely impossible for the Polish empire having enough espionage points for making all those things, even in case they dedicate all the money to espionage, and it happens EVERY TURN!! Specially in case of stealing tech, because there's no way I can strike back.For a clear example, I have more cities (40 vs 30), and I'm a bit more advanced, and I need 80376 points
for stealing a f*****g tech... And they did TWICE, a turn and the following... And when I remove the techs from them with WBuilder, they steal them again As a reference I have accumulated around 10000 points in all the game... Numbers are very explanatory, I think
So please tweak this "spy rampage", because it had never happened to me in any other RI play. The other civs have increased their spy activity, which was fun, but I see something is wrong for sure, and I'm playing on Noble difficult only...
There are another issues, but much less important, some have been commented before, so I don't mind. One thing I've observed is that the "Pinch" promotion does not seem to be applied on combat. Please review this.
And another two little things: the Ironclad unit should be more powerful, or should appear before. At present it's a nonsense ship. And the same for the Humvee IMHO it's a pitiful unit that appears too late.
I'll continue playing until the end, but hope you'll investigate this issue, it's completely annoying
I'd upload a savegame if needed.Regards
I agree on the Espionage issue. I can not play a game with it on. It is clear that every single Civ concentrates on building ships and spies just to send to my land. It is overwhelming and irritating. I haven't played with Espionage enabled for quite some time.
