Realism Invictus

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?
 
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. :D Maybe try searching with the specific building names.
 
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 :lol:. 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. :lol: 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.
 
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).

I meant more in the sense of what exactly would you like me to change. In my opinion there are a lot of inconsistencies in the city names, like the Arabs settling al-Iskandariyah and al-Quds while also settling Cairo instead of al-Qahirah, Aleppo instead of Halab, Damascus instead of Dimashq etc. Would you like me to be complete consequent and make all the greek names greek, or leave some as they are? If so, what would be the critieria?
 
I meant more in the sense of what exactly would you like me to change. In my opinion there are a lot of inconsistencies in the city names, like the Arabs settling al-Iskandariyah and al-Quds while also settling Cairo instead of al-Qahirah, Aleppo instead of Halab, Damascus instead of Dimashq etc. Would you like me to be complete consequent and make all the greek names greek, or leave some as they are? If so, what would be the critieria?

Good questions all. This, in part, is why I wanted you to look into the file; you'd see that all the lists are not civ-specific, but rather leader-specific. You'd see that all Arab leaders have al-Qahirah for Cairo, for example (unlike Baibars, who was left with "latinized" instead of Arabic versions of city names to show off somewhat cosmopolitan nature of Mamluk Egypt and wasn't Arab anyway). For various Greek and otherwise Hellenistic (like Seleucus for Persia) leaders, I mostly have the commonly used "textbook" names for the cities (such as Antioch etc), except for cases where under actual Greek or Byzantine rule, the name of the city was substantially different. As I mentioned above, it was mostly done to save time when preparing various city lists, so I don't have anything against implementing properly hellenized toponyms elsewhere as well. I generally tried not to go overboard with renaming, so I only did name changes for places that were actually held by respective civs or at least where there was a strong claim to them. Since it all was done in somewhat of a hurry, I might have also left out some stuff - for example, I am almost sure I missed some cities for Mussolini, who shouldn't be following the Roman civ naming convention, and should instead be using modern city names when capturing stuff (even if it used to belong to Roman empire, as half of Europe did).
 
Good questions all. This, in part, is why I wanted you to look into the file; you'd see that all the lists are not civ-specific, but rather leader-specific. You'd see that all Arab leaders have al-Qahirah for Cairo, for example (unlike Baibars, who was left with "latinized" instead of Arabic versions of city names to show off somewhat cosmopolitan nature of Mamluk Egypt and wasn't Arab anyway). For various Greek and otherwise Hellenistic (like Seleucus for Persia) leaders, I mostly have the commonly used "textbook" names for the cities (such as Antioch etc), except for cases where under actual Greek or Byzantine rule, the name of the city was substantially different. As I mentioned above, it was mostly done to save time when preparing various city lists, so I don't have anything against implementing properly hellenized toponyms elsewhere as well. I generally tried not to go overboard with renaming, so I only did name changes for places that were actually held by respective civs or at least where there was a strong claim to them. Since it all was done in somewhat of a hurry, I might have also left out some stuff - for example, I am almost sure I missed some cities for Mussolini, who shouldn't be following the Roman civ naming convention, and should instead be using modern city names when capturing stuff (even if it used to belong to Roman empire, as half of Europe did).

Should i modify a copy of the existing document, or just give you the changes in another document for you to examine first?
 
You can just make a plain text list. I will handle the actual changes to the .py file.
You've got mail!
I would also like to raise the question of perhaps changing a few leader names to be more authentic, as well as for clarity, as there are some inconsistencies (Carlos V, Charles III, Charles XIV John, Henri IV). In my opinion, changing some of these would add some more distinction to the leaders you can't tell which country they're from, and who might have other leaders who are namesakes (or close to it)
For me, the leaders that I personally would like to see changed are:
Charles III-> Carlos III
Charles XIV-> Karl XIV Johan
Alexander-> Alexander the Great
Basil II-> Basileios II
John II Komnenos-> Ioannes II Komnenos
John III Sobieski-> Jan III Sobieski
Josef Pilsudski-> Jozef Pilsudski
Louis I the Great-> Lajos I Nagy/the Great
Mehmed II-> Mehmed II el-Fatih
Napoleon I-> Napoleon I Bonaparte
Ptolemy I Soter-> Ptolemaios I Soter
 
Last edited:
You've got mail!
I would also like to raise the question of perhaps changing a few leader names to be more authentic, as well as for clarity, as there are some inconsistencies (Carlos V, Charles III, Charles XIV John, Henri IV). In my opinion, changing some of these would add some more distinction to the leaders you can't tell which country they're from, and who might have other leaders who are namesakes (or close to it)
For me, the leaders that I personally would like to see changed are:
Charles III-> Carlos III
Charles XIV-> Karl XIV Johan
Alexander-> Alexander the Great
Basil II-> Basileios II
John II Komnenos-> Ioannes II Komnenos
John III Sobieski-> Jan III Sobieski
Josef Pilsudski-> Jozef Pilsudski
Louis I the Great-> Lajos I Nagy/the Great
Mehmed II-> Mehmed II el-Fatih
Napoleon I-> Napoleon I Bonaparte
Ptolemy I Soter-> Ptolemaios I Soter

