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. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,224
    Location:
    London, UK
    It is possible with some effort, but the main issue, as usual, is not really coding it in, but rather making AI understand and make use of it. We'll see if it's really workable.

    If either side has slavery, there is a possibility of slaves being captured in combat, liberated immediately if the capturing side is not running slavery.

    I see no need to buff republic. It works better than Despotism/Monarchy in the exact situation it is intended for - in small civs. Given how players expand better and are usually a larger civ, Republic becomes a somewhat "non-player civic", but, again, it works for what it is intended.

    Oh, indeed they are annoying, I will agree with you there. But surprisingly, they work. All these years they worked quite well as a gameplay element. While the particulars (such as randomness, frequency and severity) can and probably will be tweaked, the concept works, and for now I see no other factor representing both an opportunity and a risk to include in their place, were they removed.

    Well, you're not saying anything new here. This is an effect we've been trying to fight for years now, with varying degrees of success. As for the largest civs having the tech lead, I would be interested to see the settings you play at - this is just a question of balancing the per city malus in a particular circumstance.

    Well, this is more or less by design - Medieval era quite purposefully does not contain new mechanics, breakthroughs and such. While it is not a "Dark age" in which you are regressing, it should feel like you are making less progress than in the previous and following eras.

    Yeah, AI may be placing a bit too little emphasis on food. Though in case of civ-specific Roman latifundias, the other bonuses offered by them are probably big enough to stick with them longer than other civs.

    AI is very happy to trade maps with each other, and it is a rather valid gameplay tactic, as it's gaining something for basically nothing. Within several turns of contact, many AI civs have common map knowledge. Though in case of tribal minors, I guess a special provision can be made for no map trading.

    Good point.

    Generally speaking, Christian religion is more centered around regular mass gatherings of people than most others, especially with communions, cross/icon kissing etc. Those are known to have impacted spread of disease. Also, from gameplay point of view, each religion needed at least some form of a drawback. Christianity is such a major religion with lots of difference across eras and branches, that both a positive and a negative case can be made in its case for probably anything - healthcare (hospitals vs epidemic spread), education (monastic learning vs suppression of "heretic" thought), economy (prosperous monastic land-owning vs tithes and anti-usury stance) that it is almost a moot point.

    Building production speed and paved roads, mostly. It isn't a hard requirement for anything other than paved roads, but it helps build lots of stuff.

    Hey, that's not fair! In most cases it should show relevant info, especially in parts where it is automated instead of relying on texts, such as showing stats, costs etc.

    Well, the only parts that really require an update are the pedia texts. So you may help by either just pointing out the texts that you feel need an update (or perhaps removal altogether if they are no longer relevant), or write new ones and post them here (or to me by a private message) so I can quickly update them in the xml.
     
  2. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    The Arab replacement for improved horseman, Ikhwan camel riders, requires horses, while its predecessor doesn't (neither does its successor, but hussars don't as a rule, anyway). Is this intentional for balance, or an oversight?

    I'm currently researching infantry logistics, and I noticed that in my city build queue crossbowmen, cataphracts and horsemen have made a reappearance at some point. In case of crossbowmen it's because its replacements require, in order, black powder, firearms, and then infantry logistics. So with firearms obsoleted in favor of semi-automatics, this happens. Of course it eventually corrects itself, this is just a heads-up.

    Sorry, just meant to inform Jayman1000 that civilopedia isn't always entirely accurate (especially in the case of masonry materials, here), and the desire to write snappy dialogue got the best of me. Should've mentioned the automated part, because that's awesome, which I know very well since I modmod all the time.
     
  3. arizzi

    arizzi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Messages:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    How difficult would it be to merge the revolutions mod as it currently is, without redoing all the code the gamecore. I am currently pursuing a CS degree and currently have a substantial amount of time to throw at the problem until the summer ends. Wouldn't be the best or most stable solution, but would work.

    My settings are large and very large maps on default RI generator settings.

    I also don't quite see your point as to republic being good enough. I really see no advantages in using republic vs despotism for example. Only exception being the great person buff that comes with senate (requires politics technology) Can you explain. I also feel like you've discounted the tall playstyle.

    Also the reason I suggested the -2 penalty for attacking someone's friends is that AI really doesn't have many reasons to dislike other ai. You can't really bring in allies against someone when they are all friendly with each other. There are no real diplomatic options to pursue. \

    As for the medieval era, I guess it comes down to your own personal preferences. However I think that intentionally keeping a tedious gameplay element and sacrificing gameplay for realism and is not a good choice. Especially when certain game systems are not particularly well suited to modelling human history. I just don't see how a bloated tech tree is a good idea.

