Realism Invictus

[Docbonzai]

First: How big is you save-game file? (edit - I just overlooked that - 2.9 shound't be a problem).

Second: How many nations are still alive and how many cities can you "see" (you have to count them in the lower-right corner, nation by nation).

37 civs including myself, and 187 visible cities.

 

[PKSRoman]

Anything I've done wrong, or just bad luck for this run?

more RAM, i had this on my old PC

37 civs including myself, and 187 visible cities.

here is where is the problem

 

[TheBirdMan]

Then it's not a normal 'puter problem.

So now it's more likely this happens when a nation conquers an enemy city. Even more likely if one of the nations (or both) are "products" of a revolution. Anyway, I would say you have too many nations - more than the game-engine can handle. Number of cities seem quite "ok" to me. I'm not sure how many cities a normal huge-map can handle, but I guess at least 250 - but probably more.

I have had such CtD several times while I played with separatism on. Sometimes I was able to get the game run again by loading an earlier turn, open the WB and disable the separatism. Sometimes I had to "find a hot spot" and then delete the city "in question" (or the attacking army) to get the game run again. But most often I couldn't do anything that lasted more than a few turns..... .


Walter might - when he's back - very well be able to help you much more than I can.

 

[Docbonzai]

I appreciate the brainstorming anyway. I should have realized it was a dangerous combo with the 2; probably some weird shenanigans with revolutions to barb which settle into a civ and then revolt again and so on. There are a LOT of 1-2 city minor states scattered around the map.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Just finished a very interesting game which continued to confirm my impression that alliances are functioning well as of the current SVN. Alliance networks were balanced, not a given for every civ, and there was war between them. Save of the final turn attached for Walter or anyone else who might be interested in seeing the time-reel.

Spoiler :

I attempted to win a time victory by playing a strategy of exploiting revolutions. I built up an enormous stockpile of nukes when nobody else had them or SDI, in hopes that I would reduce the score of everyone else below mine (and it was a close game, score wise!) and do so at the very end of the game, before any secession would occur from war-weariness. Well, I stupidly did this with 3 turns remaining instead of 2, riots inevitably ensued the turn after, and my entire civ was replaced the following turn. Had I done it with 2 turns remaining, it likely would have worked. Oh well. That was a very fun game.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

on <iAIWeightPercent>100</iAIWeightPercent> this mod is finally playable with separatism option on.Prince difflucty, i had only one great "fall of empire" (Egypt split on west and east part, but in their times of glory they really were a superpower, normal civ points number was around 600, they had 1400) and smaller slave revolts, who capture cities

This is a nerf to everything else AI does though, as this means espionage is always at high priority, not just when it's actually needed. Despite Revolutions not being the default option (and me having no intention of bringing it back to default), once I'm back I'll revisit the AI bits to try and make AI respond in a more radical way to separatism.

No spamming a huge network ensuring world peace for ever. In fact, Mongolia even began attacking minors with some regularity, but by this point my power rating was in a range of between 1.2-4.0 of everyone else in the world, so nobody did attack our alliance. Eventually, I switched out of Judaism and cancelled the alliance with both of them, as I grew tired of being drug into all of these minors and inconsequential wars while my focus was elsewhere on industrializing. Now she is only at pleased, and with decent success, piecing her empire back together on her own. Now the only alliance which exists is between the mutual enemies of the former powerhouse Austria, and no alliances were ever made outside of existing high relations. I am not finished with the game yet, but wanted to report that I decided to put them back in, and it's working almost exactly as it seems it should.

Interesting. I will probably test turning them back on. If a couple of hands-off tests shows wars actually happening, I might bring them back.

- Not sure if this was asked before already, but is it possible to separate EXP gain from defeating privateers from the rest of barbarians, generally? The cap on experience from battling barbarians, slaves and serfs makes sense for gameplay reasons, but since they occur during temporary phases of the game and are eventually outgrown, whereas privateers tend to remain in play well into the modern era for some reason. Some backward civ also usually likes to stay in protectionism and throw heavy privateers out. During the age of sail, this can be quite a longstanding threat, even if by the time you have a metal navy it is nothing but an annoyance. Another point of reasoning here is that fighting privateers constitutes an effective act of war, as it is literally one civ sending a masked unit at you. You would gain endless EXP from continuously sinking frigates sent from another civ, while the privateer, being a unit for an actual civ actually does end up getting endless experience from continuously fighting, so in gameplay (and historical) terms there doesn't seem to be a meaningful reason why this shouldn't extend to privateers. Not sure if this is a manageable change, however.