I've generally overhauled the leader naming post-3.4 for consistency already, but in general they follow the "textbook names". I feel naming them in local languages would just serve to promote confusion; most of them are important enough to already have traditional names under which they are mentioned in historical literature. Even you didn't suggest renaming Alexander to Megas Alexandros, which demonstrates this effect quite well. What I did do was give everyone their nicknames back, so Alfonso X would become Alfonso X the Wise. The only exception to this was actually "the Great", as there would be tens of "the Greats" running around in that case. And the only exception to that was actually Alexander, who is now properly called Alexander III the Great, the only leader in RI to have kept "the Great".
 
I've generally overhauled the leader naming post-3.4 for consistency already, but in general they follow the "textbook names". I feel naming them in local languages would just serve to promote confusion; most of them are important enough to already have traditional names under which they are mentioned in historical literature. Even you didn't suggest renaming Alexander to Megas Alexandros, which demonstrates this effect quite well. What I did do was give everyone their nicknames back, so Alfonso X would become Alfonso X the Wise. The only exception to this was actually "the Great", as there would be tens of "the Greats" running around in that case. And the only exception to that was actually Alexander, who is now properly called Alexander III the Great, the only leader in RI to have kept "the Great".

Fair enough. I did, as you say, feel like some leaders are just too established to change, Alexander being a prime example. I'd still vote to turn the John's into Jan's, Johan's and Ioannes though (especially Sobieski, who I personally feel is more known as a Jan than a John (but then I am Swedish, where Jan is a common name)). And the biggest problem for me was distinction, as I realised years after the release of the Hungarians that Louis I is actually Hungarian and not French.
 
Fair enough. I did, as you say, feel like some leaders are just too established to change, Alexander being a prime example. I'd still vote to turn the John's into Jan's, Johan's and Ioannes though (especially Sobieski, who I personally feel is more known as a Jan than a John (but then I am Swedish, where Jan is a common name)). And the biggest problem for me was distinction, as I realised years after the release of the Hungarians that Louis I is actually Hungarian and not French.

I will concede a couple of points for the sake of consistency: Charles XIV will become Karl since we have Karl X for Sweden in a scenario, and Charles III will become Carlos III since we already have another Carlos for Spain (I/V). Also I guess I will turn Louis into Lajos, as psychologically it's a very French name (though this is exactly the point, as Louis I was from the house of Anjou, but since he was born in Hungary unlike his father, I guess the name change is both convenient and justified).
 
Just checked the SVN update log after a long break and almost couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this:

Spoiler :
Revolution component added


Good job Walter and the whole RI team, I know for a fact that this one is gonna make some long-time fans of this mod really happy!

Really interested to see how it all works out once I got some time to actually play again. It's such a major feature that it might take months to balance everything right and fix possible bugs of course.
 
:mischief:

It is kinda barebones and likely bugged somewhat, but we're getting there. Hopefully I'll make it work properly. BTW, AbsintheRed, your look would be very appreciated.
Sure, I'm very interested in your changes!
 
Why does RI not find my BtS install? It's a Steam version, but that shouldn't matter should it? I was just playing BtS a few minutes ago with a different mod, so I know it's working. Just need to know where to put my RI install.
 
I'm a bit confused about how Aid works (e.g., Assault Aid). I just created my first unit that provides Assault Aid (Polybian Legionary). I see that it has a promotion called Assault Aid I, and the tool-tip indicates that promotion grants "+3% Strength." I have a few questions:

1. Does that mean that all units stacked with my Polybian Legionary have their Strength increased by 3%?

2. Is that 3% Strength increase only for limited purposes (e.g., only attacking, or only attacking cities) or does it count for all purposes (e.g., attacking and defending under all circumstances)?

3. Does the 3% Strength bonus stack with bonuses from other Assault Aid units? For example, if I have two Polybian Legionaries in the stack, does the stack now get +6% Strength instead of +3%?

4. Can I upgrade this unit from Assault Aid I to Assault Aid II? If so, how? That promotion doesn't seem to be available even though the unit has XP to spend.
 
Since there are already the Dynamic Cities Naming and now we pleased got the Revolutions component, it will be Dynamic Civs Names a further step?
Indeed. Actually it's in the works for a while now.
I had some difficulties because of the scenarios, but I definitely want to have a complete version of it for the next release.
 
Top Bottom