Realism Invictus

[Snowygerry]

I doubt there is an actual guide on combat (or army composition) we all write something on our "best practices" now and again but it is dispersed in the thread(s),

there are a few things though that are different from the basic game that immediately come to mind.

- The rock/paper/scissors relation among unit types has been expanded on, this means no single unit (or stack of same units) is ever truly safe in the field, the AI is actually quite good at exploiting these.

- There are now "irregular" type units that use food to build instead of .

etc.

There is also this sub-forum where more specific issues are discussed :

Civ4 - Realism Invictus

(Public) Development forum for Realism Invictus (was Total Realism) modpack.

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Some generic advice on combat:
- Scaling unit role costs make use of mixed stacks more economical than single unit type
- Pay attention to the aid your units are getting/providing; it may be helpful to keep units you don't intend to use in combat in the stack just for aid
- Try not to get severe overcrowding maluses
- Pay attention to first strikes; especially in earlier ages, they might make a difference between wearing down a tough city defender by sacrificing a couple of units vs failing to make any damage
- Siege units pre-gunpowder are strictly for sieging cities (and siege aid); gunpowder artillery can (and should) use ranged attacks
- Attacking cities with cavalry is usually a bad idea
- Skirmishers can be surprisingly powerful and cost-effective outside cities when not countered by archers or horsemen
- Traditions and doctrines - make good use of them (also note that early on, founding one or more is a good way to buff your power score to make yourself into a less tempting target)
- Early on you have no access to medic promotions except for some special units and generals; might be a good idea to keep one general in the stack simply for that
- National units (limited in number) are usually powerful enough to build your strategy around those when available

 

[ThirdOrbital]

In addition to the great advice above, a few thoughts on roles:

• Ranged (archers): bonuses to city and hill defense, can be tough to kill due to the first strike mechanic discussed elsewhere.
• Defense (spearmen): obviously anti-cav, but also good at protecting your city raiders in the field.
• Shock (axemen) / heavy infantry (swordsmen): I use these two more or less interchangeably as my city raiding specialists. They tend to be glass cannons so protect them with other units on the way in.
• Siege (catapults): knock down the city walls, probably won't attack directly until gunpowder. Good aid bonuses though.
• Irregular (warbands): cheap to build (uses food like a worker), cheap to maintain, much better per-unit scaling. Disposable troops for whatever you need. They are especially cost-effective for maintaining city garrisons in low risk areas.
• Recon (skirmishers): double movement, good offense outside cities, poor defense. Ideal for dealing with slave / serf rebellions.
• Heavy cav (cataphracts): double movement, does collateral damage. Ideal for initiating field combat or weakening city defenders pre-gunpowder. Don't send them in until all city defense bonus is removed by your siege weapons.
• Light cav (horse archers): triple movement, relatively weak combat. Good for scouting, flanking, raiding, and harassment.

In some ways the per-unit scaling makes army composition easy. If I'm debating on building another axeman or a spearman, and the axeman costs +80% hammers and the spearman costs +20%, I'm building the spearman. He can always charge headlong into a city if necessary.

Also keep in mind that there are some key points in the game where roles may change / merge (notably the invention of flintlock musket). Hopefully by that point in the game you have some units with appropriate upgrades that can keep doing similar jobs, regardless of what their official label is.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Great advice and summary of unit roles!

In some ways the per-unit scaling makes army composition easy. If I'm debating on building another axeman or a spearman, and the axeman costs +80% hammers and the spearman costs +20%, I'm building the spearman. He can always charge headlong into a city if necessary.

This is just my head in the clouds and not a serious suggestion, but some have made the argument that the scaling costs reduce the strategic depth of the military production side of the game for just this reason. If scaling costs were made universal for all units, and a direct function of population, you'd have a loose modeling of a manpower pool and the current cost-savings incentive gravitation towards unit diversity which puts the advantageous series of decisions on what to build somewhat on rails would be eliminated, and then you could feasibly have more unique army compositions tailored to whatever your current situation is, without having to go against the grain of potentially exorbitant production costs for whatever unit you were ideally trying to build. If the scaling cost could somehow be tied to the existing mechanic of unit costs (say, 2% for all units per unit maintenance, or something, while increasing the threshold of the support limit from population from approximately 25%/total pop to 50%/total pop, with a higher base limit), you'd still have an effective check against snowballing because of the pretty severe limitations on vertical growth imposed by happiness and health for most of the game (notwithstanding the delayed research and high maintenance costs associated with horizontal expansion which already exist!).

In fact, outside of manpower limitations which would be accounted for above, it's hard to see in what way scaling unit costs are modeled on reality. Ironically, Hearts of Iron does precisely the opposite with the mechanic of "practical," where as you produce more and more of a given type of thing, your nation becomes more adept and efficient in producing it, reducing the costs instead of increasing them. The fact that more elite or superior units are costlier and take a longer time to train is already reflected in the higher cost that they have, without any scaling thrown in.

I still like how it works currently, but I think something like the above would be a more elegant way to both feel more realistic and put in a good strategic check against snowballing than having different scaling costs for different roles of units, since that takes away from the number of interesting choices you can make in the game by making one approach optimal. Ideally, the significant combat advantages of stack aid from diverse army composition should be balanced by an alternative convenience of making good use of one type of unit, which, say, your immediate technology or resource situation makes lucrative or viable in the moment.

 

[aantia]

Great advice and summary of unit roles!



