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. 2popbulb

    2popbulb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    Not really. I think AI's first priority is to build ships. Tons upon tons upon tons of ships. In one of my games India had more than 70 transport ships,probably more than all other units combined. That is insane. In another game Incas built a bunch of galleys and triremes in a closed lake. Later on,some civ(I don't remember who)declared war on them and conquered them. If they built archers,skirmishers and other land units instead of dozens of useless ships they could have won the war.
     
  2. Sathar

    Sathar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Error in EndPlayerTurn event handler <bound method BugEventManager.onEndPlayerTurn of <BugEventManager.BugEventManager instance at 0x0508B1C0>>

    Save attached
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Neonprime

    Neonprime Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Curitiba, Brazil
    The scrublands are not being removed when a improvement is built by random event, camps are nothing removing as well but this ins't exactly a problem since camps can be built preserving forests and savannas but the scrub doesn't match aesthetically with improvements since they overlap the rocks and grass and this is a real problem to the aesthetic. The same thing happen with hot springs, I think no improvements besides natural parks could be built on them. As the team says: a better looking game is a better game. What do you think Walter?
     
  4. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    125
    Typical pastoral nomadism:lol:

     
  5. Sathar

    Sathar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Minor tweak suggestion:

    I generally like the "new" Hanging Gardens, however it feels a little odd that it's primary bonus (+2 Food to Aqueducts) typically isn't useful when it's built (I play on Emperor on the World Map, so if I want a Great Wonder, I have to get it up quickly as soon as it's available or else someone else will). Often, it may be a half dozen or more techs later before Aqueducts get unlocked, and usually there are other priorities.

    Consider keeping the current bonus, but maybe add +1 Food for Public Wells as a lead-in?

    Also, it's a little awkward suddenly losing the food bonus when upgrading to Waterworks, but that at least is in line with the design philosophy of Wonders becoming obsolete.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2019
  6. SR-71

    SR-71 Terminator T850 model 101

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    198
    Location:
    Seville, Spain
    Hi. I got RI to get working. Now, I have these continuous error messages, like these below: errorr.jpg error2r.jpg
     
  7. Michkov

    Michkov Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,365
    Anyone up for PBEM game of RI? Looking for someone who can play at least a turn a day.
     
  8. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    111
    The culture change from combat feels much too strong. I just had a scenario where an invading civ parked some units next to my city. They were considerably weaker, so I went ahead an attacked them. Some mixed luck saw me lose 3 of the 10 or so combats. My city is now only 80% Russian instead of 100% Russian and has the "We resent being ruled by a foreign culture" happiness malus. That's a weird outcome for successfully repelling an invading force.

    I've also found it to make invading cities much too easy. If the defending city is well garrisoned, by the time I wear down the defenses, it's almost 50% my own culture.
     
  9. SR-71

    SR-71 Terminator T850 model 101

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    198
    Location:
    Seville, Spain
    After playing until Renaissance era I feel that though Revolutions is a great addition, which makes everybody to be much more vigilant to revolts, but it must be tweaked, because when a conquered city revolts and change to another civ it happens TOO OFTEN that one or some or MY OWN MAINLAND CITIES with a ridiculous level of different culture revolts and change sides too. This is completely absurd, cities cannot revolt only from a little foreign culture. Though ancient foreign cities logically can retain followers of the previous owner it`s nonsense to lose an completely loyal city which has been worked with wonders improvements and so not by a local revolt but a foreign one. This completely ruins the game in an advanced stage
    Fortunately this changes can be reverted loading a previous savegame, if not i would be thrown the mod at the present stage to the dustbin immediatley :lol:
    Also, sometimes revolts and change sides happen WITHOUT ANY WARNING. I don´t know if this is intentional but if it is so it's completely stupid and unbalanced. These "instant" revolts can be reverted by reloading too (fortunately also)
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  10. SR-71

    SR-71 Terminator T850 model 101

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    198
    Location:
    Seville, Spain
    This is why I never play with culture change from combat. It's nonsense
     
  11. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    125
    You can keep the revolution chance under 0% with units and espionage. Don't be greedy)
     
  12. SR-71

    SR-71 Terminator T850 model 101

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    198
    Location:
    Seville, Spain
    The problem isn't if you can or you cannott kep it low, the problem is that though there is 1% separatism you suddenly without riot warning have a change side, and sometimes in your mainland cities with 99,9 culture and 1% separatism.... It's not the feature it's that has a bug. In the meantime I'll play without revolutions, it isn't so interesting but I haven't to load again and again
     
  13. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    111
    So maybe what we really need is a "City X will become separatist" warning, similar to the "City X will become unhappy next turn" warnings.
     