    However the most important reason that I would recommend shortening medieval is that
    it penalizes civs that want to play as a builder. Since medieval techs don't provide much benefit, a civ focusing on growth and tech development wont see much benefit from it until it reaches renaissance.

    I've always seen the builder vs warmonger strategies as a short term vs long term strategy. An aggressive civ gives up long term tech advantages for the possibility of expanding its borders with new cities in the short term. Likewise a builder gives up military power in the short run (running all the risks that entails) in order to achieve technological advantage in the long run.

    However if tech advantage takes too long to manifest itself, as it does during the medieval era, then the builder strategy is not viable. This is what I was alluding to before when I said that the large civs will generally cement themselves as the eternal superpower in the medieval era, they usually finish conquering or subjugating their continent at that time.

    What do you think? I don't want to seem overly critical, and I really appreciate the amount of effort you all have put into it. But I really think the builder/warmonger balance is an important one to achieve
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  4. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    What I'm about to say naturally depends on the kinds of maps and setting one usually plays with, but as about 75% builder I find the medieval era to be the calm before the storm that comes when civs reach renaissance and get the ability to travel over oceans. I don't feel my position as a builder threatened until then since I've dealt with civs that have access to me so I can build in peace. The transition also obsoletes a lot of my wonders, especially scientific works, so sometimes I wish that medieval era were even longer.

    Second: I haven't played any mod with the Revolutions (well, frankly this is the only mod I've ever played, and Rhye's) and people always praise it. It does sound intriguing. But I'm also a bit ambivalent about whether I would truly want it to be implemented. As I understand it, with it large empires parts of your civilization might revolt and form their own?

    The thing is, years ago I noticed that granting independence to vassals sometimes messed with my production chains, and some national wonders were also lost. These days, this mod is several times more reliant on converter buildings, not to mention all the national wonders that have been added with the new health system. I'm sure you've noticed how a random improvement-destroying event can wreak havoc on several cities production buildings. The first one shuts down, the second one shuts down because it can't get what the first one produced and so on.

    So my issue is this: would the revolutions really work in principle in this mod without being a major headache in terms of planning where to build your buildings. I mean, surely they're meant to be a headache, but wouldn't they be even more, possibly intolerably so, with this mod?
     
  5. Sathar

    Sathar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    New Jersey
    RevDCM was pretty much the only mod I played, until it was basically abandoned and I "discovered" RI.

    I've been playing RI for so long now, and following every twitch of the SVN, that I'm much more in tune about the mechanics of what's going on in a mod than I ever was back then. That said, Revolutions was "everything" I wanted in a mod:

    The single biggest asset I found to Revolutions was that it pretty much solved the runaway snowball problem. When an AI country got too big, it would fragment into smaller, more manageable civs*. Also, barb cities could "evolve" and become new civs**. This meant that by the late game, instead of having one or two dominant civs with everyone else either dead or vassalized, you potentially had more civs than you started with, and they were grouped a lot more closely in terms of relative power. This also meant I could start a game with fewer civs (right now I tend to overload the map because I know a bunch of the starting civs will be gone before I ever meet them, and I want a least a few to make it to the later stages to keep things interesting).

    As a human player, it was challenging and frustrating to play by the same rules. RevDCM punished deficit spending mercilessly. Running with a negative gold income, or even too low a positive income, meant constant, widespread revolt. In RI the early economy (I play on Emperor) is so tight, I routinely run in the red and count on begging/demanding enough through diplomacy to keep me afloat. That flat out wouldn't work in Rev.

    I absolutely empathize with the RI team: merging RevDCM into RI is a massive undertaking. First is the shear volume of code that needs to be combined and debugged. On top of that is the fact that no matter how it's done, it will completely wreck RI's game balance which will require another herculean effort to restore.

    Like many, I would love to see RevR:I, but I totally get that it won't be any time soon, if at all.



    * - Another side effect of this was that it tamed the hyper-aggressive AI leaders like Montezuma. Sure he would fly off the handle and burn everything he owned to fight one nonstop war after another like always, but pretty soon he'd be hit with a civil war and half his civ would be gone. At the very least it would keep him off your back for a while.

