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:
    73
    Walter since you asked what we would like to change then here is my list:

    1. i would like to see change to doctrines mechanic, it is strange that units have skills from doctrines until they die, and that skills don't became obsolete. In ma games many units have Trained archers skills in modern era, Battleships with superior seamanship etc. I think that doctrines should give every unit a special skill as long as doctrine is build, and that skill should disappear when doctrine will go obsolete. Same goes to traditions, but tradition skill would go away when unit is upgraded to other type (no more "fierce warrior" gunpowder units) and should gain traditions that are available to that unit type. In example: you upgrade archer to arquebusier then that unit lose archery skills and gain "strict soldiering" skill. In short, in my opinion skills from doctrines and traditions should be given to every unit that can have them for as long as doctrine or tradition is not obsolete and unit is appropriate unit type. No experience is needed to buy these skills, and units previously build should also benefit from doctrine/tradition.

    2. it always annoys me that, sometimes i cant give cities to ma vassals. I would like to have an option to give any city to ma vassal, not by liberation, but also via trade, just like i can give cities to non vassal civilizations.

    3. I would like to see stronger nukes, if city have population 4 or less and no shelter, then that city should be razed when icbm hits it.
     
  2. plasmacannon

    plasmacannon Emperor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
    I've noticed that some of the traits become less useful later as the buildings they construct faster are already built or built by national wonders. Have you considered adding a small bonus to one of their buildings to help make them more relevant?
    Such as Creative gaining +1 commerce on their Theaters or Seafaring gaining +1 production on their lighthouses.

    pioswa, I agree. Some kind of "Upgrade" option should be available to all units.
    If I build an archer, then later gain archer culture, why can't I send all archers to go get trained?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  3. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    You want to buff two of the best traits in the game? :)

    On a serious note though. On the one hand making traits useful both in earlygame and lategame is good - the games are long. On the other hand there is this thing - power creep. And it hits hard if you forget about it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  4. plasmacannon

    plasmacannon Emperor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
    I've noticed that I tend to look for leaders with Legislator, Administrator, Progressive, maybe Spiritual on the slowest speed games or in pursuit of a religion. Protective has been fun on raging barbarians.
    I want to use the ones that I rarely use also.
    Maybe, Humanist grants +1 prod to hospitals. Militaristic +1 commerce to Arsenals.
     
  5. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    You also have to remember that early game usefulness translates to better position in the late game, even if the actual effects are no longer useful by then.

    Now that we're speaking traits... Am I missing something when I consider Humanist lackluster? Maybe it's simply because I no longer -- or very rarely -- use great people for golden ages, but settle them whenever there are no works to use them on. Humanist gets +1C on the city plot, which is pretty good, but nothing compared to legislators +1P or expansionists +1F. It gets some building construction bonuses -- it really shines if you use free religion and have 3+ of them in your cities, that is true. (Part of my strategy recently with settling great people is trying to go for the religion whose military wonder grants the specialist buff to the relevant great person -- that is if I get great merchants a lot, I'll aim for Islam; with great engineers, I'll try for Solar Cult* -- so I tend to stick to my religion on top of everything else.) The AI uses golden ages a lot, I think, so this might not be so evident if you look at their performance against other AIs. Anyway, do any of you feel the same about Humanism, or is it simply my way of playing that leads to my undervaluing it?

    *) I also started settling great engineers instead of building immediate wonders with them! It works, at least up to standard size maps(**), on Monarch, with an occasional Emperor game. The production and science bonuses pay off later, and with the increased production, you'll eventually run more specialists in the city, thus compensating for the lost GPP if happen to lose in the wonder race.

    **) My computer is from... 2005 I think... So while I certainly can play larger maps, and occasionally dabble in huge world map, it takes tremendous patience to do so. Several minutes between the turns once you're mid-renaissance.
     