    SR-71 likes this.
  14. Walter Hawkwood

    Walter Hawkwood RI Court Painter

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,224
    Location:
    London, UK
    Historically, animal herding was the natural source of major human epidemic diseases - it is likely the chief contributor of the severe "pathogen disparity" between the Old and New World that proved so catastrophic to the New World natives. See here for instance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24642136

    Current formula assigns 75% of old owner's culture to the new spawned civ in the city. Do you feel it's not enough? In my experience, new civs don't struggle much with territory. Here's a screen from a test game:
    Spoiler Big screenshot :
    upload_2019-11-15_14-40-11.jpeg


    Lithuanians are obviously revolters (Lithuanians can't appear unless they revolt), but their borders are rather comfortable.

    Eh, I probably will.

    Looks quite reasonable to me:
    Spoiler Old World in 4000 BC :


    Remember that an "empty" tile in Civ doesn't necessarily mean nobody lives there, it just means no organized state claims and controls it as their territory. And except for some cramped places like Mediterranean and China, it was pretty much a reality for most of Earth until well into Common Era.

    One can discuss AI stupidity as long as one likes, but it does nothing to my ability to fix it.

    Will probably place another +1 happy there somewhere. Or remove the barracks bonus from Despotism. Will think about it.

    No chance of any such major balance changes at this point.

    It was designed to be a dead end tech, a purely naval tech that only naval-interested civs would research. Like Elephant Taming being useful only if you have actual elephants.

    Will take a look.

    That requires digging into events. I may do that at some point if I'm not too lazy. And how does one get a camp on scrubland anyway?

    Sensible idea.

    Means something still wrong with your installation, as this doesn't normally happen (at least definitely not all the time). I can take a look at your logs if you post them.

    I will take a look at the formula. But the general idea is exactly that, to make invading cities easier, as without it, very often one sees a city surrounded from all sides by enemy territory with no tiles to work.

    A city can't revolt if its separatism is lower than 10%. It can only join an existing uprising of another city. As for riots, I will add more robust checks so that it is impossible for a city to revolt unless it is rioting.
     
  15. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    125
    Here's a classic situation:
    Spoiler :

    The orange civ is an old civ, the violet civ a new one. It started like this several centuries ago and the borders are still compressed.

    But it feels like nobody lives there. I guess I'll have to accept this and get over it.

    I've had a proposal. It should help AI but will restrict player decisions. Can you prohibit placing cities on resources (like you've done with swamps)?

    What about monastic order?

    Got one.

    But an 'or' operator is used for tailor or trading post. Isn't it useful?
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    There's a single line in the definition of every terrain feature (swamps, savannahs, forests...) where if you change a "0" to "1" you can't found cities there.
    Every terrain (plains, hills, etc) has three similar lines, which define whether you can found city on it at all, or you can still if it's on a coast, or on a fresh water tile (at least that's how I understand it), but there is nothing comparable in the definitions of resources. Pretty sure those lines have been there since vanilla.

    To do what you suggest would therefore mean a bit more than changing the value of a boolean.

    Also, what about hidden resources? If you look at the map in worldbuilder they tend to be a whole lot more crowded in terms of resources than what you can see at the start of a game. If you couldn't build on any resource, hidden or not, then you could use a settler as a "scout" to see if squares have them by observing whether the settle button is greyed out or not. And if you try to make it so you can settle on resources if you don't see them yet, it would mean (I'd wager) a lot more coding headaches.

    I'm guessing he means that an OR operator for consumer building specifically. With one you could have a single converter building that can operate if you meet requirement A OR requirement B rather than having two different buildings for both requirements. Compare with canned goods factories which really are 3 different buildings that just happen to have the same name. The problem with them is that if you have both fish AND corn along with iron, you can build two buildings. If you had on OR operator at play, once you'd built it once, you couldn't build the other one, because they're now actually just one building.

    For buildings that just produce happiness, like tailors or trading posts, you can build them if you meet one of the requirements, but that's defined differently. For consumer buildings, you define what resources they consume and what they produce, and that's it. All requirements must be met. It's maddening, and no, I don't think you can just use the code for one for the other here.

    [RANT] Man, there's all sorts of frustrating things there that makes you think would it have killed the developers to add that one thing when they were making the game. Like how you can define an improvement that can be built on hills, and you can define one that can't be built on hills, but you can't define an improvement that can't be built on flatlands if it meets another requirement. So if you want to make, say, a "Skiing Resort" improvement for the Austrians, and you define it as being able to be built on hills, and on tundras and on ice, turns out you can built it on grassy hills and tundra flatlands too. There doesn't seem to be a way to define it so you need to have all the requirements match. Nope. Here we have all OR operator, and no goddamn AND operator in sight. So you end up using a weird one which defines that the tile needs to have at least 1 production on it along with the tundra or ice requirements (but no hill requirement), so now you can build it properly because hills add one production.

