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:
    3,239
    Location:
    London, UK
    Removed the -50% culture that Hunter-Gatherers had. And no, I have no idea on how exactly that caused CTDs. Still, managed to isolate that by diligently narrowing down the CTD source. Will probably do the same with those later CTDs now that I have the saves.

    Thanks, will try to troubleshoot these ones as well, and hopefully fix them.

    Thanks, again, the more saves the merrier.

    Yeah, I agree with your general line of thought. Unfortunately, at the moment it is pretty impossible for me to code something like that, especially if AI is also to make use of it. I was thinking of tying the amount of revolt risk to actual usage of slave/serf labor (for instance, to the number of slave farms and slave markets in the cities), but I'm afraid that will cause many more calculations if calculated on a per city basis. Also, it would require the display of the per city revolt chances in cities, so that would be more interface work.

    Democracy is supposed to be the late-game "tall" civic, and it is better than Republic in every aspect. It just manages to be better than Monarchy as well :)

    As for thematic differences between autocratic and democratic empires, I would also very much like to see some meaningful differences there, but so far I've had no brilliant ideas on how to differentiate those better.

    Well, the idea was that "Democracy" is unitary democracy, while "Federalism" is federal democracy. It was just a bit too lengthy to spell out. So both are equally "free", and are just two different forms of modern democracy.

    That is a very real problem, and that is the main reason Federalism was split out of Democracy in the first place. There aren't enough different "-ocracies" that humans have invented. :lol:

    Explained above. Basically levee can be used as a means of getting water over the hills.

    Couldn't find a decent name for it yet that isn't period-specific. I am well aware that "South China" is very clumsy as far as civ names go, especially on random maps where it may well spawn to the North of actual China. I am hoping to have dynamic civ names one day, and as soon as I have them, it will become much less awkward, because period-specific names for both parts of China are plenty.

    Yeah, I am thinking about that. Actually if Josh implements one tweak to resource production logic I long wanted to see, this will definitely become a reality.

    Yeah, I also don't like how there is no real competition to Federalism late game. I hope to change it one day.

    I think the issue with "liberating" wrong cities might very well be a vanilla civ bug. At least I saw it reported for vanilla game. It is definitely some kind of a bug, but I have yet to see anyone offer a meaningful solution to it.

    There is always the desalination plant for those seaside cities with no rivers. But a modern fresh water wonder actually sounds like a good idea to me; I'll keep that in mind.

    Hmmmm... I should systematically look into balancing various diplomatic memories at some point. Never been done before in RI.
     
    plasmacannon and haroon like this.
  2. haroon

    haroon Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,919
    Location:
    dunya
    @Walter Hawkwood for sure as long as you and your team around, I feel no need to have other civilization series haha! one other little thing, now the vassal system is awesome, there are no huge chunk of concentrate vassal flogging around powerful nation. And now I realize that I'm not only able to suggest my vassal to research certain technology, but I also can ask my vassal to prepare themselves for war (before the war even happened!), that's just awesome, they are now more effective in the battlefield.

    But there is a little diplomatic twist that exist in civilization 5 that not exist in civilization 4, each time a civilization ask you to assist them to declare war with their adversary, you can ask them to give you 10 turn to prepare, while in civilization 4 you either accept it in that very turn, or get a diplomatic hit. I don't know how hard is that to implement, but if there is an option like that, it will be so nice to have, and yes, I can wait 2 years for that, it's ok, because the impact on gameplay will be huge different.
     
  3. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    London, UK
    The short answer is "almost impossible". Diplomatic actions are among the least moddable things in Civ 4.
     
  4. haroon

    haroon Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,919
    Location:
    dunya
    And here I thought it will be slightly harder than adding new building, because in my mind it is pretty simple. Too bad we cannot maximize the potential of this game.
     
    plasmacannon likes this.
  5. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    London, UK
    Pleased to say all reported CTDs and python errors seem to be resolved in the latest revision. It is save-compatible, so everyone can update and continue their saves with little to no ill effects. Also, haroon, the World Map natives can now sign open borders if you get them to friendly level of attitude, and they will trade for resources normally (though they will obviously not be able to harvest advanced resources like coal in their territory).
     
    haroon and sazhdapec like this.
  6. Kapor

    Kapor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    48
    It works :) Thank you very much!!!

