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. keldath

    keldath LivE LonG AnD PrOsPeR

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Location:
    israel
    hail to platyping!
     
  2. Erfeo

    Erfeo Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    It is! Trust me, I would have credited you if I had ever released the modmod.
     
  3. sami_snow

    sami_snow Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2011
    Messages:
    107
    for some reason armenia's pagan temple gives a bonus to egypt's unique monument, obelisk. don't see that being too useful
     
  4. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    Quick question since loading up the game takes forever with the SVN. Are you viewing it when playing as Egypt, or Armenia? I think that if you're viewing bonuses granted by something in civilopedia, it always shows them from the point of view of the civ you're playing, even if it didn't actually apply.
     
  5. sami_snow

    sami_snow Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2011
    Messages:
    107
    playing as armenia
     
  6. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,401
    Location:
    London, UK
    OK guys, time for another round of answering your questions. :)

    That's graphical paging at work. It is now off by default and you can turn it on at your own discretion.

    Thanks. High time I remembered to correct that. :blush:

    Graphical paging at work, again. You can update the SVN to latest version, make sure it is off in game options, and you should be able to play normally.

    ...aaand likely graphical paging at it again. This is basically an emergency measure meant to stop memory allocation CTDs, but when you're not suffering from it, it is best to keep it off.

    Hm... It seems that MAF problems of 32 bit systems started when save size hit 1 Mb, and for 64 bit systems they start at 4x that... I guess that makes it basically inevitable. If you are using SVN, try graphical paging and see if it helps you avoid those. Otherwise, wait for 3.3 where it will be included. Oh, and one more thing you can do is play random maps. Even huge random maps in my experience rarely get past 2 Mb size.

    Yep, I realize that the role of animals in agriculture is probably not reflected adequately enough, but for now it is as good as it's going to get. We simply don't have enough small things to tweak at the early period of the game - any bonus we assign will really be huge at that stage.

    Technically it is true what it says there. You can build salt pits from Pottery, but your cities will benefit from salt only if you have Stonecutting. We used to have this with many resources, but it was confusing to people, so we removed it. Will probably remove this one too.

    I guess so. Isn't really a bug, but a redundancy. Quite boring to fix (have to go through many XML entries for that), but I'll probably get to it sometime.

    Only for civs that have positive or friendly relations to you. In current SVN this has been further nerfed to only civs that are friendly. I feel that now it isn't overpowered anymore.

    That's just a small terminological inconsistency. The default building of monument class was called "obelisk" instead of "monument". Everything worked well despite that, but since people were getting excited about it, I fixed that.

    Removed the dependency.

    Have you, by chance, forgotten to actually remove the loose files you packed? If so, the game will still start slow.

    Ancient era is already kinda packed with wonders; besides, we don't currently have XML tags with these precise effects.

    I hear your position, and it has some merit. I am not sure if gameplay would actually benefit from raising the importance of rivers, but we might do something about it. We're currently discussing it internally.

    That's vanilla Civ 4 behaviour. We didn't change anything there (nor do I know how to, really).

    Yep, some kind of nerf is definitely en route.

    Strange, will check. Should be available.

    We didn't modify air units in any fundamental way. Perhaps we'll do so in future.

    That's a technical quirk of how upgrading in Civ 4 works. If you can upgrade a unit to two different ones, you will have that option. If only one upgrade "path" is available, the unit will be able to upgrade to only the best unit available. Mechanized infantry doesn't upgrade to Modern infantry, therefore Semi-Modern infantry is considered a separate upgrade path from Mechanized infantry. OTOH, Modern Infantry upgrades to IFV, so it's a single upgrade path.
    Yep, it's correct. It is MP-18 if my memory serves me right. In many modifications it had the magazine on the side. As a side note, other shock troops are also armed with era-approrpiate, though often rare weapons, such as Chauchat and Fedorov Avtomat.

    It's the only ship of the era that doesn't require any resources to be built, and also the cheapest one. It has no place in battle against heavier ships of the era of course, but it has quite a few uses. It can be quite cost-effective as barbarian-beater, it can be a stopgap measure for those without coal or steel (usually not the human player by the time it is researched;)) and it is able to upgrade to small but toothy torpedo boat later on.