    As does oil... Okay, the Austrians can ski on icy flat oilfields if they want. See if I care. And better remove that tundra requirement too because forests also add one production and while you think having the improvement remove any forests might make it impossible to be built on them you're too tired to make sure because it takes 20 minutes to check and there's no forests on ice... (except some of my favorite map scripts add forests on ice for some weird stupid reason anyway...) [/RANT]:crazyeye:
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2019
  17. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    125
    Yes, I know that. I wonder if it would be possible to create a similar variable for resources.

    I like the first variant: one can't build on a hidden resource. I'd prefer to use a settler as a "scout" than a worldbuilder.
     
  18. [Y]

    [Y] Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    111
    I know, and I'm not hoping for it. You guys (and especially you) have done a tremendous amount of work, all for free, and I'll never take that for granted. Thank you again for bringing about one of the best gaming experiences. :)

    Removing 1 happiness will really hurt. I use it all the time. I say do it. Or maybe swap the bonuses: Have despotism decrease distance costs and Monarchy decrease number of cities costs.

    I think one of the reasons that Despotism sticks so well is because it becomes an investment: You build the barracks and walls in cities that don't necessarily need them because the +1 happiness is incredibly useful. You build the Pyramids and Stonehenge because paganism and despotism give you Imperial Cult, which is another incredibly handy +1 happiness (and which can be in _addition_ to any religion happiness!). That's a net +2 happiness, along with great reduction in maintenance costs.

    Switching to Monarchy means losing 1 happiness in all these cities. It can be replaced with Local Autonomies, but that requires Traditional Custom, which I give up as soon as Plutocracy comes around (usually around the same time Monarchy becomes available). Monarchy does offer +2 happiness in the capital, but +2 in one city is nothing compared to +1 in 8 or more cities. Top that off with knowing that the +2 is temporary and I will be facing 2 unhappiness when I switch away from Monarchy, it becomes very unappealing.

    Why switch to monarchy and pay hammers to replace existing happiness bonuses, lose +10% military unit production, and increase maintenance costs? It doesn't work out.

    What _could_ be interesting is if Monarchy became available earlier, before you become invested in Despotism and feel like you would be losing all the bonuses you spent time building up and becoming dependent upon.

    Something else I've been meaning to bring up: When discovering Philosophy, the "switch to new civic?" prompt is always for Pacifism, never for Republic. So I tend to forget that Republic is available, because Philosophy is always researched "on the way" to another tech, never as an goal for Republic. But if the prompt was for Republic, I'm curious to see if I'd start using it more often. It would also mean switching away from Despotism sooner, which opens up the door to later switching from Republic to Monarchy.

    I like that as a goal, but for that purpose, it would make more sense if the culture got shifted on conquering the city rather than on individual combats. I know that would act very different from the current implementation, but I don't think it makes sense to see such drastic culture changes from failed invasions.

    If that's the goal, then why even bother with hidden resources?

    I get that you don't like it, but I like that there are hidden resources that become apparent as the game goes on. Yeah, it makes near impossible to place cities ideally, but that's part of the game. Scouting with settlers, and checking worldbuilder, are essentially cheating at the game. I think it's a fine "if you like to play that way, you do you" sort of cheating, but definitely not the sort that warrants changing how the game is played to more easily accommodate it.
     
  19. sazhdapec

    sazhdapec Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    125
    No, the goal is to help AI. Even if you see that there is a resource you won't know what's hidden.

    I don't like the game 'ending' in renaissance when the difficulty can no longer carry AI's deficiencies. And I don't see a problem in planning of city placement based on unrevealed resource tiles. Consider it a scientific exploration of resources: your scientists tell you something's there but not sure how to use it.
     
  20. Shuikkanen

    Shuikkanen Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Finland
    I don't like the whole no settling on resources idea at all, but if one were to have it, I'd allow it for industrial and later era resources. It certainly wouldn't help the AI for to have it send a settler into a seemingly good city spot on a crowded continent only to waste its time because there happens to be natural gas there, and the squares next to it might be unsuitable for various other reasons so it just travels back.

    Oh... and racing to send a settler to a perfect spot first only to discover you can't settle there may result in faulty hardware (screen) and/or hand injuries. I mean it can be a bit too aggravating. And while it was I who brought up scouting with settlers in this thread, it isn't really feasible in the early game land grab.

    Well, interesting conversation anyway, but probably completely moot since I'd wager Walter won't have the interest in coding this. :p
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019

Share This Page