    There is a "slave revolt" event in vanilla BtS that appears in this mod as well (and happens to the AI as well!), giving you option to pay gold, suffer unhapiness etc. Maybe use it as a basis? With spawning troops as only one of the possible outcomes.
    Honestly, I'd prefer frequent happiness and gold hits than frequent revolts. Revolts are IMO worse for AI, and also either swiftly crushed and therefore no threat at all (if they happen near where your army is) or you lose a city and it sucks. Slave revolts like now should happen rarely, be a bit stronger, and give you a bit of advance warning.


    And related to this: I know it is probably a deliberate design choice and all, but I really do not like separate mechanised and slave farm improvements. From pure gameplay standpoint, I had hundred turns of crappy growth in my conquered cities because I didn't realise that their farms are slave farm and not normal farms and therefore do not get many production bonuses. Secondly, it is tedious to order workers to manually change every single farm in your empire once you get mechanised farms, especially because they are visually the same and you can't tell at glance which city needs to be improved. And from roleplay standpoint, why wouldn't they simply improve farms with mechanisation once you get tech? That is exactly what food production bonus on techs represents. You don't improve farms to "fertilised farms" with fertiliser etc. What do separate mechanised farms add to the game that can't be achived with simple food bonus to existing farms?

    Thing is, it is not really "better in every aspect", as republic provides a bit more happiness if you are small. But more importantly, democracy is actually better than monarchy in every way. Meaning that if you are a monarchy, you WILL want to switch to democracy... making democracy seem like a better type of monarchy, and not a bettery type of republic. And it's not like in real world every monarchy immediately switched to democracy without struggle.

    Ideally, republic, democracy and federalism would get some kind of "player restriction" mechanic, like in civ2. And/or a "senate" mechanic (I saw it in some other mods) that have periodic election events that give you stuff like bonus traits or great people, depending of which "faction" wins the elections. OR BtS crappy quest system could be repurposed to fit Senate mandates and election promises (build x ships, build x schools...). But it's probably too much work.... In the short run, I'd like to at least keep consistency in this way:

    autocratic governments- playing wide; decreased number of cities maintenance, decreased hapiness, no bonus to distance maintenance (that is left unique to federation, and autocracies are generally centralistic), less war weariness
    democratic- playing tall (except federation, but ideally federation would be moved to legal); increased no. of cities maintenance, increased war weariness, increased happiness and commerce, later form (federation) decreases distance maintenance (decentralisation) and has no number of cities penatly

    Also, would it be possible to merge senate, pairlament and federal pairlament in one building (or two, leaving senate separate)? So that if you are already democratic, get to keep previous building? Is it possible to set OR requirement to civics?

    AND speaking of which, it would be cool if some political unique buildings, like enlightened absolutism, would be moved to projects - since that's what they are, they are not buildings really. Advantage would be that 1) we would get more projects, not only the Internet and spaceships, and 2) they can't be captured if you lose a city.
    Also, health buildings like antibiotics should also be projects!

    Fair. I thought cities spread irrigation automatically with some tech, just like farms do? At least in some version of civ4 they did... Still, it'd be nice to add this to description :)

    Well speaking of "period specific", you have Mussolini leading Rome :D Just picking any period specific name would be better than South China. (Also, while I can understand Mussolini leading Rome, I still hate spanish conquerors rulling over Incan and Mayan civs. They are not a continuity of the same civ, they represent conquest of one civilisation by another- like what happens in a game when one civilisation gets conquered by another. Two different civilisations that share same space in different time periods. I do know your disclaimer about what a civ represents, so I'm not really trying to force this on you. But I just want to say that it's really weird and not consistent. By the same logic, Suleiman should be a leader of Greek empire, Saladin should be leader of Sumeria, and most European leaders should be leaders of Celts... or am I getting it wrong?)

    Yeah, both problems would probably be fixed if federalism was put in legal category and replaced social justice or something. Then you'd be able to have federal democracies, unitary democracies, and also federal monarchies, dictatorships... My idea for replacement for federalism would be Autocracy. It would represent an "illiberal democracy", ala Russia & Turkey (and increasingly, Hungary & Poland), as some kind of cross between democracy and dictatorship. It represents a regime that is nominally a democracy, which does have elections, legal opposition, right of assembly and so on, and whose legitimacy is based on the will of people, but also has no real separation of powers, no judicial independence, no media freedom, and has strong, all-powerful executive with no real limits. Bonuses would be something between democracy and dictatorship... Honestly, I do think that we should be able to model this kind of regime somehow. It would allow dictatorships to liberalise their regime later on, to provide additional legitimacy and get rid of happiness penalities without suffering maintenance increases, and also allow democracies to get rid of maintenance/war weariness penalites without going full dictatorship.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2018
    plasmacannon likes this.
  7. haroon

    haroon Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,919
    Location:
    dunya
    Im soo happy to hear that, but im a kind of RI player that only download your game once a year (because I dont have the time and patience for SVN) once you are a family guy, a year pass so fast so next year I will be a happy gamer ;)
     