  6. plasmacannon

    plasmacannon Emperor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
    I am not a fan of Humanists either. Since Golden Ages require an ever increasing number of Great People, I don't feel like saving them up to spend say 4 GP on a golden age.
    On Great Engineers, I spend them on Great Wonders. One on the Great Lighthouse to establish my Great Merchant city.
    Another on the Hanging Gardens to increase the GE rate. Another on the Great Library to establish my Great Scientist city. Another on The Great Wall and Art of War for my Great Spy city.
    Some of these Great Wonders such as the Great Lighthouse and Art of War have no material that will speed up construction.
    So the 900 production from a Great Engineer towards the 1200 prod cost for the Art of War goes a long way.
    So to me, the benefits of the wonders plus their +2 GPP out weigh the small bonus over a long period of time gained by settling the Great person. This has been a debate on several threads over the years. As personal preference, curiosity, fun on that specific game, and type of game (Single player or Multi-player), all have to be taken into account. I really think it's up to the player as what they want in each specific game.
    I play on Emperor also.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  7. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    A pair of bugs in the new World Builder.
    1) Whenever I change plots or even enter Plot Data menu I get this message: "Error in WidgetUtil callback handler getWidgetHelp".
    2) These two menus sometimes don't work - when I select a feature or an improvement another one is placed on a map.
    Spoiler :
     
  8. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    London, UK
    You're comparing improvements when you should be comparing improved tiles. Yes, Lovischche gives the tile it improves more bonuses, but since the tile itself is a basic forest, it still ends up being worse than a regular pasture, much less ranch - and from quite early on even worse than a regular farm that you could build on the same tile (yes, farms only produce food, but food translates into specialists that provide the kind of yields you need - or into another pop that works another tile). I agree with your assessment of England's improvement being among the least useful, unfortunately, but Americans have a better improvement on a tile that will likely worked by the first pop in almost any city (even regular pastures are usually the first tiles to be worked).

    As far as islands are concerned, I actually saw a lot of variety in their quantity between different map scripts. Some of them also use islands to improve starting locations of civs, meaning Japan often starts with 3-4 islands in their capital. On some scripts, though, I agree there isn't enough of them.

    I feel bad for saying this after the recent leader pack, but no, no new leaders are planned anymore. One notable thing, though, is that a leader's inclination towards espionage is independent of actual bonuses, and for example Churchill's AI is already told to care more about espionage. It is just that AI variables are invisible to players.

    Yes, I see what you mean. But how would you approach that. There is bad terrain and there is good terrain - this was true for all parts of Civ games. What advantages would you give to jungle to balance that out? This is a serious question, because I am well aware that starting location means a lot more in Civ 4 in general than I'd like it to. I made some steps to counter aspects of it in the past, such as introducing craftsmen, giving "flat" cities a chance to be reasonably productive. Jungle and tundra starts are basically a game lost or at least a +1 difficulty level as it is now, but I see no good way of addressing this yet.

    Yes, again I see your point here very well. They have a very dominant and rather tedious playstyle, so I also don't particularly like the way they play feels myself.

    The "if it doesn't disrupt the world maps, we're not going to bother" thing is definitely untrue. I very specifically said in the past that the core mechanics are balanced against random maps, not world maps. As for "not accounting for all possible settings", I'd be very happy if we could at least have the default settings polished and highly playable - and then we could build up from there. I don't consider what we have now a finished and balanced version yet. :)

    I didn't miss this. This is not only AI, but also diplomatic AI, and when I see those two words in one sentence, I tend to freeze with horror and quickly ignore what I saw. :D

    I really have no ability of influencing that myself. Maybe, maybe someone code-savvy could give it a shot.

    Generally most of this is already implemented. But I will disagree on combating more confidently: epidemics were very specifically created exactly as growth limiters. This is their intended gameplay purpose.

    Well, again, I will think about it, but it is very hard to buff without making them overpowered.

    Visual clutter. Even one new map size creates confusion in players. I saw people who selected it specifically because it said (Do not select!). They saw it as a challenge to them. :lol:

    Fixed.
    Fixed.