    ** - This would really shine with PerfectWorld's old world/new world feature. By the time you got to the new world it wouldn't be empty with a few scattered barb cities. Instead, there would be full fledged (sometimes not so-)minor civs already getting established not too dissimilar to R:I's World Map.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
    AbsintheRed and Shuikkanen like this.
  6. Sathar

    Sathar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I do have an informal "rule" when I play R:I I call "local production": I try very hard to only build convertor buildings in cities that have direct access to at least one of the required resources, either in the fat cross or close by in unused territory. This has minimal impact on game play, but it may cut down a little on the disruptions you describe.

    Yes to your question, however. This is one of those things Revolutions would turn into chaos.
     
    Shuikkanen likes this.
  7. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,224
    Location:
    London, UK
    No, all camelry should obviously not require horses (because they aren't riding those!). Thanks for pointing out.

    Yeah, that's an unfortunate quirk of how game engine handles city build queues. This is also why one, for example, can't build modern foot infantry if one can build IFV - we'd love to correct it, but I am not sure it is possible at all. I've been gaming that system as much as I could (and irregular units are a big factor in keeping production options more "consolidated"), but stuff like this pops up unfortunately.

    Hey, no offense taken, just wanted to point out the brilliant job Josh has done on pedia code. I honestly believe it is already tremendously useful, much more so than in vanilla (or even most mods, when it comes to that). And I readily accept that many texts need rework, and will be glad for any help with that.

    Well, "not the best or most stable solution" isn't something I'd be willing to throw at people when releasing new version. That said, you are definitely welcome to experiment on that - our SVN has our dll laid bare anyway, so you don't even need my blessing to try that. If you find out it works and doesn't create too many problems with bugs and AI, we can try integrating it into the main branch.

    Well, we've definitely not discounted the tall playstyle, as many of the recent changes are actually aimed at propping up "taller" empires. That said, I don't believe "tall" should equal "one-city challenge", just that under right circumstances and tactics, a civ, say 2-3 times smaller should be able to outperform a larger civ. As far as Republic is concerned, even without Senate, right at adoption (without Senate and stuff) it results in +2 happiness in your cities compared to Despotism, which early in game almost always means +2 population, as it is mainly capped by happiness then. This is offset by city number upkeep and the fact that happiness bonus is applied only to your largest cities - both naturally steering towards a smaller empire. Generally speaking, there is no advantage running Despotism or Monarchy until you hit a (map size-specific) certain number of cities, while after that both monarchic civics are generally better. I think it's rather realistic, as most major powers in Classical and Medieval world ended up as some sort of Monarchy when they really started expanding, even if they started out as Republics (such as Rome), while states that stayed Republics (such as Venice) also tended to stay small.

    Introducing more (and more dynamic) relation modifiers is definitely on my list.

    That said, Medieval era also already has the least number of techs of any era. Less than both Classical before it and Renaissance after it.

    Well, the builder/aggressor balance is something I am definitely concerned about, and I am a bit short on perspective here. I very much play as a builder myself, and I am constantly afraid I'll nerf the more military-centric way of playing in favor of how I usually play myself.

    Well, the purely "builder" strategy also has to have a defensive element to it. While Medieval era doesn't bring much new stuff to the table, I think it shifts strategic military balance to defensive side quite a bit, by introducing lots of units that are better at defense and defensive buildings - the balance that is shifted again when true artillery with ranged bombardment and gunpowder infantry arrive, but by that time Medieval is almost over.

    Yeah, if we implement it, we'll have to take special care about it. This is even more important for AI than for players, as players are generally able to think ahead for such contingencies.

    Well, that's all very cool, and I frankly would love to see that, but in terms of manpower we're left with right now, it is very, very unlikely we'll manage anything like that. Most of what I'm doing now comes down to "wrapping up unfinished features and making sure everything already in works well". And I'm not a code person anyway, so I spend most of my time hunting for XML typos and painting new planes. :)
     
  8. Jayman1000

    Jayman1000 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Messages:
    255
    Its too bad about revolution, it would make such a wonderful addition to RI; but I understand that it must be very difficult and time consuming to even begin integrating it. Man I just miss this extra level of strategic planning. The often hard to accurately predict effects are my favorite. If I change to that civic there I get -1 stability, but will that be the proverbial drop that makes the bucket flow over and kick off hard to contain revolts in my colonies?