  8. ChaosSlayer

    ChaosSlayer Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    587

    Technically, about 2/3 of all Civs in game are out of place to begin with =)
    Why? because if game starts at 4000 BC (or so) the only Civs that should exist are the most early ones: China, Greece, Egypt, India etc.
    I know that Byz and Holy Roman were already cut out, but still, how exactly do you play as America in 4000BC, when America not even a nation that has ANY local origins (like Persia >> Iran, or Rome >> Italy). Native American Civ doesn't really evolve into USA. Same way as Incas/Maya don't really evolve into any modern South American nation. Mexico, Brazil, Chili, USA, Canada, they all former colonies of European nations that conquered locals and then declared sovereignty. In other words, none of them are TRUE Civs in any way.
    The only LATE Civs that make sense, are those that appeared in regions that previously didn't had any other formal states, but evolved from the ancestral tribes.
    For example Russia (Rus) only goes back to 9th century as a State, but before that there wasn't any other state there, so Russia is fine, and it is actually native to the region as it evolved from local Slav tribes. Same goes for say Poland.

    So with this in mind, I really look away from entire "historical realism factor", because there is NONE =) If you playing as Maya, then you MUST BE eliminated by the 1700. If you survive past that period - you no longer playing a historically realistic game - you playing a WHAT IF scenario.
    If you playing as Egypt and you haven't been conquered by Greece - you are in WHAT IF scenario.
    If you playing as Greece and you haven't been conquered by Rome - you are in WHAT IF scenario.
    If you playing as Rome and taken over Europe and Midi-terrain, you must now SOMEHOW suffer internal corruption and descent and fall apart by 6th century. And then go back to beeing just Italy for the next 1,500 years. Can this really happen in game?
    Same with any other nation that wasn't there in 4000 BC.

    (By the way, back when I played original Medieval Total War, when you empire past certain point of growth, the corruption in all provinces and chance of rebellion started to sky rocket. It become increasingly difficult to maintain order in empire while trying to take over entire map, and governors were going corrupt dozen a year. Civ doesn't really have an engine where VERY LARGE STATE can crumble under its own weight, as the game usually just snowballs to victory)


    I know that this mod in specifically tries to be as realistic as possible, but I want to remind you that the very nature of this game - starting as USA in 4000BC and having Lincoln as President for 6000 years - isn't really realistic in any way ;)

    So, technological and societal concepts can still be realistic, but exact chain of historical events, can't ;)
     
  9. Kapor

    Kapor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    48
    This is all true, but it was not my point at all. I don't have a problem with USA existing in 4000 BC, as complaining about that would mean that, consistently, we also can't have England existing in 4000 BC, or even Rome. So it's a suspension of disbelief I have no problem with.

    Is Julius Caesar appropriate leader for Rome? Sure, as he lead empire called Rome at the time, and obviously was a Roman. Is Mussolini fitting leader for Rome? It's a bit of a stretch, as he was leader of Italy, not Rome... but, is Italy appropriate successor to Rome? Whatever, as far as this game is concerned, yes. There is at least some kind of continuity there. It does not break my suspension of disbelief.

    So back to my original comment of South China, having South China be called after some specific time period would not break immersion any more than Italy=Rome, and certainly not more than South China name. So, my suggestion is to just pick any name for South China, it will be an improvement. Maybe Cantonese is "good enough" name?

    But back to my "immersion breaking" comment, i was referring to this section of manual:
    While this "regional" definition is not a definition of a "civilization" that I would use, and as far as I know, not one that historians use, I do not mind it in itself. I mind that it is not used consistently. I'm sure it was debated hundreds of times, and that this is discussion not really worth having, but I actually do not mind having this left as it is. I just want to hear the line of thought behind this, so that I can wrap my head around it and accept it. :)

    But in the game, it is NOT consistent. In game, USA and Native American tribes are separate. All American leaders are US presidents; no Native American chiefs. All Native American tribes are lead by native chiefs; not by US presidents. It is very clear, in game, that they are two different civs, and that American civilization is separate from both England and Native American civilization.

