Realism Invictus

[Lantarh]

1. (Road building) Time should be also dependent on terrain type.

Isn't it already?

Not in latest stable.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I do believe we had a mechanic for cultural diffusion through trade routes, but I wasn't sure if it was still working. I guess it is. It's mostly cosmetic anyway, as the amounts shouldn't be large.

Not entirely cosmetic this time around. In my large, non-border cities, it's significant enough to generate at least one unhappiness (which by late renaissance isn't such a big deal, though it's hardly a drop in the bucket either). In addition to the cosmetic touch, I also like how this puts a small caveat on trade, after having been buffed hugely as a source of commerce in the mod. Do you remember if the degree of diffusion scales with the amount of commerce in the route?

 

[ThirdOrbital]

While I don't normally comment on strategy advice discussions (I feel player-to-player discussions are more productive here) and a lot of meaningful stuff has already been posted in reply, one thing that surprised me is that nobody is talking about first strikes, even though this is the original issue you're complaining about. First strikes are the key factor between a defender surviving without a scratch to kill 10 more units and some actual damage being done. In a siege stack, I always bring enough archers and recon units to provide meaningful aid - even though they don't usually get to attack, they can be the difference between losing ~3 and ~15 units, or between taking the city or failing. And if you have designated "first wave" units you're considering expendable, with some free XP to spare, it might be a good idea to give them Drill promotions instead of the most obvious City Attack, to ensure they're guaranteed to do at least some damage.

Fascinating idea. I had noticed that the first strikes from stack aid were significant, but I never considered giving drill specifically for my expendable suicide units. I'll have to try that in my next campaign.

 

[[Y]]

You can trash all of his improvements and starve his citizens. Also, I find the AI often concentrates its defenders during a war, so you can just walk around the city (destroying the roads as you go) and assault the next one.
Another option is to use your spies. You can destroy defensive building, or even provoke a revolt in one of his cities. Unhappiness from your spy + war weariness could well trigger a rebellion if you play with separatism.

Yes and no... we can't firebomb or launch corpses over the walls if that's what you mean, but other than that I'd say it's mostly representative.

I'm mostly thinking of things like starving out the defenders. We can starve out a city in RI, and lower it's citizen count, but as long as the defending civ can afford to pay the unit upkeep for the defenders, they're neither dying off nor becoming weakened.

My suggestion would be if the defender has a huge number of units built up in the city at any point in the game just forget about trying to conquer that city for the time being unless you have much more advanced units, can lure them out of the city or slowly pick away at the defenders with some very highly promoted first strike and/or withdraw units plus a GG in your stack. If not, as mentioned above, be prepared to swap units for at least a 3:1 loss. When I go on the offensive I usually build my armies with 25%-75% of the units (depending on the amount of defenders and how badly I want the city) being cheap throw away units (short swordsmen, levys, irregulars, etc.) with a city attacker promotion. The Holy War doctrine is also excellent for this. I grab it every game if I can. Calvary units with collateral damage are good too once the city defense multiplier has been reduced down to 0%, but are quite expensive so usually not worth it (save the vast majority of those for the field unless you're desperate). I'll suicide run these units into the city to weaken their defenders until I'm confident enough my more expensive veteran units can easily take them out. Also take note of what kinds of units your enemy is using and mix a few cheap units with the appropriate promotions into your stacks to deal with those.

To add to this, use your national units! They are cheap by design. I used to think I was using them well by protecting them so they can build up promotions, but after experimenting, they're much more useful as sacrificial units going in when the odds are low, since they're so fast to replace and come out with tons of utility without needing promotions. I think Walter once said that this was the idea behind making them so cheap, and he's right about that effectiveness.