Well, at this point in game and before you have a steam navy that makes the threat obsolete, it's a good idea to have pirate-hunting promos on your ships anyway. I think it actually works quite well now.

- It's possible I'm missing something here, but to me, the ironworks seems like it needs a buff. It's very expensive in terms of hammers, generates a lot of unhealthiness, obsoletes a very similar building which does not, and only improves production output marginally.

I don't know; the ways of increasing production are quite limited in RI. +25% production when compared to +15% from blast furnace is quite substantial.

- In addition to "We demand labor union!" would it be possible for "slave" revolts to occur when not in this civic by the time that it is demanded? I'm thinking something similar to the numerous and very real Jacobin uprisings during the 19th century, which would be quite similar to actual slave revolts as modeled by the game already. I'm not sure that this could be done "negatively," though, without making revolt risk an option for every other labor civic (and then to put this on a timer). One way to do it might be to make "workers revolts" part of working class exclusively (it's a little dissonant, after all, for free commoners to be revolting for emancipation) and then buff the civic slightly to compensate, since that is the civic which boosts craftsmen the most and incentivizes the player to use them, and this demographic was precisely the one most militant about emancipation in the first place.

I don't really like this idea; I don't see much historical precedent here. Unlike violent slave/serf revolts that were quite numerous in history, workers mostly acted through strikes and demonstrations. Russian Revolution and Civil War are the closest examples I can think of, but they'd be very poorly simulated by such a mechanic. Adding strikes as events might be more interesting and realistic.

- Slave/serf revolts in general during anarchy would be a good way to make this mechanic a little more turbulent. As it is now (especially since city defenses are not reduced to 0% anymore), the game does not model the strife and instability of social change by anything other than the opportunity cost of a few turns, which in game terms (especially since the number of turns has been increased significantly) is often almost completely inconsequential. Maybe also add a building "recent anarchy" adding a positive separatism modifier which lasts for say, 20 turns, to represent an "aftershock" of reactionaries after the new civic is in place? Social change is of course seldom unopposed in society even after it has already been implemented. I don't know if you care to do anything else with revolutions since you've taken them out of the game, but this seems like it would be relatively easy to implement and would make historically plausible probably one of the most lacking mechanics of the game in this regard.

I don't like this idea, mostly due to the fact that AI would have zero awareness that this needs to be expected. AI usually picks the most peaceful moment to change civics, so it would be the least prepared to deal with revolts.

- Pharmaceuticals can be built by a great merchant wonder which only requires the modern chemistry tech, even though there is already an actual tech by this same name. Is this intentional, and wouldn't that make more sense as a prerequisite? Or is that the design, that the great merchant enables the player or AI to get something earlier which is otherwise unavailable?

Since it requires a GP, I wanted to have it available a bit before the respective tech. Pharmaceuticals tech gives you another potential source of this resource.

- Is the "You're getting ahead of us!" relations penalty temporary? It doesn't seem to be applying to low score rivals of mine when I am the score leader by a huge margin. Or I forget: is this only supposed to apply to runner-ups, to stimulate conflict between civs which are competitive with one another without discouraging vassalization and "client" relationships between the winners and the civs which are deeply in a losing position?

It peaks at 50% difference in score, after which the power difference is simply too high. So generally, it only exists between civs "in the same league". I am not 100% satisfied with how it works now, and if I have time and inspiration I'd like to try and make it more nuanced.

- Is there a possibility of putting in a delay for vassalization on newly formed civs? I had a frustrating situation where a barb city I was attacking acquired enough culture from combat to form Russia, and they literally peace vassalized themselves to another AI in literally the exact same turn resolution that they formed in the first place... Maybe a cap of like 10 turns or something for this, to give a player intent on attacking that barb city a realistic (but not guaranteed) chance to actually take the city that they were already besieging? It was quite annoying in this case, too, since they vassalized themselves to my ally.