    This alone would be a reason enough not to have Spanish colonial rulers as leaders of South American civilizations, if we want to be consistent. That is, either stick to the original definition of "continuum of cultures, influences and nations that were centered around a particular geographic region from ancient times till modern age" and have US presidents and Native Americans part of the same civilization (as South America and Spanish colonials are), or keep to different (IMO better) definition that you use for north America and separate South American civs.

    But even beyond this obvious inconsistency, we can see that "continuum of cultures, influences and nations that were centered around a particular geographic region from ancient times till modern age" is not really held true to.

    Arabia and Babylon are separate civilizations, even though they inhabit the same area.
    Turkey and Greece are separate.
    Celts and European nations are separate; except Scotland which indeed ARE of Celtic culture. But if you stick to the regional definition and not cultural, both English and French leaders would also be Celtic leaders.
    Hungary does not have any single leader that is not culturally Hungarian. If we would stick to the "regional" definition, Hungarian civ would also represent everyone who ever lived in p
    Pannonian basin, including Slavic pre-Magyar tribes, and pre-Roman Celtic and Illyrian leaders. However, it is not the case; to any player, regardless of the modders intent, it is intuitive and logical that cultural and not regional definition of civilization is used (which again, I do prefer).

    Only South America has this immersion breaking leader choice, as far as I noted.


    ---


    What bothers me, again, with this "regional" approach to civilization, is that it is not even consistent with gameplay rules. If you expand and conquer cities of another civilization, you have sort of cultural competition in an area. You have to build up your own culture, and old culture works against you, increasing unhappiness and causing revolt, until you eventually push old culture out.

    It is fully possible to, say, play as Spain, discover new continent, find out that Incas are on it, conquer Incas, and spread Spanish culture over Incan cities (while having Incan culture still present), and eventually release new colonial civilization, with new culture, but one that takes over initial Spanish cultural points present in their cities as a base (but has different culture from that point on).

    If you apply "regional" definition to a civ game, conquered Incan cities would still keep producing Incan culture points; whatever you do to a territory, it just adds to the origininal culture. It would not ever be possible to displace a civilization from a region, because the region IS a civilization, and no matter who rules over region, the civilization wouldn't change...

    But maybe I'm misunderstanding the logic? :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
  10. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    London, UK
    I will see what I can do; my own python skill are very limited, and I mostly cannibalize pieces of other code I find then tweak it until it works more or less how I want. I can't promise anything, but indeed player agency is a good thing and I'd also like players to have more options when dealing with revolts.

    It's more of a technical choice. This way we can make slavery and then serfdom food production bonuses go obsolete with time. I understand that rebuilding farms is a hassle, and I actually tried ensuring that all kinds of farms look different. I may try for a more stark difference though. Also, a great thing to have would be a new automation type for workers "Improve farms", but that is definitely beyond my skills - so only if someone else does that.

    I will look into that. Civic balancing is an always ongoing process. Though the "without struggle" part generally applies to all civics in Civ 4; the struggle and violence of social change is significantly downplayed by mere several turns of "Anarchy" that doesn't actually carry any losses except for opportunity costs.

    I am not a fan of player restriction. I actually remember how frustrating these mechanics were in Civ 2. I've been long dreaming of some kind of parliamentarianism mechanics with changing parties for democratic civics, but this, again, is definitely beyond my own skills.

    No, and that is exactly why they are separate.

    Again, technical restrictions. Projects are much more limited in what they are able to do compared to buildings. And adding new XML tags requires dll work, which is beyond me.

    They do, but irrigation is never spread through hills, including when cities are build on them.

    Oh, I am always happy to elaborate on decision I'm making. From this paragraph:

    0) General comment: for all civs, I try hard to choose a selection of leaders from different time periods. It is never an easy choice where the civ in question has indeed experienced many cultural shifts. Generally, a choice of whether a leader fits within this continuum stems from their self-identification. For instance, this makes both Ptolemy and Baibars rather fitting leaders for Egypt, as despite being ethnically foreign, they administered what was very definitely a Egyptian state (for the definition of "Egyptian" contemporary to them) and made no pretense otherwise; Mehmed II OTOH would deconstruct Byzantine institutions, and the state he built was very much a Turkic one in character - even after moving the capital to Constantinople, he was first and foremost the ruler of Ottoman Turks.
    1) Mussolini is probably the most fitting leader for a Roman civ past actual Roman times. In his own view, he was actually restoring the Roman empire, and much of his ideology revolved around this "Neo-Roman" concept.
    2) As far as Aztecs, Mayans and Incas are concerned, I made an effort to only choose leaders culturally linked to the indigenous peoples:
    2.1) Juarez is the easiest one, as he's not only the most beloved Mexican president, but actually ethnically Zapotec.
    2.2) Santa Cruz is also half-Incan in his heritage. In general, colonial and post-independence Peru, unique among all the former Spanish colonies, has retained a lot of original native nobility as powerful landholders. Around the time of independence, they even seriously considered restoring Incan monarchy, and several of their presidents are direct descendants of Incan royal house or nobility.
    2.3) Morazan is the most contentious one of the three, yet he also comes from a criollo family. Also, I found him quite fitting, as his policies served to weaken the traditional Hispanic elites and Catholic church of Central America.
    3) Thinking of Suleiman/Greek civ, you're narrowing down Turkish civ too much. While Ottomans are definitely a part of it, they are only a part of the greater Turkic civ that for several hundred years "swallowed" some other civs represented in RI. Were Greece not to regain independence in XIX century, Greek and Turkish civs might very well have been represented by the combined leader pool today. As it stands now, the "merger" provided to be lengthy, yet ultimately temporary, which is actually a rather important sorting factor here - if there is an obvious "successor state" for a certain civ in the modern world, it will be treated as (mostly) separate from its historic conquerors.
    4) Sumeria is not currently a part of any civ, and is not a civ in RI either. Mostly because I'm lazy and not adding them... :)
    5) Celts I had to treat as a bit of a special case. Firstly, due to the above-mentioned "successor state" criterion, which actually allows us to retain them as a separate civ traceable up to modern age (even though at certain points in history no independent Celtic-cultured polities existed). Secondly, I chose to "start" several civs a bit later in their history, mostly due to aesthetic reasons of not having several civs' early rosters look virtually identical. Hence England starts with Anglo-Saxons and France starts with Franks. In these cases, having a more diverse early lineup seemed more important to me.

    I have several separate considerations against this. Firstly, from gameplay point, it is an "in-between" choice that does not actually offer a meaningful choice - in any given situation, you are probably better off as a full Democracy or Dictatorship. Secondly, the flawed character of democracy in cites cases isn't, in my view, relevant to the civic in question, as from legal perspective, all mentioned countries are definitely democracies. The quality of actual institutions has no real bearing on that. Thirdly, this leads to another question of that being a "continuum" option instead of a clear distinction. It is very clear, for example, what separates a Monarchy from a Democracy (non-elected vs elected leadership); yet, in case of the vague "illiberal democracy" term, its boundary with "true democracy" can be arbitrarily drawn at any point. Lastly, RI is a historical mod first and foremost. While we didn't get rid of the futuristic fictional "spaceship" stuff that was originally there, we're trying not to add stuff "younger" than 15-20 years from now, and while flawed democracies are of course not a modern invention, their relevance and juxtaposition against liberal democracies is very definitely modern. In mid-XX century, for instance, they would definitely be lumped with the rest of the "free world" to be juxtaposed against Fascist and Communist dictatorships.

    I am trying to apply it as consistently as I can, as I tried to show above. I also dislike the fact that the game uses "civilization" term to call various playable factions, but the sin of misusing the term is not mine. It is already being grossly misused since Civ 2 at least, where the granularity of what constituted a civ began to rise. In context of Civ games, it was always treated as a synonym for "culture" or "nation". I might even argue that at times I'm using it closer to its intended purpose, by, say, refusing to split HRE and Germany into different civs.

    USA has always been the "special" case in Civ series. Definitely extremely important for the last 200 years of World history, yet non-existent or irrelevant before that. That makes it extremely hard to either throw it away OR make it into a fully workable civ. But I did apply our principles consistently in their case, I just decided to "derive" them not from Native Americans, but rather from Vinland colonies. While they were very temporary in terms of lasting impact on the area, Viking settlers do provide exactly enough historical material to shape an early colonial American civ. The actual reason I don't have Eric the Red as their early leader is that I'm at a total loss for city names. Also, Americans already have a giant list of presidents to choose from.