While I don't normally comment on strategy advice discussions (I feel player-to-player discussions are more productive here) and a lot of meaningful stuff has already been posted in reply, one thing that surprised me is that nobody is talking about first strikes, even though this is the original issue you're complaining about. First strikes are the key factor between a defender surviving without a scratch to kill 10 more units and some actual damage being done. In a siege stack, I always bring enough archers and recon units to provide meaningful aid - even though they don't usually get to attack, they can be the difference between losing ~3 and ~15 units, or between taking the city or failing. And if you have designated "first wave" units you're considering expendable, with some free XP to spare, it might be a good idea to give them Drill promotions instead of the most obvious City Attack, to ensure they're guaranteed to do at least some damage.

Welcome to the forum. Feel free to ask any questions, technical or otherwise, you might have. I'd be interested to see a link to the original postings that brought you here as well, if possible.

Install a previous version, copy the Assets/Sounds/Tech somewhere, install the new version, copy it over the new version's files.

I do believe we had a mechanic for cultural diffusion through trade routes, but I wasn't sure if it was still working. I guess it is. It's mostly cosmetic anyway, as the amounts shouldn't be large.

Another thing I haven't considered trying! I've never compared it to city raider, but I'll be curious to see how a swordsman with Drill II compares to a swordsman with City Raider II.

Usually I use skirmishers for stack aid bonus.

 

[ThirdOrbital]

Another thing I haven't considered trying! I've never compared it to city raider, but I'll be curious to see how a swordsman with Drill II compares to a swordsman with City Raider II.

I actually just tried to do a little experiment using world builder for this very idea but then I realized / remembered that melee units cannot receive the Drill promotion line. It might still be interesting in the gunpowder era but this is far less compelling than I initially thought.

 

[[Y]]

I actually just tried to do a little experiment using world builder for this very idea but then I realized / remembered that melee units cannot receive the Drill promotion line. It might still be interesting in the gunpowder era but this is far less compelling than I initially thought.

D'oh! Guess it works if you're sacrificing archer and skirmisher units, but that's not viable from a hammers perspective. Shock is much cheaper to build and usually with less competition from a cost-per-unit perspective.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I actually just tried to do a little experiment using world builder for this very idea but then I realized / remembered that melee units cannot receive the Drill promotion line. It might still be interesting in the gunpowder era but this is far less compelling than I initially thought.

Likely far too expensive for your hypothetical "throwaway" category, but why not try this with archery units, which can?

 

[[Y]]

Likely far too expensive for your hypothetical "throwaway" category, but why not try this with archery units, which can?

Cost more hammers, don't get food benefits to production, you'll have 2-3 per city adding to the production cost, and they are at usually equal to the defender's strength, whereas swordsman/axemen will have a natural strength advantage.

Then again, I usually don't build the 3 strength archers because I don't want to have to replace them all after Iron Working. Maybe I should build them but as soon as Iron Working is researched, I'll throw them against a city to bring the cost of building 4 strength archers down. I'm trying to be tongue-in-cheek there, but maybe that's actually valid.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Cost more hammers, don't get food benefits to production, you'll have 2-3 per city adding to the production cost, and they are at usually equal to the defender's strength, whereas swordsman/axemen will have a natural strength advantage.

Then again, I usually don't build the 3 strength archers because I don't want to have to replace them all after Iron Working. Maybe I should build them but as soon as Iron Working is researched, I'll throw them against a city to bring the cost of building 4 strength archers down. I'm trying to be tongue-in-cheek there, but maybe that's actually valid.

The decision whether or not to build archers before composite bowmen is a particularly interesting one. Most of the time, I go with archers first because they are available within the first 60 turns, and I play with raging barbarians, which take priority in the early game. Their city defense bonus is good enough to give them winning odds against all non-strategic resource units of the ancient era, and once they get fed their two city defender promotions from barbs, you're virtually safe during the barb phase of the game with even just one. The times I've gone with relying on militia for city defense instead, they tend to get picked off whereas the archers tend to hold firm as garrisons.

That said, it's really expensive to upgrade them to composite bows later, which do become quite important in their own day, so maybe you're onto something there with that approach... The catch 22 seems to be that those original archers are likely going to be promoted city defenders by the time you'd want to sacrifice them, so experimenting with drill would be much less viable with them.