I don't know the answer to this one (should be?), but it's definitely a good idea. I'll see when I get back.

- Are there any existing incentives to spread religion outside of one's own empire now/one they intend to conquer now that scaling income for holy cities has been removed? It seems like with this mechanic, a well-functioning aspect of the religious mechanic which had a quasi-geopolitical gameplay effect was removed without anything to replace it in that role. With religion being a more significant domestic factor in RI, more incentives to spread religion (and consequently eliminate foreign ones) would make the whole religious side of the game more interesting, since it feels like mostly a domestic feature at present.

Diplomacy. But yeah, I get your point. I've been meaning to return the economic benefit in some capped form (instead of basing on flat number of cities, I was thinking about % of world population following the religion in question, with a map-size based cap).

- Would it be possible to create an alternative unit for modern infantry to upgrade into so that IFVs don't eventually make building footsoldiers completely impossible because of the singular upgrade path?

Modern infantry and paramilitary should already be buildable even if all upgrades are. Isn't it the case? I distinctly remember implementing (and testing) that.

- In game terms, what is the "real" difference between positive health and reduced epidemic chance? I know how these mechanics actual function and that they are related but separate, however, is there something different in real life that these are designed to model separately? I'd love to hear the elaboration, if so. It seems like positive health should always coincide with epidemic chance reduction, instead of just raising the ceiling against potential epidemic chance, yet there are several buildings, resources and projects which do the one but not the other. Is this strictly for game balancing or is there something which "feels realistic" (to use RI parlance) separating the two as models for reality in the game?

I know that's probably too much granularity, but I always thought of it like this - epidemic chance is a narrow factor, which specifically deals with epidemics of virulent diseases, while health is a broader term; a person can be unhealthy without suffering from plague or flu. So for instance a vaccine against smallpox significantly lowers epidemic chance, but has a very limited effect on health (basically if a person is not having smallpox right now, their health is the same whether they are vaccinated against it or not), whereas varied nutrition has a substantial effect on health but doesn't directly counteract epidemic chances (unless it prevents "negative health", which in this case would be conditions like pellagra or scurvy, that can make the weakened person more vulnerable to viruses/bacteria as well).

- How, conceptually, is the electric substation separate from the coal plant, since useful power generation necessarily implies the infrastructure to use it? This one really doesn't make sense to me. Is there a historical basis I'm missing? How would you have a power plant which is operative and producing electricity for various buildings in the city which require power if there is not a transformer and a power grid? I would maybe guess that this models direct current vs alternating current, but I don't think the former is usable in civ terms, and otherwise this doesn't really make sense. Why not just get rid of the substation and give the craftsman bonus directly to the powerplant instead?

Conceptually, it has to work with all kinds of power plants - basically, the power plant is the "source" of power, and the substation (representing power networks and generally the means of bringing electricity to consumers) is the "effect" of power. If you later replace your coal plant by a hydro plant or a nuclear one, it continues working its electric magic.

also dont forget that barbarian cities after rewolt in modern era can only build a units with 10 STR, in a modern world where common militia have at least 16
new patch should add "terrorist militia" who have STR at least as weakest unit in modern era (without resources)

In theory barbarians already have both 16-str and 20-str units; but yeah, I don't think I ever saw them in-game. I'll experiment with lowering tech requirements for them.

Hi, I just started an Emperor game in World Map Huge Scenario. I noticed that some starting civs start with only 2 warriors while others start with 2 warriors + archer. That's not really fair? Also the Khmer Empire Semi Civilized penalty is too great that it is basically not playable for human. Its even worse than megalomaniac (-20% wonder production vs -25% wonder production + -40% beakers...).

World map starts are very uneven in terms of challenge. Archers have been specifically added to the civilizations that were under major barbarian pressure from the start and were shown to fail a lot otherwise in hands-off tests. As for semi-civilized, thanks for pointing this out, it's a leftover from when Khmer were not playable. I'll fix that.