    This is quite hard to do from technical point, at least to me. Current doctrine system was specifically designed ages ago to work well with current Civ 4 engine. It theoretically can be ported to vanilla Civ 4 without any adjustment needed. Things you suggest require modifications that probably aren't hard to skilled coders, but definitely are to me.

    Again, diplomatic AI. Not even sure it isn't hardcoded in the exe.

    I would actually argue against that. We have no real precedent for this; the two cities that have been bombed IRL are already back to functioning normally a long time ago. Even something as drastic as (non-nuclear) bombing of Dresden that left no stones standing in the city didn't destroy it completely, as we see now. I'd say it is impossible to outright destroy a city via bombing, even nuclear.

    As others pointed out, early game usefulness is much more valuable than late game usefulness, and thus a guaranteed early bonus (as in case of Creative, for example) is in my eyes very valuable even if it isn't very large.
    Oh god yes. I am actually frustrated by how much power creep we already managed to let into RI. Hence the questioning part - I am trying to balance out some of the worst offenders on both sides of the power curve.

    I was always kind of divided on Humanist. On one hand, it has a nice passive effect that is rather useful early on (though as others pointed out, maybe not as useful as some others), but on the other hand, it just doesn't translate into any particular playstyle, like most other traits do. It feels amorphous. I'll think about it.

    Well, World Builder is essentially a third party component, so these might be either inherent to it (in which case I will likely not be able to fix them) or could result from me clumsily integrating it. I will have a look.
     
  9. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    The latest SVN updates have me in awe. New leaders even though none were promised, and a new negative trait! Poor Commander feels awesomely and elegantly implemented (based on the description, at least, haven't had a chance to test it yet) and the same tech (as in code-tech) that enabled it has fixed Temperamental and Idealistic as well. Nice! :D
     
  10. OrlindaT

    OrlindaT Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    I'm having problems to defeat tribal forts with my early gunpowder units




    Why I don't get a bonuses of 50% for attacking a tribal fort with a gunpowder unit?
    also, this unit is being treated as an archer and I'm getting a -50% modifier.

    is this supposed to happen?

    sorry for my grammar mistakes, english is not my native language.
     
  11. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    First of all, you're doing it wrong.
    1) Japanese civ has a super-duper powerful city attacker of that era - Wako. It cracks tribal forts just like that.
    2) When you attack something powerful try to have all possible aids at the third level.
    3) When you attack a small number of powerful units bring cheap "suiciders" along. They will most certainly not kill them but injure enough to kill with your powerful attackers.

    Second, this is how the civ engine works. Unfortunately I don't have the link explaining it in details (this quirk has to do with the fact that tribal fort has more chances to win) but what you see is calculated correctly).
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
    OrlindaT likes this.
  12. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    Also, you are getting the bonuses correctly. It's just that the odds table is often rather difficult to read. See, the tribal fort is an archer, and you are getting a 50% bonus for attacking an archer. It just shows it rather confusingly among the forts bonuses (in red), but if you look closely, it has a minus sign in front of it, while the city's defense bonus 5 is shown next to it with a plus sign.

    Honestly I can't always follow the logic on what bonuses get put in which column either.
     
    OrlindaT likes this.
  13. OrlindaT

    OrlindaT Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    Thank you both of you.

    I thought that arquebusiers would be rather than sufficient to attack a tribal fort, so I rushed to discover the gunpowder without thinking too much about assembling a good army.

    I also misread the odds, sorry about that. I have not played civilization for 2 years so I forgot several things.


    Thanks again.
     
