Realism Invictus

[Slaughter]

Hey, I have been playing this mod. Started with the HUGE world map, but I realized my computer can't take it. So I'm now playing with the large map.
Some thoughts:
- Why we can't choose all leaders of our civs in the World Maps? There is only one leader, despite these civs having multiple leaders in normal games.

- Any chance we get Portuguese civilization as playable? I wanted to go Portugal and colonize stuff, but could't.

- Can you do anything to spice up diplomacy? I would suggest enabling alliances, I don't know why Civilization from III onwards thought it was clever to stop you from making alliances for most of the game. Diplomacy is so basic, its mostly getting Open Borders treaties, getting other civilizations to convert to your religion, and getting constant nagging to stop dealing with their enemies, being asked to join in wars against people on the other side of the world, or random dudes asking for my lunch money... from the other side of the world.

- Been playing as Austronesians. Love how diverse the game is, and how unique every civilization is. I'm simply loving my cool uniquely austronesian units and improvements. Right now I just managed to take over Papua after a hard-fought fight (those tribal forts are hard to kill!), but that and settling a few new cities left me without bank, so right now I'm preparing to consolide my new expansions.

- Planning to invade the Melanesians thanks to my new cultural expansion allowing me to navigate some ocean, but first I need some more cash in the bank. Also, Japan did pretty well and has colonized a few islands in the way, and is pretty close to me and we're not seeing face to face. I think a war will break out eventually.

- Are tribal forts in the wild supposed to go away once Cultural Borders reach them?

- Khmer always sucks in my games, I think its because they start close to a lot of barbarian cities and that results in tons of Savages on top of them. Then some civ attacks them.

- Any chance to make Barbarians advance and use something stronger than Savages unit? That could make fighting them more interesting.

- I'm in the top leagues, but the biggest civ right now is Russia - they are steamrolling Siberia and are now like twice as strong as everyone else. So far, Babylonians and Turks bit it. I'm kind of hoping the

- Nitpick: Zoroastrism has no Monastic tradition, so Zoroastrian monks, Zoroastrian monasteries and Zoroastrian Monastic Civic make no sense. Zoroastrism sees no value in renouncing the world, or becoming a monk, and no value in asceticism.

Note: Its just me, or Graphics Paging actually makes MAFs happen more often? I activated it and it got horrible, then I deactivated it and no longer getting MAFs.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Hey everyone! I'm moving to a different country starting from tomorrow, so expect updates from me to become much more sporadic. Also, until my desktop PC catches up with me (could be a while), there will likely be no new SVN updates.

- Why we can't choose all leaders of our civs in the World Maps? There is only one leader, despite these civs having multiple leaders in normal games.

Engine limitation. No malicious intent on our side.

- Any chance we get Portuguese civilization as playable? I wanted to go Portugal and colonize stuff, but could't.

Not planned. If you want to play as them very much, you can edit the scenario file to make them playable. But they are not a proper civ in RI, so you'll find the experience lacking.

- Can you do anything to spice up diplomacy? I would suggest enabling alliances, I don't know why Civilization from III onwards thought it was clever to stop you from making alliances for most of the game. Diplomacy is so basic, its mostly getting Open Borders treaties, getting other civilizations to convert to your religion, and getting constant nagging to stop dealing with their enemies, being asked to join in wars against people on the other side of the world, or random dudes asking for my lunch money... from the other side of the world.

Not really. Tried adding in alliances, made stuff worse. Turned them back off again. AI is not dynamic enough to juggle alliances according to their best interests, so it only results in more dogpiling.

- Are tribal forts in the wild supposed to go away once Cultural Borders reach them?

Yeah, you have no open borders with whoever they belong to.

- Khmer always sucks in my games, I think its because they start close to a lot of barbarian cities and that results in tons of Savages on top of them. Then some civ attacks them.

They are supposed to suck. They are not a full civ, so they are basically destined to hold the ground until someone major eats them.

- Any chance to make Barbarians advance and use something stronger than Savages unit? That could make fighting them more interesting.

They do. At least on random maps. They may be somewhat stunted on World maps...

- Nitpick: Zoroastrism has no Monastic tradition, so Zoroastrian monks, Zoroastrian monasteries and Zoroastrian Monastic Civic make no sense. Zoroastrism sees no value in renouncing the world, or becoming a monk, and no value in asceticism.

