Same here. Blank leaderheads.
Hmm... Did the latest update fix those? Hopefully it did, even though I don't have any ideas on why the thing I did matterd, and even more so why it mattered
selectively.
Why is it done this way? It's not that AI can manage improvements properly.
So that the primitives' territory remains unimproved. Major civs capturing their cities won't be able to make use of their improvements for long anyway, as those will disappear. The quality of AI management here is of rather small concern to me, as the hunter-gatherer destiny on the World Map is to be conquered eventually anyway. I guess I could take away their ability to improve terrain altogether, but this gives them at least something to do.
Okay, but what about an almost useless secondary effect of Vijay Stambha?
Yeah, I guess I'll update it. To something not too powerful.
When you put it that way... Mostly because it's more realistic but without the painstaking micromanagement the improvement demanded in the old days. And if one day chopping forests will be moved further in the tech tree there could be a decision to make: to remove forest now to have more food or to wait and get hammers from chopping. Plus it's a quick defensive measure against barbs.
I don't like temporary food. This basically means that a city will likely starve later, and it definitely means more micromanagement, since one has to keep in mind that a tile bonus is going to expire.
To make it useful. First, to justify its fairly quick obsolescence. Second, such a flat bonus to the three main stats is unique. Third, earliest warehouses were used to store food so at least a food bonus is logical.
Fixed bonuses promote horizontal expansion. They basically mean that each city you found is guaranteed to provide at least that. Horizontal expansion around the first techs is something I don't feel like promoting. But yeah, rest assured that I don't like how it currently is as well, and I'm trying to think of a more integrated use for this building.
Let me disagree: the best culture building of the era is a storyteller circle.
Well, yeah. Actually, there's an interesting thought. Why not remove the culture from it? Gives other culture-providing buildings a chance to shine, while it still remains useful and becomes even more focused.
I wasn't meaning the players but the AI. And it just attacks things. The default difficulty for the AI is noble that means it has two free wins which can translate into two free tribal fort defeats. And I guess increasing the difficulty for the AI has much more consequences than removing free wins.
Yeah, I guess it makes sense.
Hmm... Well, I admit that using weaker leaders is easier than nerfing starting places. It's just it's much more fun to play a synergistic leader in restrictive conditions, for example Oda Nobunaga as Japanese or Umar ibn al-Khattab as Arabs.
And of course when nerfing the starting spot I then keep getting players advocating giving a civ X resource Y because it's there IRL... Truth be said, it works this way: I run lots of hands-off tests and see if I am satisfied or not with overall performance of the civ. If I am satisfied, I rarely touch it. If not, then it's time for a buff or a nerf. As of right now, the only civ in my opinion that seriously needs a buff is Mayans, mostly because they have to survive with aggressive Aztecs at their doorstep. Maybe Germans too, but their main problem is being attacked from all sides and not enough places to expand, which is a function of simple geography, so I don't really know how to give them more staying power.
I could swear I remembered fixing them... Well, I'll fix them in the next revision.
First, to buff them. In my experience none of these civs perform well in the long run. Second, it's only one tile away from coast, and it's possible for a player to move a settler to the sealine but the AI wouldn't do that. This creates an unnecessary disadvantage for the AI.
Well, Paris having a harbor doesn't sit well with me. I understand that a coastal start is a kind of buff, but... As for Chinese, I'm actually considering moving their capital further inland, because it isn't Beijing (except for Mao, but he isn't the leader on World Maps). North China should be more land-focused anyway.
And you didn't share your opinion on moving, removing and adding barb cities. Let me explain myself here.
1) Moving Transoxianan starting place and moving Lahore (now Harappan) barb city optimizes the usage of tiles in that area when placing cities.
I'm not sure what exactly is more optimal in their new locations.
2) Lycia barb city stops historical expansion of Greeks preventing them from colonizing Asia Minor and Cyprus.
Yeah, I guess you're right about this one. Though it might just give that space to Armenia as well, but it definitely provides Israel less opportunity for early military expansion.
3) Moving Ulchs barb city is an optimization of the usage of tiles and resources there.
