1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Realism Invictus

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Modpacks' started by Walter Hawkwood, Feb 13, 2011.

  1. pioswa

    pioswa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    74
    Serfdom was in decline in western Europe in renaissance but in central and eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid XIX century. In Asia serfdom existed even until XX century. Tibet is described by Melvyn Goldstein to have had serfdom until 1959.
     
  2. Ahnarras

    Ahnarras Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    99
    I always pictured Renaissance (and others eras, in fact) as a point in the developpement of a civilisation. So when a specific civ enter in his "renaissance" phase, it stopped using serfdom has there was to much trouble with it.
    It's true, Pioswa, that the exact date of this happening change a lot from country to country in the real world. As it does in our game.

    Not sure if i'm clear?
     
  3. Cykur

    Cykur Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    167
    Serfdom started to go away in the early Renaissance period in the West because it was more profitable to the ruling class for the workforce to gravitate towards cities and join the various cottage industries than it was for them to have to be supported on the land to produce food. It became cheaper to hire temporary workforce to work the fields than it was to keep serfs all year round.

    As far as the game goes, Serfdom is good for providing food via farms and hammers via the manor building, but the more enlightened labor civics produce more commerce and hammers from villages and towns. I find this to be pretty reasonable.

    As far as the game goes, the more I play into the Renaissance period, the easier it is for me to run Slavery or Serfdom, because I eventually start building stronger military units. It was only a problem for me when the Renaissance first starts, because the revolts get very strong gunpowder units that I couldn't make for a while because I'm playing on the slowest speed. Now that I have played for a while and I have gunpowder and cannons, I could go back to serfdom or even slavery if I want. So the Renaissance period does not make it hard for me to run slavery or serfdom in the long run, just when it starts because the slaves / serfs get gunpowder before I do, which doesn't make much sense.
     
  4. Sword_Of_Geddon

    Sword_Of_Geddon Mysterious Jungle Warrior

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    13,490
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    A secret technologically advanced organization was supplying those rebels with weapons. It is the Realism Invictus team's way of simulating the presence of the illuminati in the mod.

    ......only kidding.
     
  5. Noddahrassa

    Noddahrassa Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    You are clear, but this is really an exaggeration and oversimplification. Serfdom started being abolished in Western Europe in the 18th century. In most German states, it was abolished in the early 19th. In Eastern Europe even later.

    The renaissance started in the 15th century.

    So it is certainly correct to state that the abolition of serfdom occurred about 300 years after the renaissance. Notwithstanding the fact that one could probably produce some obscure Italian microstate who abolished it earlier. Those are the exceptions. Serfdom was a very real institution in the renaissance world.
     
  6. Ahnarras

    Ahnarras Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    99
    Well, i learned something today. Thanks! :)
     
  7. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    I noticed something interesting while playing the large world map the other day. This has been bugging me for a long time and I think I may have found the cause of France's extreme aggressiveness every game.

    France early game will attack anyone who possesses the city by the marble quarry in the Alps (it's Antium usually). It seems that this occurs regardless of France's attitude towards that civ, or the difference in their power ratings. I have seen France suicide massive armies against that city when there's other less fortified enemy cities nearby that they could have easily taken instead. In the same game I have also seen France relentlessly attack 3 different civs for no other reason except the fact that these civs managed to capture Antium.

    They are only interested in the marble quarry because it's highly valued by the AI.

    If France manages to capture that resource they are guaranteed to be a superpower because they now have stone, marble, and Paris, which is easily the most productive city on that map. Then France wonder whores until the late Renaissance which allows them to build huge armies and steam roll everyone with their strong horsemen and swordsmen.

    I suggest making Paris slightly less productive by removing a few hills and removing that marble resource.

    ----

    "Italy is the world leader in marble production, with 20% share in global marble production followed by China with 16% of world production. India is third ranking with 10% of world production, followed by Spain in fourth ranking position with 6% of world production."

    http://www.tunisianindustry.nat.tn/en/download/CEPI/IMCCV02.pdf

    The marble could be moved to Spain, but that might not be the best idea. Spain's cities are so productive that they are able to produce wonders very quickly without stone, or marble already. Other options may be to place it in Tuscany, since Italy is single biggest exporter of marble. Wunsiedel, Germany is also another option, although not a big exporter of marble this would make the most sense from a game-play standpoint imo, since Germany and Poland generally preform poorly (so they could probably make good use of it), plus it is far enough away from France.