And Judaism is not a missionary religion, so they aren't supposed to have missionaries. Gameplay over realism here.

Note: Its just me, or Graphics Paging actually makes MAFs happen more often? I activated it and it got horrible, then I deactivated it and no longer getting MAFs.

It helps some people, it makes stuff worse for some people. Hence it can be turned on or off.

 

[arythm1a]

Thanks for the comments!

1) You are certainly right about Jerusalem, and Roman civ as a whole is set to call it "Aelia Capitolina". In case of Justinian it was a wrongly included line which made civ-wide setting not affect him in particular. Fixed it.
2) Already fixed the bowman case even before you commented (though post-3.4). Name changed to a more neutral-sounding (though not Ptolemaic as they are supposed to persist well into Medieval era) and they even got a new cool pre-Medieval Ptolemaic look that changes to the current one at the era switches to Medieval.

Very happy to have been of assistance! Even happier when the small complaints I had have already been noticed and taken care of, even exceeding my expectations.

You might have answered the question before, but what was the reason behind which BtS civs were kept in the mod and which were not? Removing things like Holy Rome and the Native Americans is natural, of course, and i see your reasoning as to why Byzantium is covered by Greece and Rome (although it pains me as a huge Byzantium-lover), but what was the reason for the removal of the Portuguese, for example? Especially when contrasted with the addition of some civs like the Hungarians. I also wonder about why Khmer was removed, since Indochina seems to be really lacking representation in this mod.

Thanks!

 

[Rynian]

This mod is my favorite way to experience Civ. Its more sim than any of the others, but more arcade than paradox games. Its perfect. thank you so much for all the effort you put in.

I did run into an issue where my pc crashed early in the crusades as france took my city, but other than that I haven't crashed. It may have been the huge map size.

Also it is hard, even on noble its rough. Playing Large Earth, I have a good mix, and a large army and it still killed most of my units taking a couple of Egypt's settlements. (As Arabs, I had roughly 12 calv, then like 6 catapults mixed with about 6 -8 infantry for sieges.) I had to peace out, then immediately Ethiopia's boarders ate Cairo's farms so it starved, then the neighboring city rebelled and went to Carthage.harsh, but I guess there was stuff I could've done better... and the spy mechanic is a bit rough when you have so many AI, its impossible to tell who to counterespionoge when every few turns a random spy poisons the water. fudging Jeruselum kept changing my religion.

It is a bit much for a spy to be able to entirely switch your civ's state religion. That seems a bit unfeasable. Mess with the majority religion yes, but switch the state religion? How would a spy even do that?

I'd love to play an online game of this with someone, its so fudging rad.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Very happy to have been of assistance! Even happier when the small complaints I had have already been noticed and taken care of, even exceeding my expectations.

You might have answered the question before, but what was the reason behind which BtS civs were kept in the mod and which were not? Removing things like Holy Rome and the Native Americans is natural, of course, and i see your reasoning as to why Byzantium is covered by Greece and Rome (although it pains me as a huge Byzantium-lover), but what was the reason for the removal of the Portuguese, for example? Especially when contrasted with the addition of some civs like the Hungarians. I also wonder about why Khmer was removed, since Indochina seems to be really lacking representation in this mod.

Thanks!

Actually it was the other way around with civ additions.
The earliest version of the mod was started with vanilla Civ IV.
Since civs in RI quickly became way more detailed (unit roster and the connected civ-specific things, unit art, leaders, great people, naming, etc.) than vanilla CIV, new civs introduced in Warlords and later in BtS were not added by default. A new civ requires a huge amount of work, with lots of unique art (which is often the bottle-neck with new civs).

I wasn't in the mod team back then, but AFAIK:
All civs after the initial 18 were added on a per civ basis, carefully picked one-by-one.
For choosing which civ to include, their appearance in Warlords or BtS was only a minor thing to consider.

We had some talks with Walter about potential new civs, and we agree that a civ from SE Asia is the most important.
If we add a new civ, it would probably be from that area. It's not very likely though.
Before we even start thinking about it, I have to finish all the countless coding improvements I have started on in the past year...

 

[Slaughter]

Been playing more of this mod. Romans now. Large world-map. Already conquered a good chunk of Europe. Preparing to conquer the rest of the historical roman land while eeying the approach of the South Chinese Empire (currently in Persia) with caution.