  14. Goetz53

    Goetz53 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    France
    Hi Walter,

    I am playing SVN version 5085 and just ran into a small bug, maybe. After finding Bauxit, in the industrial era I changed the town on the tile where bauxit appeared into a mine. But hovering with the cursor over the tile shows me on the tile information the message that I still have to build a mine to get the bonus of the plot even though I already got more production on the plot because of the mine. Aditionally the message indicates that I have to build Rocket Science to obtain aluminium, but according to the science tree it is Hydroelectricity what allows me to build aluminium refinery and obtain aluminium. I add a screenshot ...
    Thank you for this fantastic mod !:)
     
  15. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    London, UK
    It's not exactly a bug, more sort of a counterintuitive thing. You see, there are separate techs in Civ 4 XML that determine when a resource is revealed and when a resource becomes available for cities to work with. For bauxites, Rocket Science is the latter. I guess I'll actually change this one to Hydroelectricity to avoid those confusing situations...
     
  16. Ahnarras

    Ahnarras Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    99
    Hello RI team !

    I took the week-end to play a little, and i had a great time thanks to you, so thanks you once again !

    I didn't go very far in only 2 days, but i have a few feedback thay may be useful. As always, i was on the huge world map, playing ramses. Maybe one day i will be able to finish a game, but this time i stopped at late classical era, after winning my war against Carthage and razing their main city.

    So :

    1) I spotted that the 2 warriors that egyptian have at the beginning of the game still have enough XP to gain a promotion. Is it intended, or a relic from the time where ramses was militaristic ?

    2) The whole "renaming city according to your leader" is awesome, i really like it. But it do also apply when conquering a city from another civ. My concern is that you can no longer guess if a city was founded by a civ or captured from a rival civ. It's not really important, but i always found it funny when exploring the old europa to see french cities with italien name and imagining the war that raged here before i come.

    3) Walter, you said a bit earlier that epidemics are intended to slow city growth. They do. In fact, they do it so much that i never have to bother with hapiness in my games anymore. I don't have hapiness ressource either, but the few bonus you can have in normal building or civic is usually enough to keep me going to 8-9pop cities, and at this point they will usually have a plague. Maybe it's because i have a bit too much flood plains in egypt, or just because i play at prince and have more base hapiness that most of you playing on higher diff, but i would like to have to worry about hapiness a bit more (the mob justice is a cool building with an interesting malus, it's a shame i never have to make the choice to take it anymore). It's just an idea, and I'm not even sure if it's possible, but maybe you could make the same base hapiness / health for all difficulty lvl ?

    4) Let's speak about diplomaty. And AI. Here, i said it :p
    Seriously tough, i now that religion was a huge factor for war in history, but isn't it a bit too much ? In most game i make, it seems to be the number 1 factor, totally crushing everything else. Trade give +1, peace give +1, a random event do +1 and.... i got a -8 because of religion. I know that first thing that come to mind when speacking about religion and diplomaty are hard time like the crusades, but there were also places where different religions coexisted with less trouble. Maybe this factor could be tune down a bit, so you have to worry about more aspect of diplomaty except of just choosing the right religion ?

    5) Still on the diplomatic side, i noticed that the peace treaty still run 10 rounds. It was good in vanilla where you could build a bunch of units in that time, but with the low speed of RI, specially on huge maps, you have barely time to make 1, maybe 2 units (not even speacking about moving them) and boom, war again. Could it be possible that the duration of the peace treaty is longer on big map size and/or realistic or slower speed ?

    6) Was i really lucky recently, or is the % of discovering silver in normal mine a bit high ? I seems to always have one easily in my games, and i find it a bit bothersome. Why worry to build a city in the artic frozenwaste for that precious silver, when you know that your miner will find it eventually...

    7) Last one for this time, i noticed that AI tend to agree really fast on free passage. When it was only a matter of mouvement, it was normal, but now it also affect research. Wouldn't it make sense to have AI a bit more difficult to persuade to let you take a portion of their research ? Specially on map with many civ, i tend to have everything in blue really fast.

    As always, sorry for my english if there are mistakes, and i hope it helps. Thanks again for your work !
     
  17. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    113
    They are far more than a +1 difficulty level. If I start in a bunch of jungle, odds are I have no improvable resources until I research Aqueduct. Meanwhile, my neighbor has two Cattle tiles. Solution: Exit to Main Menu.