    Well, nobody says AI is brilliant. We try to improve it, but it is still bound to be quite underwhelming compared to a decent human player.

    This is not a bad idea, though we'll see how hard it is to implement.

    Well... Do you really trust AI to decide whenever is one or the other appropriate? Or will it lead to an even more misguided AI? We try to not add anything with potential to further screw up the AI ability.

    Well, adequately formulating civics took a lot of effort and the job is still not 100% finished. I am also not totally happy with how we currently have those, but I'd like to offer some counter-thoughts.

    1) Representation already makes most sense under Democracy, as it enables Parliament. I was thinking of introducing additional penalties under some civic combos, but hasn't gotten there yet.
    2) An example of Representative Dictatorship: First French Empire is best represented by this civic combo. Representative Despotism is trickier of course, but those civics' timeframes of relevance barely overlap. Representation can be thought to be compatible with Feudal Aristocracy for example through the institution of Estates General. It was definitely a representative assembly and yet also definitely a feudal structure. Same can be said about early British parliament.
    3) Nevertheless, I agree that some of the choices are suboptimal. For example, currently Federalism is a direct upgrade to Democracy, and is thus somewhat redundant.

    But it already is! :confused: We already have separate Social Justice and Collectivism civics.

    It is an intriguing suggestion. I know too little about the evolution of legal practices to comment right now, but I will be sure to do some research. What current "legal" civic category represents is rather the nature of power that the state enjoys over its citizens - where the power comes from. Is it derived from force of arms, or from tradition, or from the collective voice of the people (etc...)? "Legal" in the sense of what is the legal basis of power for the state, or the answer to "Why the people from "Government" civic category rule over us?".

    Always willing to discuss more. As mentioned above, I don't consider our civics perfect yet.

    Yeah, I guess it is a terminological difference. In RI it is basically used to separate Classical Republic from modern democracy. It may very well be that in American legal practice, the two have precise definitions - but not being a US lawyer, I am not aware of them. They are used in our mod in their historiographical sense, rather than in modern legal one.

    It definitely would be. Truth be said, those buildings are also a rather clumsy attempt at creating civic synergies, and an even better way to implement them would be to just have civic synergies as gameplay effects. We considered such a system for a while, but unless we get our hands on more coding people, we just don't have enough time/resources.

    If you're playing SVN, Man-at-arms line upgrades to Grenadiers (and later units), not regular infantry.

    Well, higher difficulties are higher for a reason - they place more restrictions on players. I, for example, consciously choose not to play at the highest difficulty level that I can be successful at, but rather 1-2 lower, to be able to cut down on micromanagement and reduce the luck element (including frustratingly bad luck).

    Fixed.

    You probably looked wrong. At Traditional Fishing pedia page, you probably hovered over Island feature rather than improvement itself, and saw the bonuses Islands provide.

    Yep. No detrimental effects on the gameplay, but might be annoying to look at. I guess I'll remove it.

    Yep, you can't as of now. I think your mod is kinda cool, but to me the relation of state to subjects is inseparable from dominant socio-economic class. I think this category only enhances potential for impossible matches, which, as highlighted in discussion above, are already present in some sense in RI now (one that hasn't been mentioned yet is Theocratic Free Religion, for instance :D).

    We have had a "Social Justice" civic for years now.

    And think more MLK than SJW. After all, the scope of our mod ends at 1985.

    I would like to attract attention of all SVN players to the fact that we need feedback on those recent features. Do they need adjustment? What is their impact on balance, from your perspective? Etc. Go on, we thrive on your feedback!

    Actually, I agree. Pirate Hunter promo line has long been needed. We will probably implement that soon.

    Mostly because this is not a screenshot from our mod. We don't use your civic screen. ;)

    Anyway, we still use lots of your other stuff, and your absence from our credits is inexcusable. There'll be a special thanks to you there in 3.3 version.

    See above. This is just a terminological quirk. I'll fix it anyway, so that people don't get worked up about it anymore.
     
  7. rkade8583

    rkade8583 Realism Invictus Player

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    Washington
    Your response to me made me laugh. It took me an hour but I finally got the SVN going and the art zipped up so it loads in a timely manner and, just as you said, Social Justice screams MLK.