Started getting these along with no-warning ctd about Mid-Renaissance on a Huge map.
Playing on a 64bit OS and I should have overwhelming amounts of both base RAM and VRAM to handle this.
I am playing on a Huge map with both separatism and barb civs enabled, so the civ count has more than doubled since the start of the game
Also, here's the latest save size.

[/URL]

Anything I've done wrong, or just bad luck for this run?

Generally speaking, this is an engine limitation. I'll add a popup disclaimer about it to the huge map for the next release. I can direct you to the first post in this thread where, among other things, there's a reference to Process Lasso which has been shown to provide at least a temporary solution. But all in all, my recommendation is to use smaller maps with fewer civs.

 

[sqwishy]

Hi I finished a multiplayer game with one other player and had a good time and want advice about what settings to use for another playthrough. Mostly I'm interested in
- good map generator script and settings?
- tweaks for separatism so it doesn't break the AI? (or generally having longer games)
- is teaming with your friend a fine thing to do? It seems fairly balanced? Like research is split and espionage is shared?

We played on a small ring world map with a few extra AI and separatism and on prince or maybe the next harder one. The two of us were on a team and this was the only team.

We got a bit past gunpowder, to where you can make firearms from steel, then the other superpower declared war on us and took two cities but lost enough units that his empire separated. One third became a new civ, another third became barbarian. Both were quite weak. We won shortly thereafter. He was ahead in research, score, and strength but lost it all very fast.

I'm not even sure this was bad, it was kind of awesome, but mostly I want my games to last into the modern age and they haven't so far. I'm wondering
- is because the AI can't anticipate/deal with separatism? (the AI declared war with two civics that add war happiness penalties)
- or if I should just play on a larger map with more civs and superpowers so if this sort of thing happens there are other contenders and the game isn't over?

And also (I should probably search the thread first) what map settings do people use? When I try to use the custom map generators, I get lots of desert and mountain and sometimes some water. Nothing very playable. (Personally I'm not a fan of lots of island & managing unit transports but if that's what other people play with I'm curious to see it.)

 

[AspiringScholar]

Interesting. I will probably test turning them back on. If a couple of hands-off tests shows wars actually happening, I might bring them back.

I also just started a new huge world map game with them (and revolutions, which behaved better than they normally do, as well) on, and will report back on whether it keeps up working pleasingly, if that helps. The scale of the scenario might have a different bearing on it.

Well, at this point in game and before you have a steam navy that makes the threat obsolete, it's a good idea to have pirate-hunting promos on your ships anyway. I think it actually works quite well now.

That actually makes plenty of sense, and I had forgotten about that promotion line. Also, if you promote the early coastal defense line that way, you aren't even wasting potential XP since you have to build proper capital ships from scratch, anyway.

I don't know; the ways of increasing production are quite limited in RI. +25% production when compared to +15% from blast furnace is quite substantial.

Assuming a normal amount of production for a city at that point in the game is about 80, the immediate bonus constitutes hardly more than the equivalent of a single craftsman. Honestly, it just seems fairly underwhelming for what it is supposed to represent, and how expensive it actually is in the game. Having an ironworks in a city doesn't make it "feel" like it is an industrialized hub of production to me, merely slightly better; but coupled with the liabilities and the opportunity cost, it tends to feel like a reluctant choice to me (with the overall industrial building cost nerf a couple of revisions ago, especially so). I would even go so far as to suggest increasing the additional bonus over the blast furnace to 20%.

On another note, were they even prevalent enough at the time of their introduction to be "buildings" in Civ 4 terms? They were national wonders in the base game. It seems like that is actually more appropriate. Was your reason for changing this merely to complete the metallurgy production modifier line for gameplay reasons, or was it on a historical basis? Off the top of my head, while there might have been more than literally just one, it seems that these facilities would still be quite rare, even for great industrial powers. I might have that wrong, however.

I don't really like this idea; I don't see much historical precedent here. Unlike violent slave/serf revolts that were quite numerous in history, workers mostly acted through strikes and demonstrations. Russian Revolution and Civil War are the closest examples I can think of, but they'd be very poorly simulated by such a mechanic. Adding strikes as events might be more interesting and realistic.