Pretty great! Love all the unique units and buildings.

I think all the added realism makes me think playing this on the World Map is the way to go. Like that guy earlier on said, this mod has something of a Paradox sauce to Civ, but more of Civ's arcadeness.

I also appreciate the way combat works. The soft unit stacking caps remind me of some old ideas I used to post on RPGCodex, and the Support System is pretty cool and leads to stack diversity being the way to go. Just easily took Babylon by making mixed Imperial Legionary, Velite and Ballista stacks. Now I'm planning on adding cavalry to the mix for my conquest of Judea and Mali-occupied Egypt.

Question to everyone: How you guys have been managing slavery and serfdom civics, more exactly, dealing with the slave/serf uprisings? So far what I found best was to have a lot of Currus/Cathaphracts in strategic places, and then run down the slaves with massed chariots and horsemen. Also, filling all my cities with bowmen and every single fortification, and Romans are good in that regard.

Something else: Its just me or some AIs love razing more? I think I saw Frederick and Ragnar raze a load of cities, maybe Atilla too.
I actually expanded a lot on settling former rival land that got razed.

Nitpick: When I took Babylon, it was renamed to Baghdad. Is that correct?

Question: Has anyone managed to run the huge world map with no serious problems? What's your specs?

Engine limitation. No malicious intent on our side.

Ah, what a pity.

Not planned. If you want to play as them very much, you can edit the scenario file to make them playable. But they are not a proper civ in RI, so you'll find the experience lacking.

Pity! Portugal rocks! I hope you guys can get it added one day.

Not really. Tried adding in alliances, made stuff worse. Turned them back off again. AI is not dynamic enough to juggle alliances according to their best interests, so it only results in more dogpiling.

Oh, informative.
I'm sure you know more than me, but: Have you tried making distant civilizations like each other more, while neighbors have harsher diplomatic penalties? The AI seems to love waging war against distant civilizations on the other side of the map, while ignoring their own neighbors. I saw the Greeks invade China once (World Map lol).

They are supposed to suck. They are not a full civ, so they are basically destined to hold the ground until someone major eats them.

Ah, I get it. That's what happens in my experience.

And Judaism is not a missionary religion, so they aren't supposed to have missionaries. Gameplay over realism here.

Actually I think Judaism has been missionary at some points.
But still, could be an interesting way to add some alternate gameplay - no Monasticism for Zoroastrians, but with something else given in exchange.

We had some talks with Walter about potential new civs, and we agree that a civ from SE Asia is the most important.
If we add a new civ, it would probably be from that area. It's not very likely though.

Khmer as full civ, or a more general Indochinese civilization?

 

[arythm1a]

Some more opinions on city names: As Seleucus I Nicator I settle Jerusalem (should be Hierousalem/Hierosolyma) and also Antioch (should be Antiocheia/Antiokheia).

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I think all the added realism makes me think playing this on the World Map is the way to go. Like that guy earlier on said, this mod has something of a Paradox sauce to Civ, but more of Civ's arcadeness.

I must admit, I myself prefer playing on random maps, so world maps are at this stage more of a side show in terms of development efforts. Though of course they are pretty much working as intended already.

Question to everyone: How you guys have been managing slavery and serfdom civics, more exactly, dealing with the slave/serf uprisings? So far what I found best was to have a lot of Currus/Cathaphracts in strategic places, and then run down the slaves with massed chariots and horsemen. Also, filling all my cities with bowmen and every single fortification, and Romans are good in that regard.

I prefer sitting them out in cities; used to do cavalry stacks in earlier versions when they spawned alone. Post-3.4 I actually tweaked them to always go for cities, as having random pillaging units spawn in your territory was very annoying.

Something else: Its just me or some AIs love razing more? I think I saw Frederick and Ragnar raze a load of cities, maybe Atilla too.
I actually expanded a lot on settling former rival land that got razed.

A part of K-Mod is a remake of how AI decides to keep cities. In general, it is a multi-factor calculation based on culture, religion, and lots of other stuff. It may be overly harsh at times, but generally it should make sense. In 3.4 and onwards, I've yet to see AI being too raze-happy.