    Just like it should. :)
     
  8. Erfeo

    Erfeo Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    I agree that the dominant socio-economic class will always determine the form the state takes, but how it affects the state isn't universal. For example, you can say that capitalists prefer a liberal state but there are also historical examples of capitalists backing authoritarian regimes. Which impossible matches do you foresee in my system? There are certainly some unlikely ones, but you'll always have that when combining modern and pre-modern civics.

    I was actually planning to remove Theocracy altogether. It doesn't combine well with other civics and true theocracies (rule by clerics) are very rare. The only ones I can think of are the Holy See and the Dalai Lama government. I think that the other states that we might consider running the Theocracy civic can just as well be considered (elective) monarchies or republics.
     
  9. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    Good point. Those are interesting examples. I like you idea of a penalty under certain civic combos. I think that would work well.

    I may have worded that poorly. What I meant is that "Social Justice" on it's own really isn't a civic. It's more of a singular element within 2 civics (and is manifested slightly differently in each) - Collectivism and Common Law.

    Ok. I'm looking at it in a similar, but slightly different way. I see it as - what is the mechanism that the government uses as it's legal authority? Is it tradition, civic law, collectivism, rule of fear, etc.

    Basically Civic Law and Common Law overlap in some areas, but they also have their differences. Common Law is more fluid and susceptible to change based on case precedents decided by judges' rulings on what would be considered "grey areas." This is why Social Justice can be accommodated within a Common Law system. Civic Law can be more black and white and places a greater importance on codified law, rather than judicial rulings, or opinions.

    Ok. That clarified things a bit. It seems that this is the reason for the difference in Modern definitions of Republic and Democracy: At the time the US Constitution was created the UK had a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Representative Democracy and it seems that this is why the difference in terminologies originated. Republic often signifies rule absent a monarch and when European countries moved away from that kind of rule often their monarchs were kept symbolically, so they needed a new terminology to reflect this.

    Where the real difference seems to be is - What exactly is a Classical Republic and how does it differ from a Direct or Pure Democracy?

    "Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in tyranny of the majority. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Examples

    Representative Democracy or Republic =/= Direct Democracy =/= Classical Republic.

    Governance actually varied quite a bit from Athens, to Sparta, to the Roman Republic and in regards to Athens wikipedia is quite contradictory depending on what page you view. "Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic Athens would actually be classified as a "Direct or Pure Democracy." There are also other examples of Direct Democracies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#History

    It's seem to me that your definition of a Classical Republic is more aligned with a Classical Roman Republic, while I assumed the civic to be representing more of an Athenian form of governance (which is a Democracy, not a Republic). The rest is a difference in terminologies.

    I actually like the building concept a lot. I think it's really good for the reason that it makes changing civics more difficult to do and revolutions more costly. It also gives you the option of increasing civics usefulness as technology advances.

    Ok. I just happened to win before I got the chance to find that out on my own. :lol:

    But then I find the restrictions on the human player to not be stringent enough late game. Playing on Emperor or Immortal I am often able to eliminate all major competition shortly after the Renaissance then after that it's just knocking off the remaining under-developed civs one by one.

    Personally, I find that this early cap doesn't add much for difficulty do to the fact that instead of minding my own business early on and going for a wonder, or two and researching techs. I quickly build a massive army and wipe out all of my neighbours and loot their gold then slowly colonize the surrounding area once the cap is lifted. Otherwise I end up having only 2 cities and my rivals often have 4 each and they all eventually gang up on me because I am the weakest.

    The # of cities cap is a good way to add difficulty and has helped a lot with runaway civs, but on it's own it is limited in it's usefulness. I'm not suggesting to scrap it, but to reduce it slightly and also add difficulty by other means; especially in the late game. A multifaceted approach that doesn't force the player into an extremely aggressive style of play out of necessity would be ideal. Late game the # of cities cap is great for slowing down runaway civs, but once again it leads to a lot of razing of cities rather than building, research, developing culture, and expansion. On Emperor you max out at about 45 cities on the large world map for what is possible to maintain economically, so your only alternative is to raze enemies and move on.