Bold

Good point. I guess I was thinking of Victoria 2 rather than any definite historical example I could bring to mind, when I made that comment. The revolutions of 1848 were however one that I thought of, and probably still a good one, though that is a once-off occurrence. Other major European uprisings of that time are probably much better represented by separatism, as they all had much more to do with nationalism than anything else.

I don't like this idea, mostly due to the fact that AI would have zero awareness that this needs to be expected. AI usually picks the most peaceful moment to change civics, so it would be the least prepared to deal with revolts.

Okay, I wasn't aware that this one had much at all to do with AI directly, but I see that that would ruin it. At the same time, the Spiritual trait (and Cristo Redentor wonder) was indirectly nerfed in this regard by the reduction in the opportunity cost of anarchy (even if the increased effect of religious buildings buffs its other aspect). Do you think anything relatively simple could be done to make anarchy a little more of a con on its own? Switching civics feels "free" as it is.

Since it requires a GP, I wanted to have it available a bit before the respective tech. Pharmaceuticals tech gives you another potential source of this resource.

That makes plenty of sense; just unsure whether or not it was intentional.

It peaks at 50% difference in score, after which the power difference is simply too high. So generally, it only exists between civs "in the same league". I am not 100% satisfied with how it works now, and if I have time and inspiration I'd like to try and make it more nuanced.

One possible idea might be to put a diplomatic malus for it on colonies overseas, which are already categorically different per a separate maintenance cost. This would of course not have an effect on certain map scripts, but on any which have a new world to colonize, it could increase tension among competing colonial nations, which certainly has a strong historical element to it in fueling rivalries. In pure gameplay terms, that's definitely something which tends to persuade me to attack someone I would have otherwise had no problem with. Maybe separate to "You're getting ahead of us!" but additionally "Your overseas presence is concerning." Something like -1 relations per colonial city seems pretty excessive, but I don't know if something like tying it to a threshold of colonial maintenance could be done instead.

As it is, aside from the existing score disparity penalty, the nations which do successfully pull off colonizing the new world do tend to take off in score once the cities are mature, so putting in something which incentivizes "nipping it in the bud" early in the process might be interesting.

I don't know the answer to this one (should be?), but it's definitely a good idea. I'll see when I get back.

Much appreciated, thanks.

Diplomacy. But yeah, I get your point. I've been meaning to return the economic benefit in some capped form (instead of basing on flat number of cities, I was thinking about % of world population following the religion in question, with a map-size based cap).

That sounds excellent.

Modern infantry and paramilitary should already be buildable even if all upgrades are. Isn't it the case? I distinctly remember implementing (and testing) that.

It actually was already fixed, my bad. I personally did not have this problem in a game but recall you saying that it was something you would eventually fix much earlier in the thread and then someone else mentioned it significantly later on (SVN very close to the 3.5 release) still being a problem. I hadn't gotten to where you actually did it yet, though.

I know that's probably too much granularity, but I always thought of it like this - epidemic chance is a narrow factor, which specifically deals with epidemics of virulent diseases, while health is a broader term; a person can be unhealthy without suffering from plague or flu. So for instance a vaccine against smallpox significantly lowers epidemic chance, but has a very limited effect on health (basically if a person is not having smallpox right now, their health is the same whether they are vaccinated against it or not), whereas varied nutrition has a substantial effect on health but doesn't directly counteract epidemic chances (unless it prevents "negative health", which in this case would be conditions like pellagra or scurvy, that can make the weakened person more vulnerable to viruses/bacteria as well).

You know, that actually fits surprisingly well for what is inherently a work-in of a new mechanic system for the game. Those examples are almost perfect, and the mechanic now feels more immersive for them.

EDIT: Speaking of that, a thought just occurred to me: I don't know if this is something you even like theoretically, but one game concept that tends to come up from time to time in discussion here is alcohol. I like how distilled spirits were added to the game as a manufacturable alcohol resource, but its single bonus of happiness doesn't seem quite in line with its actual role in history. Since alcoholism was and still is widespread to the point of being a longstanding public health issue, what about increasing its happiness bonus to +2, and then also increasing unhealthiness by +1, additionally?