 

[[Y]]

Most of the time, I go with archers first because they are available within the first 60 turns, and I play with raging barbarians, which take priority in the early game. Their city defense bonus is good enough to give them winning odds against all non-strategic resource units of the ancient era, and once they get fed their two city defender promotions from barbs, you're virtually safe during the barb phase of the game with even just one. The times I've gone with relying on militia for city defense instead, they tend to get picked off whereas the archers tend to hold firm as garrisons.

I don't play with raging barbarians so I can't comment on that situation, but generally speaking, I find that if you're depending on your city garrison to protect against barbs, then you aren't controlling them in the field. And if you aren't controlling them in the field, then they're pillaging your improvements and holding you back from progressing in the game. For a strong game, the goal with barbs isn't "don't let them take your cities", it's "don't let them disrupt your cities' output".

 

[AspiringScholar]

I don't play with raging barbarians so I can't comment on that situation, but generally speaking, I find that if you're depending on your city garrison to protect against barbs, then you aren't controlling them in the field. And if you aren't controlling them in the field, then they're pillaging your improvements and holding you back from progressing in the game. For a strong game, the goal with barbs isn't "don't let them take your cities", it's "don't let them disrupt your cities' output".

Oh, that would be virtually impossible with raging selected. There aren't enough "grace period" hammers to build enough units to spawnbust effectively, and thereafter they enter even just your BFC at a rate of 1-2 units per turn. With terrain defenses especially, you simply can't attack and heal at a rate fast enough to "control the field." I do literally have to garrison my improvements until early classical, yes.

In fact, I find the intensity of raging barbs to be too much, but every time I play with the option unselected, I barely see any barbs at all, and so concluded that it was still the better choice. I like that instantly being threatened feel, but it makes the ancient era play like a tower defense game, for sure.

 

[ThirdOrbital]

Likely far too expensive for your hypothetical "throwaway" category, but why not try this with archery units, which can?

I cringe at the suggestion of throwing expensive archers away, but the results are interesting. I set up an attacking stack with 4 catapults, 4 cataphracts, and 4 skirmishers for aid bonuses. I then added 6 bowmen and gave them each city raider 2 for the first test, and drill 2 for the second. Defending was 6 bowmen with city defense 1 and 6 warbands. After attacking with the 6 bowmen, the resulting status of the defenders is attached.

In every instance, the city raiders had higher combat odds. One even won outright at a ~2% probability! However, another dealt no damage whatsoever and the remaining four were hit or miss. Meanwhile the drills did better, more consistent damage - despite having ~0.5% chance of ever winning outright. In other words, city raider was higher risk / higher reward while drill was actually the more conservative play. Not at all what I was expecting.

 

[ThirdOrbital]

Oh, that would be virtually impossible with raging selected. There aren't enough "grace period" hammers to build enough units to spawnbust effectively, and thereafter they enter even just your BFC at a rate of 1-2 units per turn. With terrain defenses especially, you simply can't attack and heal at a rate fast enough to "control the field." I do literally have to garrison my improvements until early classical, yes.

In fact, I find the intensity of raging barbs to be too much, but every time I play with the option unselected, I barely see any barbs at all, and so concluded that it was still the better choice. I like that instantly being threatened feel, but it makes the ancient era play like a tower defense game, for sure.

+1 for raging barbarians - with this turned off, why bother having barbarians at all? They are trivially controlled with a handful of units and you're in zero danger of losing a city. Perhaps if there were an intermediate setting I would use it but there needs to be SOME risk to early expansionism.

 

[AspiringScholar]

It is fun that they are a true challenge on raging, and you stand a real risk of being seriously set back (or even outright losing) right at the beginning of the game. Makes the neolithic world feel dangerous and wild, not some Garden of Eden full of low-hanging fruit to be plucked whimsically. I also happen to really like the flavor of the barb unit catalogue and enjoy seeing it featured diversely. Feels like a big letdown when they don't show up and give you a hard time.