    I'll try and come up with some ideas. I noticed in the latest SVN you have added increased production costs per additional unit and upgrade. I thought this was a really good idea. If you could apply the right amount of pressure from several different angles to increase difficulty I think it would allow for alternative strategies on higher difficulties. Perhaps something with research?
     
  10. Erfeo

    Erfeo Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    I think that democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms. All democracies are republics to an extent, since the voting process has to be guided to laws. And most republics have at least some democratic elements to them.

    For the purposes of the game, a classical republic is simply any pre-modern republic. It's true there is a lot of variety within, with the direct democracy of Athens on one end and the aristocratic Sparta on the other end. But Sparta and Athens are two extreme outliers, most republics are closer to the middle of that scale. And within the wide scope of the game, these differences aren't that significant and can fit in the same category.
     
  11. Erfeo

    Erfeo Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    I think that democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms. All democracies are republics to an extent, since the voting process has to be guided to laws. And most republics have at least some democratic elements to them.

    For the purposes of the game, a classical republic is simply any pre-modern republic. It's true there is a lot of variety within, with the direct democracy of Athens on one end and the aristocratic Sparta on the other end. But Sparta and Athens are two extreme outliers, most republics are closer to the middle of that scale. And within the wide scope of the game, these differences aren't that significant and can fit in the same category.
     
  12. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Hmm. Updated to most recent SVN and it's still counting civs with positive relations.

    Regardless, is it possible to make this feature optional? For me, personally, this has been a source of non-stop frustrations since it has been implemented. In part this is due to flawed diplomacy (see spoiler) that guarantees that AI will benefit from this more than the player, and in part due to the setting I use (I always play with each Civ included, 33 at the moment, so it's easy for this boost to become ridiculous).

    I understand why some people might like and appreciate this feature, but for those of us that don't, an option to disable would be much appreciated.

    Spoiler :
    I've been tracking global AI civ relations over a few games, and have yet to see "You refused to help us during wartime!", "You demanded tribute from us!" or "You refused to pay us tribute!" between their relations. As far as I can tell, they are unable to ask/demand/refuse these of each other. This means that the diplomacy penalties can only apply to the human player, which means the human player will always be at a diplomatic loss compared to the AI.


    Yep, files are removed. Only art files left are the movies... Hrm. Maybe I messed up the process, or it's a side effect of other computer problems (The hard drive is partitioned, but not properly... Might have an effect....). The wait isn't too much of a problem, so I'll live with it.:p

    As far as I can tell, it's only affecting recon units at the moment, and I can't say I've noticed much of a difference.
     
  13. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,401
    Location:
    London, UK
    There are more examples that I can think of (for example, modern Iran or Heavenly Kingdom in mid-XIX century), but theocracy surely is a rather exotic form of government. That said, all the non-exotic ones are already covered quite well, I think.

    Basically, Social Justice civic as it is now stands for the enfranchisement of minorities in your societies (cultural, racial or otherwise). I don't really think common/civil law distinction have much to do with this. As US history shows, you can equally well oppress and protect minorities under common law. Moreover, as of now (feel free to sway my opinion with examples of contrary), I don't feel that common law is more conductive to free and inclusive society than civil law. Modern continental Europe functions under civil law and manages quite well in that.

    Of itself, I think a category that reflects legal structure could be an interesting one, and I can think of several civics besides common/civil law immediately - religious law (sharia for example), law by decree etc. That might be an interesting addition, but I wouldn't replace any other category with it.

    Yes, you are rather spot on here. We don't really include a civic for direct democracy, as it is probably even more exotic for large enough entities than theocracy. Our republic civic is more based on Rome and Carthage than Athens (representing a city state with under 100000 people is probably not the scope that constitutes an in-game civilization). We used to have "City States" civic for a civilization that was fragmented into numerous nominally (or effectively) independent small states, like Ancient Greece or Holy Roman Empire during its later part, but we removed it after we found that we couldn't do anything fun or interesting with it.

    There isn't really much to do with late game difficulty, unfortunately, at least nothing we have found to work well. That's actually one of the scourges of Civ series itself - you are usually facing decreasing, not increasing difficulty as you progress through the game.

    I am an idiot; I forgot to implement that. :blush:

    Anyway, feel free to remove the effect in CIV4CommerceInfo.xml; I think we'll end up removing it too.