    Another angle of looking at it, apart from the stuff I've already addressed above, is that in game terms, we don't have to assume that actual "conquest" is going on. Think of it as a different way of constructing a hypothetical "what-if" civ, one that doesn't exist in isolation, but rather incorporates elements from different cultures as it evolves through the ages.

    If, say, Incas or Aztecs would have managed to keep their independence from Spanish colonists, they would still have not existed in a cultural vacuum. For a mental exercise, try "constructing" a "what-if future Russia of XVIII-XIX century" from Ancient Rus based solely on their own cultural motifs, and you will end up with something that looks wildly different from actual XVIII-XIX century Russia. Despite never having been conquered by any of them, Russia in XIX century looks very similar to Western European countries, rather than "ancient Slavs in XIX century". Treat the visual shift of Aztecs, Mayans and Incas to Hispanic looks as an inevitable cultural diffusion that would have happened even if political independence were preserved. I even threw a couple of "transitional" unit designs (also with actual plausible basis in history, most in early anti-colonial rebellions) here and there to reinforce that notion.

    Hence Babylon isn't a playable civ and isn't likely to become one. Though one might argue that they are still somewhat separate, at least early on, with Arabian civ representing peninsular tribes, while Babylon focuses on Mesopotamia territorially. Arabian civ even "returns" to the Arabian peninsula in its modern Saudi incarnation.

    As I pointed out above, "Turkish civ" should not be equaled to modern Turkey. Modern "Turkish civilization" stretches all the way to China, and earlier, it incorporates Seljuk and even earlier Turkic entities whose territorial heartlands also lay far away from those of Greeks. They only intersected for a historically rather brief moment of 400 years in Ottoman times.

    The "Celtic question" is also addressed above. Though I must also add that were they not originally a part of Civ 4, RI would probably not have added Celts as a separate civ either. Gaels maybe, as a more clear-cut subdivision. But as is the case with USA, this one is somewhat of an artifact we have to live with.

    Actually, they don't have anything pre-Magyar through simple fact of almost no material being available on those entities. I can't have decent leader portraits, city lists etc. I would have probably included at least Avars if I had anything decent on them.

    I tried explaining why this isn't the case above. Though of course there are always "border cases" that stretch the limits of normal selection process. I will even go on and tell you another such case which you do not mention, but I actually feel rather conflicted about - the inclusion of Seleucids into Persian civ. The decision was somewhat arbitrary and it could also be disputed. Some things, after all, come down to personal taste.

    I tried explaining this approach in more detail above. A civilization adopting external cultural elements as it evolves is, in my opinion, a rather normal part of history. When I am trying to picture how an "Incan line infantry of XVIII century" would have looked had Incas not been conquered by Spain, I see no reason in creating an elaborate "what-if" unit based on their earlier eras. Instead, I might as well use a Spanish uniform that was used in the region in XVIII century, because I see no compelling reasons to believe a surviving Incan state couldn't have used something pretty similar save for minor details. For me personally, it feels less immersion-breaking.
     
  11. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    113
    Got back into RI recently, and updated SVN to post-revolutions versions after some satisfying games on pre-revolutions versions.

    Playing a game with Ragnar. Conquered an Nguni city that they settled on my border and ~15 tiles away from their nearest city. It was defended with 1 Bowman and 2 Huntsman units (I forget the proper name).

    On the next turn or so, it rebelled back to the Nguni and spawned 6 of the 4-strengh melee units at full health and with its full borders back. I can't say I'm satisfied with the experience.

    That seems like an absurd number to spawn in one turn, and the player should at least have some option of putting down the rebellion while still owning the city. It's the conquering forces which are going to be holed up in the city's inner fortifications during a rebellion, not the commonfolk.

    While I'm here, I'll also add that the Animism civic doesn't really fix the jungle health problem. It just gives the player a choice between unhealthiness due to jungles or being locked out of religion civics. "Choose your own handicap".
     
    plasmacannon likes this.
  12. haroon

    haroon Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,919
    Location:
    dunya
    I never play revolution mod, but I do read the description and it's sound that it has a cool feature.

    However your explanation is alarming. I think the rebel or revolutionaries should are militia and other irregular line, as they are inexperience and untrained soldier, back in civ2 we had guerrilla units maybe it is time to put it back in.