Well, in this case I can see your justification, but them being where they are actually serves a different purpose - that city ensures no barbarian city spawns on nearby Sakhalin island. If it is moved as you suggest, I think that will become a possibility. In many cases barbarian (and minor civ) cities are where they are to discourage additional barbarian city spawning.
4) Adding flood plains on these tiles makes them usable because otherwise there are no improvements to place there, not even a watermill.
I don't have a feeling that all places on the World Map should be good for founding cities. There are some that are rather bad, and intentionally so. Actually, South Africa already cheats a bit, since it has gems without jungle, accessible very early on. But generally, I don't want big cities there - with all those shinies, I don't want to see Zulus as a technological powerhouse.
5) Adding a forest to Arabs improves their weak starting point a bit, adding forests to Judea is an attempt to delay their powerful 5 exp melee armies.
I don't understand your point about Judea. As for Arabs, OK.
6) Adding an Oporto barb city gives a place for Portuguese (hopefully) or Spain to expand, that city can work several resource tiles, and AI never settles there.
Portugal isn't designed to expand. Israel and Netherlands too, but they get lucky in this much more often. Of the three, Portugal actually functions closest to what was intended.
7) Moving Napata is an attempt to optimize the usage of tiles in that area, namely an oasis on X:39 Y:41, a river hill on X:40 Y:39 etc.
I think it would put unnecessary pressure on Egypt.
8) And one other thing I forgot to write: swap X:54 Y:43 and X:55 Y:44 tiles: a place for a dream city of modern era on X:54 Y:43.
Well, Qatar IRL is on the intended tile.
Started a new game. Leaderheads still blank. The large portrait in civilopedia is missing, on the diplomacy screen it's just black, the small pictures on the leader list of a civilization are there.
Resolution is 1920 x 1080. There is a .dds file for each leader in art/assets/leaderheads. A single file for each leader, are there supposed to be two?
No, one. What is most puzzling for me is that you use the same resolution as myself. I was prepared to admit that, for example, a different aspect ratio for some players could be a source of errors, but I really don't have an idea now. Anyway, even without having an idea, I've attempted a fix. Do they work in the latest revision?
Hi! I played Realism Invictus some years ago and I just LOVED it. Unfortunately I could never escape increasing MAF errors the longer I played and I don't ever think I ever got much further than the renaissance era for the huge world map before crashes began to occur on every single turn making it impossible to continue (I was using Win7 64bit home back then, but it still happened). However I recently have played a lot of the Caveman2Cosmos mod. They solved the MAF errors they had, and they even make note of this in their development notes! I never experience MAF with their mod despite it is insanely huge and I play it for a looong time. I actually have never finished a Caveman2Cosmos game because of the huge world map, snail speed and all the stuff you can do in that mod.
I was just wondering whether you have fixed the MAF errors? If so I'd very much like to revisit Realism Invictus, I was so fond of it back then, and I figure a lot has improved over time (you guys are an amazing bunch of people for doing this, but you already know that
).
Additional info: I am running Windows 10 64bit home with 16GB ram and a nvidia 690gtx.
I always suggested people to play something other than the huge world map, since it requires far too much from poor Civ 4 engine. Anyway, you can try since we kind of implemented the same fix - when you start getting MAFs, try turning on Graphical Paging in options (it is off by default, since it isn't good for overall stability).
@PKSRoman The update post has the name "Realism Invictus 3.3 (full version) 2016-10-05". It's release date is december 2015, but the date in the name is october 2016, so I guess october 2016 must be the newest version, right?
https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/realism-invictus-3-3-full-version.24604/
Nope, we didn't release a new version last year. I think it was a technical fix to something in the installer. We haven't had a major release for one and a half years.[/QUOTE]
or 
, if the city is connected to certain resources. Why would it be beneficial? Well, the small cities in the earlier game benefit more from Extra Yields than extra percentages: Let's assume the Forge gives +1 free Craftsman, +1 
bonus from one or two resources, this might encourage trade of resources between civilizations in the ancient times.
.