    Should be affecting all types of units if you have any of the last revisions (from last two-three weeks or so).

    Sorry, missed that one in my big answer post. No, not as far as I know unfortunately.

    Again, sorry I missed yours too. Direct "culture bomb" was removed. Instead, there are "great works" that can be created by artists that generate lots of culture over time. I think using artists to culture bomb your cities wasn't the best strategy to winning a cultural victory even in vanilla Civ 4 (a settled GA would generate more total culture by the time you'd win a cultural victory). Anyway, cultural victory is still very much possible, though since there are more culture-generating buildings around, the caps have been raised. They are map size dependent, so I can't just give you exact figures.
     
  14. pioswa

    pioswa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    74
    "
    But isn't that a form of representation? Where minorities (or women) could have their representation in government and have similar rights as majority(men). I always had a hard time imagining "Social justice" as separate legal civic that is totally different then representation (totally different bonuses). In my opinion "Social justice" could have been national wonder associated with representation and free religion. (it is strange to have militancy and social justice at the same time).
     
  15. civman110

    civman110 Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,111
    If by oppression; you're referring to slavery, then that is really a different can of worms than the modern social justice movements. Slavery was institutionalized oppression that was codified into law in the US Constitution that blacks were 3/5ths of a man and therefore could be enslaved. That is a very different situation than "minority rights." Something that specific and determinative in a constitution really has nothing to do with a common law system since it is not subject to change through judicial rulings, or is open for alternate interpretations. To change the law it would required an amendment to the constitution, which had to be ratified though the judiciary of every state individually. The constitution is essentially the only document that judges do not have the power to strike down in a common law system, however they are able to change it through rulings based on their interpretation of the document if sections of it are non-specific.

    It's not a question of which is more conductive of a free inclusive society. I can provide arguments for the negatives and positives of each. My point is concerned with how each system functions primarily (what it allows, what it doesn't allow). Also "Social Justice" is not inherently a positive, or negative concept and whether it manifests itself for better, or worse really depends on how the concept is applied within the society.

    Typically for changes to the law to take place under a civil law system codified law needs to be passed by elected officials to change the law. With a common law system a judicial ruling based on an interpretation of a codified law is enough to change the law. Essentially with common law - unelected, appointed, supreme court judges have the ability to strike down law, or amend laws (by changing the legal interpretation of said law). There's actually been a lot of debate surrounding this issue and it's implications as of late. This example is mainly concerning Canada, but references the US as well, however this example would apply to any common law country that grants non-specific rights and freedoms to individuals.

    "What changed with passage of the Charter was that rights and freedoms were given constitutional status, and judges were given the power to strike down laws that infringed on them."

    "... most political questions in the United States eventually end up as judicial questions. The same is now true of Canada. Our courts are currently involved in Charter litigation on everything from assisted suicide to prostitution and polygamy.

    The problem in all of this is that the Charter is anything but self-executing. It is full of vaguely worded rights and the social science evidence that courts have at their disposal in adjudicating Charter claims is anything but determinative. As a result, judicial decisions interpreting and applying the Charter are bound to be controversial. Reasonable people can and do disagree about the interpretation and application of Charter rights. So do reasonable judges, as evidenced by the number of closely divided decisions in the Supreme Court.

    That is why not everyone concerned about rights thinks that it is a good idea to give judges the power to strike down democratically enacted legislation."

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...s-given-judges-too-much-power/article4101032/

    Now for example, take the issue of legalizing prostitution. Most people can make well reasoned arguments both for and against it and that's precisely why IMO, this is something that should be decided by the citizens through their elected officials and not by appointed, unelected supreme court justices, but I digress... My point is that it is much easier to change law under a common law system through the judicial branch of the government, rather than submitting legislation to an elected body, obtaining the support of a majority of elected officials (usually from several government branches) to pass the law, then the judicial branch must approve it - in a common law system the other branches of government can be bypassed by judicial decree. My point is that when it comes to creating law, a civic law structure places more weight on the will of the majority by design. In a common law system the majority opinion and sometimes even the other branches of government are largely irrelevant when it comes to social issues.

    IMO, we already have that. Through combinations of Government, legal, and religious civics.