Nitpick: When I took Babylon, it was renamed to Baghdad. Is that correct?

Yeah. Babylon/Ctesiphon/Seleukia/Baghdad are all technically on the same tile in Civ 4 scale, so despite them being not exactly the same city, I've decided to roll all their names into one. Though when it comes to Roman civ, the Classical Roman leaders should probably use Ctesiphon as their flavor name. Will change.

Ah, what a pity.

If you want to use a particular leader in the World Map yourself, you can do a simple manual edit of the scenario file. Just look up the leader tag in CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml, and replace it in the scenario, opening it as a plain text file with pretty much anything (I prefer Notepad++).

I'm sure you know more than me, but: Have you tried making distant civilizations like each other more, while neighbors have harsher diplomatic penalties? The AI seems to love waging war against distant civilizations on the other side of the map, while ignoring their own neighbors. I saw the Greeks invade China once (World Map lol).

Yeah, that would be nice to have, unfortunately it is also very hard to code (or so I'm led to believe, I'm not the main coder guy myself). In general, it would be cool to have more dynamic diplomatic modifiers, but alas.

But still, could be an interesting way to add some alternate gameplay - no Monasticism for Zoroastrians, but with something else given in exchange.

Again, an engine limitation (that could probably be overcome with some prolific coding) - we can't disallow a certain civic to a certain religion. As for the building, perhaps it should just be renamed from Monastery to, say, Pir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pir_(Zoroastrianism)).

Some more opinions on city names: As Seleucus I Nicator I settle Jerusalem (should be Hierousalem/Hierosolyma) and also Antioch (should be Antiocheia/Antiokheia).

I generally avoid Greek-specific spellings, as they just evolved to Latin ones in Roman times, and these generally sound more familiar to people. I could supply them all with Greek spelling variants, but in general they would be Hellenized-sounding versions of default names. And there would be a ton of them, as Greeks were everywhere. I just feel too lazy to do that, but who knows, maybe one day...

 

[arythm1a]

I generally avoid Greek-specific spellings, as they just evolved to Latin ones in Roman times, and these generally sound more familiar to people. I could supply them all with Greek spelling variants, but in general they would be Hellenized-sounding versions of default names. And there would be a ton of them, as Greeks were everywhere. I just feel too lazy to do that, but who knows, maybe one day...

Well Jerusalem is neither Greek not Roman! And does familiarity really matter though? I for one really enjoy seeing new cities i don't recognise, looking them up and learning something new! I would be most willing to go over the city names of some of the Hellen leaders, like Seleucus, Ptolemaios, Demetrius and the Greeks, as I am very interested in the time period.

Also another question: how come the Arab UUs have such generic sounding names? To me just a literal translation (wikipedia says Tulaya mutaharikkah) would sound a lot better, especially considering the work that went into diversifying the standard units.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Well Jerusalem is neither Greek not Roman! And does familiarity really matter though? I for one really enjoy seeing new cities i don't recognise, looking them up and learning something new! I would be most willing to go over the city names of some of the Hellen leaders, like Seleucus, Ptolemaios, Demetrius and the Greeks, as I am very interested in the time period.

Ierusalem/Jerusalem is indeed the Latin name for the city, the one used in Latin bible translation. Hebrew would be Yerushalaim. But in general, as I said, the Greek variants mostly come down to me not having enough time to implement them all. It would actually be a tremendous help if someone enthusiastic enough were to compile a list of alternative names to be added - still would take me quite an effort to actually add, but would shave a decent amount of time off of it.

Also another question: how come the Arab UUs have such generic sounding names? To me just a literal translation (wikipedia says Tulaya mutaharikkah) would sound a lot better, especially considering the work that went into diversifying the standard units.

In general, there are two schools of thought in naming units, which are, alas, used inconsistently throughout RI: either use local names, or common English names. I know it may be a mess, but actually I don't even know which way would be better, as I've heard complaints from players that local-sounding names tell them nothing about the unit, and thus unnecessarily complicate the game, as they have to look everything up.

 

[AbuHab]

I'm playing my first game of RI, so please excuse my ignorance. I'm wondering why Storyteller Circle is limited to 3 buildings. It doesn't seem powerful enough to warrant a limitation. In fact, it seems like a very weak building--at least at my early stage of the game (3595 BC)--giving only 1 culture and 2 beakers for an investment of 90 hammers. What am I missing?