    Suggestion: That the epidemic risk % in the city screen shows "overflow" negative risk, such that you can easily see how much can raise the risk without going over 0. For example if you want to build forge you have to make the entire calculation yourself to see if the risk will go over a current display of 0% risk (this 0% risk might actually be for example -2.5% and then there is ample room to build forge, but if it instead actually is 0% then a forge would give you a 1% risk, and dismantling buildings are unfortunately not an option). Why not have the computer do that calculation for you? There's no reason to not show the actual negative risk value.

    Suggestion 2: In my Aztec playthrough that is now at the end of the middle age I noticed that I can't build any distilleries because I have no access to wheat, sugar or wine (which made me try and research it a bit on ze internetz). As far as I understand maya and especially aztec had and came to have extensive experience with alcoholic beverage production, and aztec knew how to do some distilling, using native plants for this purpose. Although it was not for social or leisure use but strictly religious and ritualistic. Are there any plans for implementing meso american alcohol resources in the future, has this prospect been considered or am I bringing a whole new suggestion to the table?
    Take a read of the following research document (that I found on the internet, I know one should not just readily believe everything that you randomly look up on google.... but it seems credible doesn't it?): http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/PublicHealth/research/centers/CAIANH/journal/Documents/Volume 7/7(2)_Abbott_Use_of_Alcohol_1-13.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  9. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Actually I just got back from my vacations, and do plan to continue on some coding updates for RI in the next few months.
    RevDCM is an entirely different thing though. While I also think it would be beneficial if implemented properly, it's not something we should start working on for the next version.
    Maybe after that, in one form or another - but that's a huge maybe to be honest.
     
  10. Jayman1000

    Jayman1000 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Messages:
    255
    Is it intentional that the Fort tile 50% DefensiveBonus does not apply outside cultural borders? The Fort Aid effects still seems to work though.

    I also noticed that I am not receiving these two resources, the tobacco and corn, because I have no city on that island (I know because revolting peasants kept looting the tobacco tile, but that made no difference on the number of tobacco I had in my trade network). I know that in other mods building a fort on an island that have a connected improved resource will connect the resource to the trade network, but it doesn't do that here. Are there plans to implement such a feature?

    In Caveman2Cosmos for example you can build a fort in unclaimed territory and that tile becomes your cultural territory, and as long as you have a military unit stationed there it will always be your tile no matter the foreign cultural influence on it. If you have no military unit there then there's a chance that the fort will revolt if there is other civs cultural influence there (I really like that because you can have these small occupied areas sort of "colonies" and keep claim on resources far away, but you need military support and road network to connect for it which takes some effort. It also gives a serious diplomatic penalty if there's another civs borders surrounding it because of a high penalty from "close borders spark tensions", so it's not without repercussions. Feels very realistic and immersive imo). Any plans to implement this feature?

    SCREENSHOT:
    Spoiler :

    upload_2017-7-29_18-6-35.png
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
  11. Lord Brooks

    Lord Brooks Big Noob

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    81
    Hi, I'm playing RI svn 5067 right now. I typically play on a huge or giant map with about 12-15 civs on monarch difficulty. It has to be said the way the mod is progressing is great. I love the city renaming, the extra research cost per city, the overall balance of the civs and their unique units/improvements/buildings etc. It's as well balanced as it's ever been.

    One thing that really, really winds me up though is the AI's constant, tiresome and ultimately futile wars. I've had several games recently that have just got bogged down early medieval era because several AI's, both weak and powerful take it upon themselves to trek half way across the planet to declare war on me when they have weaker or comparable strength AI empires on their doorstep that they would be better attacking. It ruins the realism for me.

    I understand the AI will declare war from time to time, but as an example they are trekking 30+ turns to declare war on me. My strength is comparable. My cities well garrisoned. There are weaker civs with other religions on their own borders. They have nothing to gain from this war, save the slight chance that they raze a city, which is highly unlikely give the size of my defensive army.

    Is there something I'm missing? I'm going out of my way to be friendly with some of them, gifting them money, resources, trading and agreeing to requests to close borders, declare war etc... yet there seems to be no method to stop them attacking seemingly randomly.

    It's got to the point where I would happily mod some files to lessen the chance of the AI declaring war on the player, is this something that can be done? I'm happy with everything else on monarch difficulty. I can keep pace at this level, any less and I run away with it, any more and I think I would break something in frustration.
     