This actually makes pretty good sense purely in game balance terms to my mind as well, since it is a manufactured resource requiring two input resources, whereas most other luxury goods (gold, silver, gems, furs, etc.) provide the same output and require only one instance of the resource, with a cheaper "activating" building, at that, in terms of early availability and hammer cost, if even one at all (such as hemp and whales, which do not). In real life terms, though, alcohol consumption literally is unhealthy, even if it is common throughout most of the world and has been culturally normative and ritualized in many societies for a long time. Even if drinking in moderation is something many people do with no complications, one could think of it as a sort of concomitant alcoholism that would nevertheless still affect a sector of the population. It would also make the resource more fun and unique, being the first and only "finished" luxury good one has access to for quite a long time.

Conceptually, it has to work with all kinds of power plants - basically, the power plant is the "source" of power, and the substation (representing power networks and generally the means of bringing electricity to consumers) is the "effect" of power. If you later replace your coal plant by a hydro plant or a nuclear one, it continues working its electric magic.

So why then do power plants provide power on their own as it is? It seems more sensible that either the substation should be a prerequisite for any powerplant, or that it should be scrapped with each powerplant providing its bonus, individually. Otherwise, you are left with a building which models something that already functionally exists in that city.

 

[TheBirdMan]

Pushed out an update a week ago that's inspired by the autobahn-related discussion. Every civ now has Highways as their last route tier, instead of the improved railroad - better visually distinct too. Germany still has Autobahn which is still better.

Since I do not play the regular smaller updates - I have enough trying to get my own home-made stuff working as I want it to - have any reached so far in a game to have any comments here?


But there is still something that bothers me. Not that the electric railroad has been taken out - I didn't use them much anyway. It's more something with the graphic of the paved roads. They road-design sometime looks too "modern" for me, considering this kind of roads comes into the game already in the classical era.

To show how I "see" it, take a look at the 3 screenshots I made.

1. 1.st is the normal early roads. Just looks fine to me. Could easily be standard roads upto late medival era.
2. 2.nd is then same picture but with the paved roads. See the tile right besides the red circle?!. That's my main "problem". Those kind of crossings, turning off to the right and then pass what look like under the "main-road" - it's something you would expect sometimes in the 20th century. Not in the classical era. Besides the roads are to "straight". A mix between the roads and paved roads would be much better IM(not so)HO. Keep the color of the roads.
3. 3rd, again same picture but with the modern (or highway) roads. Looks very good and design kind of "fit" here.

Screenshots below

Spoiler :

 

[TheBirdMan]

Now I'm active writing .........


About the tech "Time ahead" penalty. One of the best changes made for this game. Only a little too "soft" for my taste.


In my current game - replayed a couple of times, reducing the number of landtiles and suitable city-areas each time (I'm still afraid it have too many good spots, but time will show) to be able to finish the game - I think I finally got to what suits me. It looks kind of "nice" now, that no nation is able to get too far ahead of say.... the 2nd to 4-5th best in knowledge.

Below is the settings - both for the gamespeed and the time ahead penalty. Remember the settings is special for this game as I want it to end in the early industrial era (year 1830) with as many turns as possible in the late part of the game.

 

[Docbonzai]

So I've played around with that save some more and I realize it almost always crashes when a menu tries to open, particularly the diplomacy menu. It'll also seize up sometimes when you check advisor panels, or when I've triggered a wonder/religion founding movie. Pretty odd that's where the engine is running into trouble now.

 

[PKSRoman]

This is a nerf to everything else AI does though, as this means espionage is always at high priority, not just when it's actually needed. Despite Revolutions not being the default option (and me having no intention of bringing it back to default), once I'm back I'll revisit the AI bits to try and make AI respond in a more radical way to separatism.