    It's also worse when playing random maps on the largest setting on and high difficulties: Generating a map takes 3-4 minutes, and since the difficulty level is designed to throw you into one of the worse starting positions, there's a good chance that you'll have to restart due to unplayability. Starting a proper game takes a good 45 minutes to an hour before finding a reasonable starting location.

    How to balance it? First off, don't make something a game ender for some if you can't make it a game ender for all. As I see it, that's game design 101. The health system in the game is balanced in regards to the civilizations that are in the best health positions, and as such it's become unplayable for civs with poorer health positions. To me, that means the system is broken and needs to be removed.

    Now yes, I understand that there's good terrain and bad terrain, and that it's been a part of most civ games (I would argue it wasn't in Civ V, to its credit). With that setup, there should just be no players spawning in the bad terrain. It's that simple. If a terrain isn't playable until late game, civs shouldn't be forced to play there in the early game.

    Beyond that, the "good terrain/bad terrain" setup was never good game design. Good game design is about providing players with a choice. If I made a bad choice and that cost me the game, I can live with that. If RNG decided to put me in a losing position independent of my choices, then I'm frustrated at the game, and rightfully so. So starting in unhealthy situations should require the players to make different choices then they would if they started elsewhere. It should just require a different strategy. Right now that's not the case, because there is no jungle strategy: the civ just has it harder than other civs, and there's no choice to be made that can balance that out.

    So, my suggestion at the moment is to just make it so that new civs aren't thrown into unhealthiness on turn 0. That would alleviate 95% of the problems. Maybe that means removing the health penalties from a year ago, maybe that means preventing the turn 0 spawn point from being jungle/swamp infested.




    Fair enough.



    I decided to boot up RI and play it for a few days, then return here with a better defined list of things I think need improvement, and hopefully, practical suggestions to improve them as well.
     
  18. plasmacannon

    plasmacannon Emperor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
    Something I noticed that is similar to Y's post,
    I have had instances where I settle a new city and it is immediately unhappy and unhealthy. Not because of jungle or flood plains, but due to the increases in eras. Making those buildings the first things one must build. :(

    Another annoyance are captured cities, where the population is so angry that they rather starve themselves to death than work a food tile resulting eventually a 1 tile city, sometimes losing 12 pop or more. Usually buildings can't be built fast enough with the limited pop. They could be purchased, but only for an enormous amount of gold.

    There are several Great people that are missing backgrounds.
     
  19. pioswa

    pioswa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    But you can raze city when you conquer it, i think that in modern times there is no precedent for that either. I see it that way, if conventional force can raze i city then nuclear blast should do it to if city is small enough, but i still see your point and i think it is valid, but i must add that if nukes will not raze a city they should destroy most of the buildings, even one nuke should be devastating, because taking a city with no defenses do more damage to city then nuke, which is weird in my opinion.
    When you mention Dresden i remembered another thing that i miss in Civ 4, bombardment should destroy infrastructure (buildings) and kill population. In civ 3, air or naval force could do some serious damage to other civilization. In civ 4, 5 (maybe 6 i didn't played it) , if you don't invade a city with land units then enemy cities are perfectly safe, yes you could block city and bomb improvements, but by the time you will have planes, enemy have so many workers that rebuilding improvements will take i few turns. But if bombardment would destroy buildings and kill pop then that will hurt! If it is possible, then that would be awesome to have it in RI.
     
  20. zoob

    zoob Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    58
    Location:
    Munich
    Just a small input from my last game:

    Gameplay wise I think River Port (enabled with Seafaring giving +1 trade route) should cost less than Harbor which (right now) costs and gives exact the same.

    I experience me building River Port very rarely in early game, just because it is so weak for it's hammers. Or maybe there are more important tasks to do :)
    Harbor comes way later and imo it's hammers fit for cities in that era.
     

Share This Page