    That's basically my point. Social Justice isn't a wide enough concept to have it's own civic, imo. It can easily be absorbed into other more substantive civics. On it's own it's simply an ideology.
     
  16. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Thanks, will do!



    Hmm. I'll check again, but I don't remember seeing it in the tooltip for the early game melee units. I may have just missed it... That said, I still didn't feel much of a gameplay difference (but perhaps it's not very drastic early on in the game), and Mongolia was still able to raise a sufficient army of axemen and skirmishers to level the Turkish empire...


    By the way, do you guys still need Python developers? I don't have much experience with it, but I can pick it up pretty easily if you need someone to dive into the code and fix some things.
     
  17. pioswa

    pioswa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    74
    I think there is something wrong with released vassals. i released one and 10 turns later they declared independence and stopped being my vassals. They had few town, some units and that is it. They didn't loss any ground, in fact they gained few cities i conquered and instantly gave them, but still they ware tiny civilization (5 cieties i had 40 or so). I think that, disabling peace vassalization of the ai, forces your peace vassals to brake vassal state at first turn it is possible. In that case granting independence have little of value.
     
  18. kiwi_lifter

    kiwi_lifter Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    59
    A few notes from many many enjoyable play throughs with the svn lately:

    1. Vassals are actually working really well for me: that is, half the civs in the game don't vassalize when the first powerful civ gets the right technology. I've only seen one civ vassalize in about 10 games. I assume this is the desired outcome?

    2. Barbarians are stacking in hordes, sometimes 20 thick. Great fun for a human player, though the ai usually loses 3-4 civs a game to them. Since the raging option is is optional, this seems reasonable to me. (I've touched on the naval issue earlier, obviously)

    3. The Celtic recon unit Balboe(?) is getting a 40% attack bonus vs cities, which I think was meant to be a penalty.

    4. Longbowmen. I see that some civs have had their hitpoints bumped from 7-8. Longbowmen have always seemed like the most overpowered unit in the game to me, and I'm curious why their stats were increased. Yet the one civ with a unique longwoman, Korean, doesn't get a hit point boost. Personally, I think that they should all have 6 hp.

    5. I'm getting a common scenario where a civ becomes very friendly (yes, "friendly") toward me at the begining of the game, and later too, without any good reason. Usually because our civics are similar. However, they always refuse to sign open borders, even with a yellow happy face. In some cases, this happens in the first 10 turns post contact (the friendly thing).

    6. Jungle. I googled it to see if anyone else had a recent thread on it, but didn't find anything. Jungle is a real problem. It makes you sick and prone to epidemics. It offers virtually nothing in terms of growth or production. It makes barbarians and invaders hard to kill. But the worst thing about jungle: you can't cut it down for a loooooooong time. Why? Is it easier to cut down forests than jungle? Were there no civilizations in jungle until later in time? No, there is no rational explanation that I can think of for making jungle wait to be hacked down. And Real Mongoose makes a LOT of jungle. So, why not make jungle clearable earlier?

    7. I love the Maya, they're great fun to play, as well as many of the new buildings. This is such a wonderful mod. Having made one large one for another game, I can really appreciate how much time is spent to even make minor changes here. Thank you to everyone who contributes. Any chance of having the Dutch and Portuguese available soon? :)

    8. When I regenerate maps, often my units are placed on the water, and I get an error message.

    9. Agrarian leaders are not building their Hunter's Cabins faster.

    10. Real Mongoose doesn't place oasis tiles, which makes Arab bonus improvement useless.

    11. Ragnar's greeting is messed up.
     
  19. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    A really small detail which has been bugging me for a while:

    The Sacerdotal Palace enables 1 citizen to be turned into a Priest.
    But it's requisite civic, Theocracy, already allows infinite Priests.
     
  20. Commoner

    Commoner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Pretty awesome mod. I've been playing it for a few years now, and I'm quite amazed by the longevity of Realism Invictus. I just keep coming back to it. :)

    I just got through a world map scenario with the Zulu empire, and found that they seem to be missing a custom longbow unit graphic (it's just the generic longbowman), as well as a generic Cuirassier unit. From what I've seen, both of the other African civilizations (Mali and Ethiopia) have their own respective and unique units for those two!
     

Share This Page