 

[[Y]]

I cringe at the suggestion of throwing expensive archers away, but the results are interesting. I set up an attacking stack with 4 catapults, 4 cataphracts, and 4 skirmishers for aid bonuses. I then added 6 bowmen and gave them each city raider 2 for the first test, and drill 2 for the second. Defending was 6 bowmen with city defense 1 and 6 warbands. After attacking with the 6 bowmen, the resulting status of the defenders is attached.

In every instance, the city raiders had higher combat odds. One even won outright at a ~2% probability! However, another dealt no damage whatsoever and the remaining four were hit or miss. Meanwhile the drills did better, more consistent damage - despite having ~0.5% chance of ever winning outright. In other words, city raider was higher risk / higher reward while drill was actually the more conservative play. Not at all what I was expecting.

Thanks for experimenting! I'll start using this next time I'm playing. I'd probably put it on skirmishers since the drill combined with their chance to retreat is probably the best yield. Their city malus doesn't matter as much since their purpose isn't to win, just to inflict harm by countering the defender's first strikes.

On raging barbs - I forget if the higher difficulty levels have more barbs, but that could be a factor (I play on Emperor, not sure how that compares with your settings). The other thing about higher difficulty is that the early game is not a "Garden of Eden" where you can take your time getting your empire together. It's a race against the AI to get your empire setup ASAP so that it can stand a chance long term. And since units and cities are expensive, and you have less finances, you can't just drop a city anywhere. It needs to be a city that gives you what you need right now. In other words, there might be fewer barbs giving you a hard time, but it's still intense, and doing well means playing the early game well and to you advantage.

I'd also be concerned about raging barbs preventing you from learning how to set up a good early empire, which is crucial at higher difficulties. Have you tried upping the challenge level and seeing how that left you feeling about the early game?

 

[AspiringScholar]

Thanks for experimenting! I'll start using this next time I'm playing. I'd probably put it on skirmishers since the drill combined with their chance to retreat is probably the best yield. Their city malus doesn't matter as much since their purpose isn't to win, just to inflict harm by countering the defender's first strikes.

On raging barbs - I forget if the higher difficulty levels have more barbs, but that could be a factor (I play on Emperor, not sure how that compares with your settings). The other thing about higher difficulty is that the early game is not a "Garden of Eden" where you can take your time getting your empire together. It's a race against the AI to get your empire setup ASAP so that it can stand a chance long term. And since units and cities are expensive, and you have less finances, you can't just drop a city anywhere. It needs to be a city that gives you what you need right now. In other words, there might be fewer barbs giving you a hard time, but it's still intense, and doing well means playing the early game well and to you advantage.

I'd also be concerned about raging barbs preventing you from learning how to set up a good early empire, which is crucial at higher difficulties. Have you tried upping the challenge level and seeing how that left you feeling about the early game?

I am getting pretty comfortable on Monarch, so not at your level but I wouldn't call that a low difficulty setting, either. It's usually around renaissance when things take a turn for the worse with me if they do, so I don't know that my early game is a weak point. I won my first prince game on RI in one try and it felt quite easy, but thereafter the jump to monarch was steep.

How do you qualify a "good early empire"? Usually by mid-classical I out-tech all of the AI and maintain pretty comparable power ratios, unless there's an early runaway civ.

Also, I wasn't saying that the game itself was easy, just that the availability of uncontrolled (by player or AI) land is much less of a given. One thing I appreciate about this mod is the AI's competence to rush you quite early if you're unprepared or it thinks it's in a position to succeed by doing so.

 

[ThirdOrbital]

I'd also be concerned about raging barbs preventing you from learning how to set up a good early empire, which is crucial at higher difficulties. Have you tried upping the challenge level and seeing how that left you feeling about the early game?

I can win on Immortal sometimes but it's a real slog, micromanaging every tile every turn to try and eke out the slightest of advantages. I have no desire to try harder. Emperor is a good balance for me where the game punishes mistakes but victory is almost always attainable and it doesn't feel tedious. Either way I still prefer the raging barbs. This is always a great strategy game, but the onslaught scratches that tactical itch as well. Is that horseman going to move twice or move and pillage? Can your spearman hold the pasture or should he retreat to the high ground? Is it worth risking 50/50 odds to save your bronze mine? I wish AI civ combat was as dynamic as some of the great barbarians invasions in my games. Plus, barbarians leveling my troops and generating great generals is pretty core to my play style.