    Also the idea of freedom fighter is not common during the ancient or medieval time, back then the civilian and town folk pretty much don't care about their overlord, the ruler comes and goes while they just accept their role and fate. Maybe it started during the colonialism time but for sure it is becomes solidified and common during the era of nation state. So putting this feature during ancient till medieval time I think can be annoying, expanding already get a huge economical hit early on with this penalty it can be overwhelming. it should started and increase during renaissance time and above, possibly by making this feature only get trigger by mid and end game civic.
     
  13. ChaosSlayer

    ChaosSlayer Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    587

    IMHO, number of rebel troops should be based on K*N, where K is how strong is local culture and N is the size of the city. So city size 1 can only spawn 1 unit at most ;)
     
    plasmacannon likes this.
  14. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    113
    Started another game, also with Ragnar (I'm a fan!) and it has been going better so far. Conquered the Berber without much revolution trouble, despite the -25% culture onus.

    Conquered a Barbarian city and developed it for ~150 turns. I didn't bother with culture buildings for a while due to other priorities. Eventually the city had a revolution and returned to a Barbarian city, which I didn't mind. I'll re-conquer.

    But an ally of mine happened to have a few troops in the area and razed the city. So long 150 turns of maintenance!

    :dunno:

    The Nguni city was 100% Nguni culture and probably a size 4 city. But it was still incredibly frustrating that just like that not only was all my effort to conquer it was gone, and not only did they have an even better defense than before, but my city-raider troops were now sitting in my capital and needed another 6-7 turns to get back there...

    Also annoying that this was an Nguni city so far away from their mainland.
     
    plasmacannon likes this.
  15. ChaosSlayer

    ChaosSlayer Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    587
    The way I would do, is:
    -city goes revolt - unhappiness goes UP, it stops producing anything, but also doesn't starve - population frozen
    -Your troops remain in the city, trying to suppress the population (some formulae + RNG is rolled on # of your troops vs pop size/culture to determine if revolt can be suppressed and how soon.)
    -Every turn city is in revolt - pop reduced by 1 and rebel troops spawn OUTSIDE the city and try to attack it.

    If revolt continues, rebel troops keep spawning.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
    plasmacannon likes this.
  16. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    A bit of feedback.
    1) One of the Celtic leaders - Vercingetorix - has federalism as favorite civic. Is this intended?
    2) There are no hindi leaders with caste system as favorite civic. It feels like if there were no Russian leaders with monarchy or no Roman leaders with republic.
    3) Copernicus' Observatory does not provide culture. Is this intended?
    4) Early pastoral nomadism especially based on multiple cattle is too OP. I suggest again to move the civic to horseback riding tech. And/or make map generators stop placing several cattle resources on adjacent tiles.
    5) In my experience there is no need to increase the cost of anti-melee melee units (aka heavy infantry) so much. 10% may be enough.

    I strongly disagree here.
    First, the health and epidemics boosts are great. There are even times when the civic is good without jungles.
    Second, one can use animism until water pump then switch to a religious civic. Needles to say two religions become available arguably long after researching water pump.
    Third, I'd worry more about paganism since without its wonders it's much worse than animism.
    And finally, even in the game jungle starts should not be as good as other ones. At least now it's manageable and not outright horrible.

    P.S. Almost forgot.
    1) Great Bombard still has both 'can only defend' and '+50% city attack' abilities.
    2) Austronesian starting warriors still have UNITAI_SETLLE behavior on WMH.

    P.P.S.
    SVN 5181
    There is a gray strip visible on the left of a screen. The thing is I can't move the camera by clicking below it. Or I can't scroll the building list on a city screen.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
  17. haroon

    haroon Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,919
    Location:
    dunya
    Nearly finish my game, I really amaze with the variety of resources and the production system, it is just beautiful, amazing. I think you nerfed the bomber a little bit, and you add a new airplane that focus only to damage unit, that's just beautiful, because mostly the end game end up to be a no brainier, but now the end game battle is much more thrilling, even though the AI is 1 step behind in military technology but if I'm not careful they can still beat me, I actually reload my game couples of time out of rage, but yes it just show how good the AI is compare back then, and they really good also at islands warfare, and can land surprise attack on the shore, well done.

    And I see you buffed the great artist, that is very nice, now I'm much more happy receiving great artist with the +4 gold while previously I avoid and loath great artist and great spy like plague, because they just keep coming while there is not so much thing to do with them. However can you please also buffed the great spy? Now I have 3 great spy roaming around as undetectable scout and 1 just sleep in a city, that is despite I already consume the other 3 (in total I got 7, they just keep coming despite they having a low chance to spawn), can you give a special wonder that can only made by great spy? or at least can you make golden age can be trigger by consuming great person but without variety? so I can consume 3 of my great spy for my third golden age? Give more meaning to their existence.