    This is just a suggestion, but I think it may help.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble#Types

     
  8. Cykur

    Cykur Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    167
    This is fascinating to me too, because whenever I play the large map I'm always curious to see who survives the power struggle in Europe. The previous game I played France became the super power, but in the game before that and the current game I'm playing France got wiped out. The Roman Empire is the runaway civ in my current game because they ate France and Germany, with Rome also having many of the world wonders. I think I've seen France get wiped out more than they survive, so I'm not sure if reducing their resources is a great idea. Kind of makes sense that the AI would aggressively go after key resources.
     
  9. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    I have personally never seen Rome become a superpower. In my games the Romans always get wiped out. This happens in every one of my games:

    The Romans lose all of their cities except Rome and get all of their improvements pillaged (which they never rebuild). Then they just spam units and fortify Rome until they get so far behind technology wise that Europe gangs up on them and eventually someone with better units takes Rome and destroys them. It starts with France attacking the Romans and taking Antium very early then pillaging everything and Rome is screwed from there on. I have seen Germany capture Antium once, then get attacked by France at Antium then steamrolled.

    In my games it's always France, Spain, Russia, or Mongolia that are the superpowers. Egypt and England usually do fairly well mid-late game. China, India, Turks, Zulu usually die to barbarians and, or Mongolia. Poland gets ganged up on by the rest of Europe and rarely makes it to the Renaissance.

    I thought this was more common, since I have played a lot of games, but I guess it's just a coincidence then?? I will note that I usually don't play as France, Spain, Russia, or Mongolia, so perhaps this is why I always have this happen since there is no human interference between them? I don't know.
     
  10. isenchine

    isenchine Empress

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Location:
    Brussels, Belgium
    This mod is fine but I don't care so much about it :mischief:.

    But now you've got yourself a very very good avatar i must say!
     
  11. Cykur

    Cykur Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    167
    I know right?!? I am playing Aztecs so there was no human interference over there, and when I finally got to see how Europe turned out I was shocked to see Rome was the dominant power, and the number #2 dominant power was....Armenia!!! I just haven't played enough games to know if there is a trend because my games take so long to play, but it is the first time I ever saw Rome dominate, though I have seen Rome do reasonably well in other games. It is kind of fun when things turn out unexpected like this....which is why I come back to Civ IV time and again.
     
  12. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    I'm a huge fan of it and all the civ games for that matter. I've played every version of civ, except civ5.

    Thanks. I figured it was about time... only took me 2 years! :lol:

    I guess I'll just have to chalk my experiences up as simply a coincidence then. I guess we all can disregard everything I just said :lol:. I totally thought that occurred more often because that has happened to me (and I'm not exaggerating) every game.

    Time for a new game then. It should be a good one because it looks like I'm over due for something unexpected.
     
  13. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,291
    Location:
    London, UK
    Well, we could, but that kinda goes against the whole idea of pre-placed resources. Of course we can take out some resources and replace them with fertile soil for exactly those resources placed there at later dates, but what would that really bring to gameplay?

    That was not our call. That was in the initial map we took, and we didn't really change the geography from there. We didn't make any map RI uses from scratch.

    There's a lot of keen observations out there. Let me just say that we're trying to take that all into account.

    Thanks, noted.

    Let's just say it's officially on our to-do list. We're trying to fix that.

    Thought you'd like our own take on that.

    Despotism - a system where ultimately, the state is ruled by one person whose power is not checked by anything (at least in any practical way). That's surprisingly common in human history, even up to modern times.

    Monarchy - by this civic, we only meant limited monarchy. Basically, the state is formally ruled by one person whose power is always kept in check by something, be it the common interest of the lords of the realm or the constitution.

    Dictatorship - a system where ultimately there is an almighty person or institution that acts on behalf of the nation. This civic is inseparable from the modern notion of the nation, and as such is possible only since mid-XIX century. The main difference from Despotism is that the mandate of the ruling person/body is derived from people (even if it is silent approval), not from some higher power. It also usually means that de-jure, a dictator has to maintain some semblance of legitimacy and popular support.

    You're probably liking our latest SVN revisions then. ;)

    See above. The difference between Despotism/Civil Service and Monarchy/Civil Service is basically Roman or Chinese Empire vs XVI-XVII century England. In one case an almighty monarch relies on a host of civil servants to do his bidding, in the other he's being kept in check by them.

    That's a third-party component that we're just keeping up to date.

    Despotism (in the interpretation we give to it, see above) was at least as popular throughout most of history as Monarchy was. We are trying to keep both as viable alternatives, so we're still searching for the right balance between them. Republic OTOH is designed to go obsolete in favor of the more modern forms of democracy as represented by late-game civics.