  12. arizzi

    arizzi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Messages:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    I just played a game in which 3 ai declared war on me in the very early part of the game (just finished alphabet.) On monarch they begin with extra military units I assume this might be the reason they declare war. I really dont know how many units I have to stack in cities to let the ai know that it wont work. All they end up doing is camping on a nearby forested hill. The whole time I assume they are paying massive upkeep costs to maintain troops outside their borders, but they refuse cease fire unless I give up my city. After I got skirmishers I got rid of them, but then two civs attacked me consecutively with massive stacks of doom. I have at least 6 units per city, with 3 cities, which is a lot because I'm only at 50% science. The problem with ai declaring wars in faraway lands probably also contributes to this behavior because ai's will essentially consider the whole map a good target for invasion (even if it makes not sense.)
     
  13. Lord Brooks

    Lord Brooks Big Noob

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    81
    I've now got 6 AI's periodically declaring war. The big boys have joined in. The Berbers. They are slightly more advanced and have enormous stacks of doom. 40+ units on last attack. I have one city outside my fort wall, which has to be constantly stacked with 10 units plus and I have a stupidly promoted Mujahid/Elephant stack, led by Pyrrhus of Epirus that stalks the besieging enemy units.
     
  14. Jayman1000

    Jayman1000 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Messages:
    255
    In my Aztec game (currently at beginning of Renaissance) I have only had 1 civ attack me, and that was the Apache tribe early on in the Ancient age. I had previously declared war against Mayans which made all other civs (native american tribes) have -1 diplo penalty for "you attacked our friend!", so I don't know if Apache attacked me because I attacked the Mayans, the Apache wasn't strong enough to do anything to me yet they attacked. But I killed their units and continued to do so for many hundred years earning much slaves and xp and great generals. It took that long before I was finally big enough to field so many units that I could overwhelm their super strong Tribal Forts and force them to capitulate. And now their tiny tiny 1 pop cities entirely surrounded by my territory generate much commerce from trade routes in my cities :). But apart from that I have always been the one declaring the wars on the other tribes, but then again I have been stronger than them almost all the time, apart from a 40 turn period during early classical era where Incas had marginally more strength, ratio of 1.1 or something. During my middle age I met the Russian Empire when they came to the americas, they had way more strenght than me, like 0.4 strenght ratio, and they soon blackmailed me for 400 gold which I agreed upon. The next time they came they wanted 780 gold, which I rejected for a -2 diplo penalty. Ivan the Terrible of the Russians gave me some good advice here "You better start churning out them soldiers because you gonna need them real soon...!" or something like that. Although Russians was lodged away behind Europe and hardly would have been able to mount a serious invasion force anytime soon I decided to follow that advice anyway and steered my tech towards being able to do Feudal Aristocracy and Militancy. Around the time that I reached the techs for this and changed the civics and had just begun "churning out soldiers", mostly Quachiceh (foot knights) and Crusaders, Ivan of Russian Empire wanted me to change to Monarchy, his favourite civic. Considering my empire had grown over time I thought that Monarchy was probably going to be better than rebuplic anyway, and would go well with my Feudal Aristocracy and Militancy,so I changed, that pleased Ivan mightily I think, being his favorite civic and all. Ivan eventually came to like me alot because of our civic similarities, good trade relations and he is now friendly to me. It's been over 80 turns since I rejected to pay that tribute and I am trading 3 ressources with Russians, so our realtion seem kinda safe, although they still have that military superiority on a ratio of 0.4.

    In conclusion I haven't seen the AI as aggressively or suicidally attacking me from afar. But maybe playing as Aztecs is a special case because of all the tribes?

    About the lenght of the medevial era I actually think it is over way too soon. I only got to produce like 4 knights, and never had time to use them, before I had researched cavalry tactics(early Renaissance) which made knights obsolete with the Mounted Shooter unit. imo medieval period could do with some 5-7 additional techs or so.
     
  15. Lord Brooks

    Lord Brooks Big Noob

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    81
    Hi Jayman1000. It's slightly different on the world map as the Aztecs because of the relatively secluded nature of the new world. I've played a few games as Asian, Middle Eastern and European civs on the world map but not recently and there are a lot of wars in those theaters but they are much more localised in general, maybe in part down to the huge number of open borders agreements that the far flung the AI empires would need to attack you. I've certainly experienced the Japanese declare war on the French as an example but never seen a single battle. So the mechanic for pointless wars still exists on that map.
     