    This is also something that I always wonder for so long, why I cannot make the unit wonder called the horde? what is that actually? And I see clockwork doesn't really have any important role, it just there to be there, I would suggest deleting it altogether while adding couples more technology at the ancient time to delay to founding of religion, for prolonging the state of paganism. Some civilization have a really cool building related to paganism, and there so many cool wonder related to that also, while it last too fast.

    There are also many new cool mechanic that I still don't really get it yet, like sometime after the declaration of war, when I prepare my spy near enemy city to form a revolt, my spy cannot enter the city. It's really cool I like it, but I wonder how is the mechanic so I can understand it better. And btw can you tweak the dislike diplomacy? set a maximum penalty or expiration for negative diplomacy? Like you declare war with us, and you declare war to our friend? or add another mean to improve the diplomacy? Or increase the maximum number for positive diplomacy? especially after the era of free religion the mean to mend the diplomacy is also decreasing, because religion is a good mean to form an alliance or to mend a bad relation.

    THank you so much for the awesome work RI team!
     
    plasmacannon likes this.
  18. BTS+

    BTS+ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2018
    Messages:
    6
    First of all thanks to @Walter Hawkwood for keeping this awesome game, Civ4 BTS alive, with the new additions. I don't like what Civ has become from Civ5 onwards.

    I always liked the Revolution component. So I downloaded the latest SVN. I started a random game on a huge map with only 5 civilizations. My idea was that at some point the big civilizations that have over-expanded will collapse, or far away colonies will declare independence, and they will have space to grow, without being wiped out almost immediately after separating from the former empire.

    So after 1000 AD, what I noticed was that the only new nations to emerge were Barb cities organizing into City states, sometimes 3 or 4 next to each other. There are huge empires with one having over 21 cities on many lands, yet it seems to be stable and I haven't seen any separatism occurring. Will it occur at some point in time, or is there an option or setting I should check for separatism to occur or that some Barb cities (on an island for example) regroup under only one leader?

    Thank-you
     
  19. Kapor

    Kapor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    48
    Thanks for the answers!
    Have a look at the following:
    Fall from Heaven mod has Adaptive trait, which triggers event every set amount of turns, letting you pick additional trait, and change it to another one. This would be nice thing for Republics and Democracies; instead of additional typical traits we could have set of new traits (conservative government, socialist government, landowners government...) appropriate to civic and time period. Plus, AI can use it...

    Also, this.

    Thank you for your comments about civ and leader choice! While I still think that, for example, continuity of pre-medieval Hungary would be better represented by Magyar Asian tribes than by Slavic Pannonians, I now understand your choice better. Especially concerning ancestry and choice of Latin American leaders.


    Great point. Europa Universalis has mechanic of "westernising" that represents this - if you want to survive as New World civ, you have to modernise. That is, Ottoman empire/Turkish Republic was never really conquered, but they still underwent a "westernisation" of government, institutions and culture. Same for Russia under Peter the Great. This "Western European" influence does not make them less Russian or Turkish. Also, Chinese and Japanise cities today look pretty much like European/American cities, they are not populated by people dressed in traditional Asian clothing, and at the same time they preserved a distinct culture.

    So yes, even without conquest, SOME cultural shift would have happened (unless we go fully ahistorical and say that if Mayas could have conquered Europe, which is possible in a Civ game, Europe would shift their culture instead... but it is not a good basis for a design choice of a mod :) - by the same logic, if Rome never fell we would not have Spanish civ in the game etc... so some abstraction is, of course, needed)

    EDIT: Wouldn't, by your civilization definition, Hungary also be a very period specific name, and, for example, Pannonian Basin would be a better fit? Or, instead of Roman civilization, you'd have Apeninian Civilization?
    While consistent, it means that you have a bit different view of "what a civilization is" than I do - that is, what presents a continuity, and what presents a break in continuity. :)

    However, I do very much agree with you that vanilla Civ approach is very bad, with "civilization" being a synonimus for "faction", or "nation", or any independent entity. Holy Roman Empire being a civilization, for example...
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  20. PaperPaulo

    PaperPaulo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Well done mod for a well done game. It keeps me still going to civ 4 bts over time, while seldom bothering about civ 5.
    This would be nice to see.
     

Share This Page