    We'll be trying to spice it up, that's for sure. I'm currently working on the particulars, but one thing is certain - religion is going to play a lot bigger role for you if you decide to run Theocracy.

    That's exactly what I was considering. I'm not quite sure we're going to implement it like that, but I also noticed that issue, and we're likely going to do something about it.

    That doesn't really have any precedent in history. Until mid-XX century at least, folks got along based on their immediate interests no matter how autocratic their partners were. For instance, before the Cold War, there were many instances when Russia/Soviet Union were best buddies with USA. Not to mention the very autocratic Napoleonic France.

    I will honestly say, US civ is not getting a lot of attention, mostly because the only authentic stuff we could use has been around for 300 years tops. Still, the value of the ranch is that, while it is only marginally better than normal pasture, it is available almost from the start, and early game is when it counts the most.

    Well, bummer. I honestly thought it wouldn't come to this, but I guess there's a certain amount of content where Civ 4 engine just up and breaks down. Nothing much we could really do about that... :(

    From my experience, AI from 3.25 onwards isn't that stupidly suicidal anymore. It tends to pick its targets much more carefully.

    I guess that mostly depends on one's individual playing style. I know some people who would never sign open borders with anyone important. No open borders = no foreign trade routes. And if that's a legit playstyle, we have to have a civic for that.

    We're planning to rework the way RI handles slave/serf revolts. The way it is currently, we're only tracking era change. Anyway, the revolts are supposed to grow tougher as you progress, to discourage you from running those civics.

    You can edit the map files with any text editor. There you can tweak the conditions as you please.

    Thanks, it's a good picture. I'm kinda partial to the "mad Irish guy" we have now, so we won't change it, but yours is cool too.

    Thanks, we'll consider that. That's something I noticed in a lot of pre-3.25 games too, but come the pre-3.25 release AI update, I actually find AI situation in Europe much more stable. We'll see if probably AI "there-can-be-only-one" syndrome in Europe has been cured.
     
  14. Cykur

    Cykur Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    167
    Figured....RI is incredibly stable for the complexity of the mod...can't ask for much more.... I've only had the problem on the GEM sized "giant" maps, put in many hours on 8000 tile size maps, and no problems so far.

    Absolutely, they should get tougher, it just needs to be a bit more progressive and advance in step with military technology. Currently, the beginning of an era can be pretty rough, especially the Renaissance with the jump to gunpowder. Glad it is on your radar.




    OH, and on a final note, I don't think moving marble to Spain is a great idea...Spain seems to do reasonably well without it, and Spain usually is not pressured quite so hard at first because they aren't surrounded. If it was going to get moved, it probably makes sense putting it between France / Germany, though I'm not sure how accurate that would be historically. I just don't think there is much of a way to get around Europe being a pressure cooker of resource and land competition on the large map. I've seen France, Spain, and Rome come out on top before. Never seen Germany or Greece do well yet.
     
  15. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    Thanks, that cleared up a couple things I was a bit unsure of. In rl the same civics can vary so much from country to country, so you explanation is appreciated. :)

    I must say I've always been of the opinion that the civics have been very cleverly chosen in this mod.

    For sure. Very well done as always :).

    I also like your changes to Despotism. It's much better defined now with the it's new features. It can't be utilized in a general sense anymore since it's for the most part only viable with certain civics now. You guys never fail to exceed expectations. ;)

    ---

    Out of curiosity what's your reasoning for removing Absolute Monarchy? I was always under the impression that this represented monarchs such as Henry the VIII and Louis XIV although absolutism comes about quite a bit after Henry's time. This kind of goes back to what me and Erfeo where talking about earlier and comparing that type of a Monarchy to Despotism/Civil Service. Imo, for all practical purposes Henry the VIII was more of a Despot than a Monarch. Is it because you have plans for making more of a distinction between the two? I noticed you added Mandate of Heaven to Despotism which is nice.

    I feel like Monarchy needs something for the XIV-XVI and XVIII centuries, nothing specific to Henry VIII of course he was a bit of an exception and very disliked by the other European Monarchs for it.
     
  16. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,291
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yeah, it is one of the main issues of the World Map. Since Europe is packed with resources, any one civ that gets upper hand there turns into an uncontrollable steamroller. Revolutions Mod might offer a solution to that...

    Yeah, in general when I notice that I use something all the time, it is probably overpowered. 3.25 version of Despotism was exactly that - no real alternatives.