 

[Shuikkanen]

I'm playing my first game of RI, so please excuse my ignorance. I'm wondering why Storyteller Circle is limited to 3 buildings. It doesn't seem powerful enough to warrant a limitation. In fact, it seems like a very weak building--at least at my early stage of the game (3595 BC)--giving only 1 culture and 2 beakers for an investment of 90 hammers. What am I missing?

Well, it is in fact one of the most powerful buildings in the game... for the early game.
So is Weaver's Shop, a building that is also limited and which produces only 1 gold. The thing is that in the early game money is at a premium as soon as you expand even a little -- much more so than what you would be used to from the regular game -- and you will likely have to use the sliders to lower the science rate. In the early game science is generated from your cities' commerce because you can't run specialists yet, and just like in regular civ4, the science slider determines the percentage of how much of that commerce is converted into science and how much into gold. However, the storyteller circle produces beakers directly, the same amount even if you go 0% science, and apart from your capital, your other cities will likely produce 0-1 beakers otherwise even on 100% for a while. And on top of that the circles produce culture, for which your only other options are the quickly-obsoleted otherwise-useless monument, and the useful but slightly more expensive and not usually available quite as early pagan temple (which also will eventually obsolete).

In general, in the early game, every building that produces a flat bonus of food, production, science or gold is great. (Well, not the warehouse... that thing obsoletes way too quickly.)

 

[Flying Warthog]

Does Realism Invictus make it harder to gain additional capitulated vassals after the first?
In my current game I'm playing as the South Chinese on immortal on the larger of the two Earth scenarios. My first vassal target, the Mongols, capitulated almost immediately. My second target, the Japanese, would not capitulate even if they were left with only one city. My third target, Austronesia, is being similarly stubborn.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Does Realism Invictus make it harder to gain additional capitulated vassals after the first?
In my current game I'm playing as the South Chinese on immortal on the larger of the two Earth scenarios. My first vassal target, the Mongols, capitulated almost immediately. My second target, the Japanese, would not capitulate even if they were left with only one city. My third target, Austronesia, is being similarly stubborn.

Willing to vassalize depends on the leader. Each leader have a specific personality (~100 xml settings), mostly based on their historic actions.
Number of vassals you have modifies some values (both in diplomacy and in vassalization), but only if your enemies think you have too many vassals. This means at least 3-4 vassals in almost all cases.

 

[arythm1a]

Ierusalem/Jerusalem is indeed the Latin name for the city, the one used in Latin bible translation. Hebrew would be Yerushalaim. But in general, as I said, the Greek variants mostly come down to me not having enough time to implement them all. It would actually be a tremendous help if someone enthusiastic enough were to compile a list of alternative names to be added - still would take me quite an effort to actually add, but would shave a decent amount of time off of it.



In general, there are two schools of thought in naming units, which are, alas, used inconsistently throughout RI: either use local names, or common English names. I know it may be a mess, but actually I don't even know which way would be better, as I've heard complaints from players that local-sounding names tell them nothing about the unit, and thus unnecessarily complicate the game, as they have to look everything up.

With an I instead of a J, i suppose i can accept it . What exactly would you like me to do? I would be glad to help, as this is something close to heart.

 

[AbuHab]

My first RI game is for learning only, so I'm making heavy use of the WorldBuilder to see what's going on behind the scenes, try out certain scenarios, etc. I'm seeing a lot of colored circles in WorldBuilder (see below). What do those represent? (I don't actually know if this is a RI question or a Civ IV question, as I never used the WorldBuilder in my normal Civ IV games.)

 

[AbuHab]

I've been looking at the effects of different religions, their temples, and their special units. It's intriguing that you took a different approach from Civ IV by giving each religion different attributes instead of making them all fungible commodities. I imagine deciding what each religion's attributes should be caused a great deal of debate (which, I assume, is the reason Civ IV took the "safe" approach it did and made religions all the same).

I'd be interested in reading some of those discussions, as I have some questions about the reasoning behind some of the attributes and I assume the topic has already been thoroughly discussed. I tried to search the forums but my Search Fu failed me. Could anybody point me to the right place?