I noticed that ai doesn't choose the option to reduce rebellion: the player has the choice to bribe rebel leaders, reduce production , give autonomy for 30 turns and I haven't noticed ai doing the same thing

I wouldn't call it a nerf since the only thing that is reduced is technology (which can be accessed quickly when technology trade is active)

Finally, thirdly, civilizations collapse due to many factors, and somehow I have not read in history that six months after the start of the war with much smaller nation (1/10 of size of attacker) the whole country, having many cities (like 20-25 on civ map) except the capital was in the hands of rebels who were against the war.

In addition, as I wrote now revolutions occur only when the war lasts a long time or the country has grown too fast, so there are possibility of guerrilla warfare in the newly conquered areas, which can lead to the capture of one or more cities.

 

[TheBirdMan]

I did read this news about revolutions and have activated this setting in the "running" game I restarted yesterday. Though not with suggested value of 100%. I'll try with 55%.

As this game have 18 active nations from the start - including 3 derivative and 6 other (native americans), I guess most revolts will end up with the cities joining the babarians. Anyway that's how the 3 minor revolts I have read about in "The World News" until now has fallen out.

 

[PKSRoman]

Though not with suggested value of 100%. I'll try with 55%.

55% isnt bad, but still to me revolutions "because why not?" are too often
on 100% most expansive / agressive nations just fall, just like in real life
also war change from fast attacks on cities rather on position warfare with one big stack of doom from aggresor site

I guess most revolts will end up with the cities joining the babarians.

yeah, this is most annyoying
our nation is top1 in ranking and our leader declare war? lets 3/4 of our cities turn undo barbarian rule, why not.

 

[BenkofAmerica]

I am in the process of trying to turn Austria into a full civ. Does anyone know how to add unique improvements? I've managed to find the improvement folder with unique improvements but I can only assign them a binary value and cannot seem to find where you can assign them to a specific Civ. Thanks.

 

[TheBirdMan]

yeah, this is most annyoying
our nation is top1 in ranking and our leader declare war? lets 3/4 of our cities turn undo barbarian rule, why not.

The top-dogs in my game have not had any revolutions yet (as far as I remember).

If you think more of why no new nations has been formed - well a russian city has revolted and formed Ukraine (game only - on hints towards real life).

Other revolutions may have failed in your eyes; but that is my "fault" - I have both activated and used some of the derivative nations in my game from the start.

I might take a look at Holland (Nederlands), Portugal and Texas and see if I can find a reason why revolutions in those nations so far "only" made babarian cities.

 

[Aisale]

Recently I'm editing the world map. I changed one coast plot near Cape Town(South Africa) into ocean one to make it impossible circumnavigate the world before using caravel. But I find that the ocean plot access to the land looks really unnatural and fuzzy. Is it possible to do someting to make the ocean plot looks clearer and nicer?

 

[PKSRoman]

I might take a look at Holland (Nederlands), Portugal and Texas and see if I can find a reason why revolutions in those nations so far "only" made babarian cities.

you dont need to see, in my games minior nations appear (because ai cant maintain separatism properly) and the new revolutionists, who want revolt automatically turn into barbarians
thats why top civs who revolt as latest (because old one revolt and fall) turn into barbarism - there arent any new civs in who they can transform
i play on huge map if that help.

(btw i like the idea that when spying is so high in AI priority, they prefer to hide their strenght and fight in position warfare rather than quickly striking enemy cities and dealing with rebels who occupied half the invader country when the army was waging war in foreign territories

game is slower but at least stable and more realistic, well kind of)

 

[AspiringScholar]

A couple of bug spots and some more comments. No need to reply to all of these since I just posted a wall of text a few days ago, just leaving for your reference in case it's helpful:

Spoiler :

- There seems to be no voice acting for the agricultural machinery tech (unless something went wrong on my side or I somehow missed it).

- What about making great people capturable instead of them disbanding on encounter? This has real world precedent (think "captured Nazi scientist" in the aftermath of WW2), especially in the late game now that nuclear expertise requires a great scientist or engineer, and the incentive to hold onto them for later use is greater, for golden ages or otherwise. It seems that if someone was known to be a great person, the enemy would want to capture them and make them work for the new civ, not just kill them on the spot (Pythagoras at the siege of Syracuse comes to mind as an exception, however). Would add a little spice to warfare in general, too, since this could become a deliberate strategic factor in conquest.