    The logic behind Absolute Monarchy doesn't really fit into Monarchy civic as defined in RI, because Monarchy in RI is in all cases (and probably should be renamed to, for easier understanding) limited Monarchy. European Absolutism is closer to Despotism civic as we have it, and it actually still is in RI, just slightly renamed to "Enlightened Despotism". That's one of the illustrations of how calling Monarchy a "Western" and Despotism an "Eastern" civic would be a big oversimplification.

    Both of those existed in different societies in all parts of Earth over the course of history, and quite frequently were adopted by the same states in different periods of their history.
     
  17. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    Ok, that makes sense.

    I just find that Monarchy is a little weak compared to the other civics and really doesn't have any advancements in RI except for feudal land tenure and constitutional monarchy when historically there were other benefits both before and after feudal aristocracy and social contract that I think could complement the monarchy civic.

    In the XIV -XVI centuries in Europe (as I'm sure you know already) Monarchies under went somewhat of a transformation, most prominently in England and in France. It wasn't full blown absolutism, but the beginning of it perhaps? I believe the proper term to refer to some of the monarchies in this period is "New Monarchy." The biggest changes were the Monarchs moved to reduce the power of the nobility and the church in order to increase their revenues and centralize power. This was mainly done by:

    - increasing the power of the royal court, which diminished the power of the nobility.
    - selling monopolies and government offices (which increased the number of nobles and reduced their power and influence individually).
    - the King appointed men to religious positions to reduce the power of the church
    - increased taxes and a centralized tax collection agency

    This type of ideology continued well into the XVIII - XX centuries to form absolutism as well as some other methods of governing.

    The end result was:

    - Making feudal aristocracy a thing of the past
    - Encouraging a national identity (by no means nationalism yet)
    - Increased strength of a centralized military
    - Religious unity
    - Centralized taxation
    - Increasing trade both domestic and foreign

    I think that some of these changes could be represented with some civic specific buildings throughout the ages upon researching certain techs and other benefits would be made available in the form of nation wonders and civic specific buildings if you choose to run certain civics along with monarchy. Some good candidates might be:

    Civil Religion
    Representation
    Free Market
    Protectionism? maybe

    Once again, simply a suggestion. I hope this isn't coming across as being "pushy;" that's not my intent.
     
  18. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,291
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yes, we thought about that. The term I'm used to when talking about those is "Administrative Monarchy".

    Unfortunately, for now we don't really have appropriate civic combos to represent that. Monarchy + Representation already yields Constitutional Monarchy, Civil Service comes too early and choosing a combo from other category than Legal wouldn't work, as then it would be possible to run one combo from Legal and that new one. So currently Administrative Monarchy is out purely due to technical limitations...
     
  19. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    Hmm, well Administrative Monarchy could technically run in conjunction with both Feudal Land Tenure and Constitutional Monarchy, which would be historically accurate. What if it wasn't a full blown sub-civic like Constitutional Monarchy and was made available after researching a certain tech while simply running Monarchy? Call it Royal Administration, Royal Bureaucracy, Royal Authority, Royal Jurisdiction, Centralized Royal Authority, or something.

    It could be made to not be as powerful as it's other two counterparts (Feudal Land Tenure & Constitutional Monarchy), more of a policy rather than something tangible. After it's built new buildings, or bonuses to existing ones could become available when the appropriate techs are researched, (ie. Administration) so the changes are very gradual over time. Some of the buildings/bonuses could be tied into particular Legal, Religious, or Economy civics. It could mainly focus on revenues/taxes, the military, and cultural identity/unity tied to religion; not happiness buffs. It would make switching from Monarchy much more difficult later on due to the added infrastructure and centralized royal authority, which would make sense since these revolutions tended to be very difficult and violent.

    It would be cool if it replaced things like Toll Houses with it's own versions that's controlled by a central authority and gave small revenue bonuses to Distilleries, Trading Posts, Harbour, to represent taxes perhaps after building something like a Tax House in the city.

    ---

    Also I'm getting this message when I begin a Large World Map on the latest revision.

    Tag: CIVIC_NOBILITY in Info class was incorrect
    Current XML file is: xml\GameInfo\Civ4VoteInfo.xml
     
  20. Propunk

    Propunk Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    Brazil
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Propunk View Post
    is there a way to alter the victory conditions of the world maps?
    You can edit the map files with any text editor. There you can tweak the conditions as you please.


    Dear Walter:

    Please, forgive my ignorance, but I wouldn't know where and how to start it.
     

Share This Page