 

[Shuikkanen]

My first RI game is for learning only, so I'm making heavy use of the WorldBuilder to see what's going on behind the scenes, try out certain scenarios, etc. I'm seeing a lot of colored circles in WorldBuilder (see below). What do those represent?

I think it shows the locations AI would prefer to settle in with that civ. The colors correspond to the civ. How the AI comes up with those locations is probably completely inscrutable.

I imagine deciding what each religion's attributes should be caused a great deal of debate (which, I assume, is the reason Civ IV took the "safe" approach it did and made religions all the same). I'd be interested in reading some of those discussions, as I have some questions about the reasoning behind some of the attributes and I assume the topic has already been thoroughly discussed. I tried to search the forums but my Search Fu failed me. Could anybody point me to the right place?

Well, the discussion on how to implement the religions is unlikely to be found anywhere. I'm sure the dev team discussed it among themselves, just like they must have discussed every mechanic before implementing it, but this thread is mostly to give feedback after the fact, not actually design the mod. Sure, sometimes they ask our opinion on something they're planning of doing beforehand, and they have often made little improvements and additions based on suggestions on this forum, but there is no organized discussion on any single facet. I do remember that occasionally the discussion (like once every year or two) has touched on the religion differences on this thread, when someone has wanted to know why some temples add unhealthiness/epidemic chance and others don't, for example, but damned if I know how to fish them out of this gargantuan thread we're on. Maybe try searching with the specific building names.

 

[arythm1a]

Am I dreaming, or was Kim Il Sung removed as a leader for Korea?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I'm playing my first game of RI, so please excuse my ignorance. I'm wondering why Storyteller Circle is limited to 3 buildings. It doesn't seem powerful enough to warrant a limitation. In fact, it seems like a very weak building--at least at my early stage of the game (3595 BC)--giving only 1 culture and 2 beakers for an investment of 90 hammers. What am I missing?

Answered very well by Shuikkanen. Also remember, that this is a building that will stay there for thousands of turns, yielding you net thousands (or rather tens of thousands, as its output will be modified by research% buildings) of research points over the course of the game. In non-capital cities early in game, it will produce more net research output than a, say, library.

Does Realism Invictus make it harder to gain additional capitulated vassals after the first?
In my current game I'm playing as the South Chinese on immortal on the larger of the two Earth scenarios. My first vassal target, the Mongols, capitulated almost immediately. My second target, the Japanese, would not capitulate even if they were left with only one city. My third target, Austronesia, is being similarly stubborn.

As answered by AbsintheRed, there's a lot of factors. But no, to my knowledge, there is nothing that specifically makes getting more vassals harder.

With an I instead of a J, i suppose i can accept it . What exactly would you like me to do? I would be glad to help, as this is something close to heart.

Well, as I said, I want lists. Of cities that should be conditionally renamed for specific leaders or civs. As I said before, you can find city lists for specific leaders and a list of alternative names for cities in DynamicCityNaming.py, so you can see what's already in there so you don't do double work compiling stuff that isn't already there (and there is a lot there already).

My first RI game is for learning only, so I'm making heavy use of the WorldBuilder to see what's going on behind the scenes, try out certain scenarios, etc. I'm seeing a lot of colored circles in WorldBuilder (see below). What do those represent? (I don't actually know if this is a RI question or a Civ IV question, as I never used the WorldBuilder in my normal Civ IV games.)

Truth be said, I don't really know what these circles mean myself. They really don't look like city spots to me, though.

I've been looking at the effects of different religions, their temples, and their special units. It's intriguing that you took a different approach from Civ IV by giving each religion different attributes instead of making them all fungible commodities. I imagine deciding what each religion's attributes should be caused a great deal of debate (which, I assume, is the reason Civ IV took the "safe" approach it did and made religions all the same).

I'd be interested in reading some of those discussions, as I have some questions about the reasoning behind some of the attributes and I assume the topic has already been thoroughly discussed. I tried to search the forums but my Search Fu failed me. Could anybody point me to the right place?

The questions pop up now and then, but indeed there was never an organized discussion. So feel free to ask what you want to know. Even if it has been asked before, I have no problem with answering again.

Am I dreaming, or was Kim Il Sung removed as a leader for Korea?

He was replaced by an almost identical Syngman Rhee, to be precise. Since the modern unit roster of the civ is South Korean, Kim Il Sung just didn't fit well thematically.