  16. arizzi

    arizzi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Messages:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    Its actually getting a bit ridiculous now, I basically have half the civs in the game declaring war on me, most of the time from the other side of the map. I actually go in worldbuilder now to delete their stack and have peace, and literally every other turn another civ declares war. Part of the problem is they are all at least pleased with each other. Its just incredibly frustrating that no matter how many units I build, nothing serves to deter this behavior. The ai is just incredibly aggressive. Is it possible that somehow the aggressive ai option is always turned on? (regardless of what options are checked)
     
  17. arizzi

    arizzi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Messages:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually Republic does not give +2 happiness from the get go without senate as you claim. Literally the only thing it gives you is +1 in the 8 largest cities and increased maintainence costs. Then another +1 comes with senate much later, along with the great person boost. Actually the maintenance cost is generally very hard felt. Usually will greatly reduce the percentage that you can allocate to research. Perhaps a -25 distance penalty or so would help alleviate that while still encouraging players to stay small.

    Despotism gives you -1 but with +2 bonus from barracks and walls. Also gives you a fantastic building that gives +1 happiness and culture early on (imperial cult/bixi). Later on also has plenty of other buildings that give you another +1 in combination with other civics. Overall even when I play small, I am better served by despotism. It furthermore gives military production bonus. (And an additional happiness bonus to barracks on top of the initial happiness bonus that barracks get anyway if you have a leader with imperialist trait.)

    I'll also add that I agree with above that maintaining troops outside your border should be more expensive. Failed military campaigns should be devastating. If I wipe out an entire invading force, there should be serious consequences back home. A larger aggressive civ will generally be able to replace armies extremely quickly. One potential measure could be a boost to war weariness. Perhaps war weariness could accumulate faster the larger your civ is. That should deter relentless war mongering that snowballs.

    Actually I had an idea that I really love. Why not tie military units to food production or population size. All those soldiers have to be fed after all. They could also be tied to population. Since the population levels are exponential (meaning that a size 8 city is orders of magnitude larger than a size 5 city), this could work well with the tall vs wide balance. Quite a few ways to implement this actually.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
  18. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    As far as I can tell most of this AI agressiveness comes from K-mod.
    And yeah, I agree with all of you, in some (many?) cases this results in most AI civs being way too agressive against the human player. Which mean many interesting and hard situations in the early game, but turns into an annoyance and a chore if/when you are much stronger than your enemies and they keep declaring suicide wars on you. It also ruins their economic/scientific progress, which is obviously the opposite of what was the original intention.

    I didn't play too much K-mod alone, mostly with it being integrated in other mods, so I can't really tell if it's a bigger problem in RI than it was otherwise, but the first part - more agressive AIs in the early game, making it harder for the player to survive initially, especially on higher levels - was definitely one of the main intentions of Karadoc.
    Coding wise this is very hard to improve, obviously - AI coding is the hardest thing IMO, at least if you want to do it on a level Karadoc did it, who spent years on improving it for K-mod. There are a huge number of interconnected things everywhere.
    Will try to improve on the situation if I can, probably with adding some very basic checks on later war declarations, but I'm a little afraid to get into deeper sections of these parts of the code (and unintentionally messing with some other important aspects), so no promises.
     
  19. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Actually I added a solution for this in a little different approach, but it's not yet perfect.
    Your culture on islands automatically connect resources, but only if they are small enough.
    A short conversations why it was implemented this way begins with this post:
    https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/realism-invictus.411799/page-310#post-14772846
     
  20. Jayman1000

    Jayman1000 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Messages:
    255
    That is great to hear, I like that solution and also only with islands size<=3, that sounds pretty appropriate too :)

    How about building forts in no-mans land and then the tile with the fort becomes your cultural territory? Resource on the plot will be added to trade network provided there is a road connection (road connection through no mans land included, so that you can claim resources far away).. Caveman2Cosmos have this and I really love it. I also find it very realistic to be able to build a fort that you continue to own (provided you station military unit there or else have high risk of the fort "revolting" and joining rival civ that has higher cultural influence there), such that rival cultural territory encircling the fort tile doesn't just magically consume the tile. Sort of like a small colony fort that have to be taken by force if the owning civ refuses to relinquish it peacefully. This would included forts near cities the enemy conquered: forts would stay your territory if you still have units in them so enemy would have the choice to take them out too or just leave them to be dealt with later.. Would this be hard to implement?
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2017

Share This Page