How do you qualify a "good early empire"? Usually by mid-classical I out-tech all of the AI and maintain pretty comparable power ratios, unless there's an early runaway civ.

I'm also curious as to what you meant by this. Knowing how and when to expand is the most important part of the early game and the threat of losing a city to barbarians because you got greedy makes it all the more interesting to me. For my part I classify a good early empire as three cities, bronze and/or horses, a religion (or a plan for one of the later ones), at least one wonder emphasizing the playstyle I'm aiming for, and a research rate of >=75% (indicating future expansion is feasible). If you can do all that without falling too far behind in techs or power you're in a good spot.

 

[TheBirdMan]

No matter if I attack cities (or units in forts or on well-defended tiles in the open for that matter), I always consider if I possible can win this battle. If not, I'll find the back-gear and wait for a better chance.


If I decide to attack a city, I always start using any siegeunits I have with me. And I continue using those until all passive defenses are down. Then next wave is any units, that gives collateral damage - starting with chariots. After this I'm using mixed stacks - except charge-mounted units - until all units have used their turn. I also check the enemy to see, if recon- and archer-units are usefull in the stack right from the first attack. If not I'm keeping them back until I think "it's time now" - and sometimes this "hour" never arrive during the attack. Charge-mounted units are only used for attacking enemy-reinforcements, pillage - or kill a wounded defender in the late part of a city-attack.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Is there a file I can download for Linux I can extract that isn't .exe? I can't open those.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Not in latest stable.

Checked, and you're right. I kinda always assumed they were. Well, this is easy to fix, so thanks for the suggestion (except for hills, which aren't counted as a terrain feature).

Not entirely cosmetic this time around. In my large, non-border cities, it's significant enough to generate at least one unhappiness (which by late renaissance isn't such a big deal, though it's hardly a drop in the bucket either). In addition to the cosmetic touch, I also like how this puts a small caveat on trade, after having been buffed hugely as a source of commerce in the mod. Do you remember if the degree of diffusion scales with the amount of commerce in the route?

Double-checked, and it is on indeed. I'm actually rather inclined to turn it off, as it isn't communicated in any way to the players, and it's not something you can control for (as you don't choose which cities trade with which, apart from open borders).

D'oh! Guess it works if you're sacrificing archer and skirmisher units, but that's not viable from a hammers perspective. Shock is much cheaper to build and usually with less competition from a cost-per-unit perspective.

The Drill bit of advice is indeed more suited for the latter half of the game.

I cringe at the suggestion of throwing expensive archers away, but the results are interesting. I set up an attacking stack with 4 catapults, 4 cataphracts, and 4 skirmishers for aid bonuses. I then added 6 bowmen and gave them each city raider 2 for the first test, and drill 2 for the second. Defending was 6 bowmen with city defense 1 and 6 warbands. After attacking with the 6 bowmen, the resulting status of the defenders is attached.

In every instance, the city raiders had higher combat odds. One even won outright at a ~2% probability! However, another dealt no damage whatsoever and the remaining four were hit or miss. Meanwhile the drills did better, more consistent damage - despite having ~0.5% chance of ever winning outright. In other words, city raider was higher risk / higher reward while drill was actually the more conservative play. Not at all what I was expecting.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about - and in a more extreme case of strength disparity this might have meant the defender either staying unhurt or you wearing them down gradually. The less equal the combat odds are, the more important FS are for (not) causing damage, even though in terms of plain victory chances strength is almost always a better option.

Is there a file I can download for Linux I can extract that isn't .exe? I can't open those.

There aren't any non-installer packages for the release versions, but you can download the SVN version as per the instruction in the first post of this thread. It will take a long time to load, though, as the files are loose.