- With the strategic bomber, I was unable to bomb enemy improvements, which should be something they can do since the base game.

- My domestic advisor seems unable to display triple-digit numbers. This becomes particularly clunky from renaissance onwards, when many cities yield output at this threshold in several categories. The actual "screen" itself with the info is compressed in a smaller window in the top left, rather than logically filling the entire available space. Unsure if this is how it is for others or if there is a problem on my end.

- In my most recent game, I had the "passenger airliner crashes" event every few turns for almost the entire industrial era. (I've got the save if you need it.)

- The ICBM description in pedia has a hyperlink which says "can NUKE enemy lands" but clicking on this doesn't bring you to another page. While an experienced player obviously knows how that works, it would be cool if there was a page in "Game Concepts" detailing exactly what it entails, damage thresholds, etc., Otherwise, removing the hyperlink might be something you want to do as it is just visual clutter otherwise.

- How about making the biological warfare missile cause an instant epidemic on impact (or at least a chance of one)? I think I might have mentioned this one before, but it seems to make sense both in gameplay and real world terms within the purview of the existing mechanics as they are.

- This is purely aesthetic, but all longbowmen have a conspicuously thick, chord-like bowstring which other ranged units do not seem to have. It doesn't particularly bother me, but I know that you like things to look better when possible, so just bringing it up in case it was something you'd not thought about in a while.

- How about adding a very high maintenance cost to nuclear weapons? Maintaining a warhead missile and silo at instant readiness is very expensive in real life, and nukes are extremely powerful in this mod, so what about something like +5 gold per nuke, to make stockpiling them prohibitively expensive? I don't know if this will have a meaningful gameplay effect, however. Each nuke contributes massively to a civ's power score, so their current ability to be useful deterrents is something to consider in this regard.

- For several turns, I was unable to select any units in a city which had a garrisoned fort two tiles to its south. (Save included which I can post if this isn't already something known about.)

- For some reason, I had the option to nuke my own cities and lands (but, ironically, not those of non-belligerents). You'd only do this by mistake if playing seriously, so I'm not sure if it's worth doing anything about this or not, but thought I'd mention it just in case it's undesirable and/or easily fixed. Perhaps this is actually intentionally enabled so that a player has the option of nuking an invading army at the expense of ruining their own land?

- Pedia description for Kulothunga Chola is very brief. Is there more meaningful historical information available for this figure? I actually like reading the backgrounds of leaders, units, buildings, etc., when I play.

- In my current game, the ancestor shrine in my capital is outputting a raw 4 culture, while it is only supposed to be 2, as it is in the other cities which have it.

- The spy unit model as South China is invisible to the player and in the pedia window.

- The hyperlink for the courthouse says "Can turn 1 citizen into spy" but clicking this takes you to the page for the unit, not the specialist.

- The work boat in the ancient era shows a pulley reel mechanism on the stern, which realistically shouldn't exist until much later, AFAIK. Unsure if there are any feasible models for this, but mentioning in case you would prefer to use a more ancient looking watercraft until, say, mechanics (which would warrant the artwork as it currently is).

- Is it possible to merge a newer version of the BUG mod which details when civs are plotting war, and the reasons for "we have enough on our hands"? I'm thinking probably not, since everything is already so tethered to the existing UI, that attempting this might uproot a lot of previous fixes, but if it's something that can be done, it would make following AI behavior a lot less arbitrary.

Once again, thanks for such an immensely high-quality and fun mod. Hope some of these observations help.

 

[Zap0]

I've had some time recently and have been playing RI again. Like the changes in the last half year or so, the couple building rebalances and the sanity that has taken place in unit naming!

Suggestion: The build option for the Armenian cavalry NU gets disabled when mounted knights are available to be constructed in a city. I'd like to be able to continue building the NUs (7) alongside my knights, as they have useful traits. Currently I can build them in cities where I specifically don't build a Stable so knights don't become available there, but that is a bit of an awkward workaround.
The Armenian foot NU could probably use a similar treatment, upgrading into Pikes instead of some flavor of Swordsman.