This is just my head in the clouds and not a serious suggestion, but some have made the argument that the scaling costs reduce the strategic depth of the military production side of the game for just this reason. If scaling costs were made universal for all units, and a direct function of population, you'd have a loose modeling of a manpower pool and the current cost-savings incentive gravitation towards unit diversity which puts the advantageous series of decisions on what to build somewhat on rails would be eliminated, and then you could feasibly have more unique army compositions tailored to whatever your current situation is, without having to go against the grain of potentially exorbitant production costs for whatever unit you were ideally trying to build. If the scaling cost could somehow be tied to the existing mechanic of unit costs (say, 2% for all units per unit maintenance, or something, while increasing the threshold of support from population from approximately 25%/total pop to 50%/total pop, with a higher base limit), you'd still have an effective check against snowballing because of the pretty severe limitations on growth imposed by happiness and health limitations for most of the game (notwithstanding the delayed research and high maintenance costs which already exist!).

In fact, outside of manpower limitations which would be accounted for above, it's hard to see in what way scaling unit costs are modeled on reality. Ironically, Hearts of Iron does precisely the opposite with the mechanic of "practical," where as you produce more and more of a given type of thing, your nation becomes more adept and efficient in producing it, reducing the costs instead of increasing them. The fact that more elite or superior units are costlier and take a longer time to train is already reflected in the higher cost that they have, without any scaling thrown in.

I still like how it works currently, but I think something like the above would be a more elegant way to both feel more realistic and put in a good strategic check against snowballing than having different scaling costs for different roles of units, since that takes away from the number of interesting choices you can make in the game by making one approach optimal.

I actually think the current system is more realistic for most of the game. After all, knights aren't drawn from the same manpower pool as longbowmen! And the same goes for early engineers, woodsmen, etc. In the modern era all the different infantry lines collapse into just two, which makes sense as armies modernise and stop being class-based in the same way.
It might make sense for there to be modern-era buildings representing industrial specialisation which improve the construction speed of a particular category (representing what HoI does with its production lines). Although, thinking about it, isn't there a Great General thingy that boosts production speed? edit: the Mass Production doctrine

 

[TheBirdMan]

Although, thinking about it, isn't there a Great General thingy that boost production speed?

Do you think of military academies? I guess you do.

 

[aantia]

Do you think of military academies? I guess you do.

I just checked, and I was thinking of the Mass Production doctrine, which gives +10% military production speed.

 

[TheBirdMan]

Academies give 50% - but only in the city where the academy is located.

That's why I try - as best as I can - to place these in the cities with the biggest possible production. Just like I will always choose the same cities as "home city" for GreatPeople, who gives any military "benefits" (read: Experience-points).

 

[Svobodnyi]

Last SVN version 5372, Transoxiana Civ

Spoiler :

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I actually think the current system is more realistic for most of the game. After all, knights aren't drawn from the same manpower pool as longbowmen! And the same goes for early engineers, woodsmen, etc. In the modern era all the different infantry lines collapse into just two, which makes sense as armies modernise and stop being class-based in the same way.

This is more or less my (arbitrary) line of thinking, though the real reason is obviously gameplay-based. Also, I don't feel it detracts too much from strategic depth, as the only choice it really removes is the choice to rely on one unit type. Which is a choice that shouldn't be a good one anyway. It doesn't devalue the decisions made, just introduces an additional factor to them (should I produce another grenadier for my city attack stack at +100% malus or should I go for a +20% malus light infantry instead?).

Last SVN version, Transoxiana Civ

Ugh, the maps. Totally forgot about them. For SVN users - don't use the maps until I push a hotfix.

 

[ThirdOrbital]

Academies give 50% - but only in the city where the academy is located.

That's why I try - as best as I can - to place these in the cities with the biggest possible production. Just like I will always choose the same cities as "home city" for GreatPeople, who gives any military "benefits" (read: Experience-points).

Bonus points if that city has Fortress Alamut, or the holy building that gives "Blessed", or a great work of art that gives +XP - I choose my Heroic Epic city early on and try to stack bonuses in it.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Hotfix out (savegame compatible obviously).

 

[yurv3]

Proper pumping of units is very important. Some military doctrines give a strong advantage. An archer trained according to such a doctrine is good both in defense and in attack. Galleys with Greek fire are invincible at sea. Upgraded scouts before the appearance of a long bow take out all units in forests, hills, swamps.

 

[JackieBig]

Good day! Could someone give me a hand - is there any way to change postion of city construction window , when it appears, to center of screen ( like on screensot ) ?

 

[AspiringScholar]

Good day! Could someone give me a hand - is there any way to change postion of city construction window , when it appears, to center of screen ( like on screensot ) ?

Yes, you can simply select the edge of that window and drag it wherever you like. It should also appear in the same new spot the next time it pops up.

 

[aantia]

Yes, you can simply select the edge of that window and drag it wherever you like. It should also appear in the same new spot the next time it pops up.

When I started playing civ 4, I only used the civilopedia to read the historical info, because the manual that came with the CD had all the gameplay info. I've played it pretty continuously since then. I'm not a noob, is what I'm saying.
I still didn't know that you could do this. Thanks

 

[JackieBig]

Yes, you can simply select the edge of that window and drag it wherever you like. It should also appear in the same new spot the next time it pops up.

Thanks ! Iknow about draggin ,but unfortunately it appears always in right top place - no matter of dragging .

 

[DeityNoob]

Some generic advice on combat:
- Scaling unit role costs make use of mixed stacks more economical than single unit type
- Pay attention to the aid your units are getting/providing; it may be helpful to keep units you don't intend to use in combat in the stack just for aid
- Try not to get severe overcrowding maluses
- Pay attention to first strikes; especially in earlier ages, they might make a difference between wearing down a tough city defender by sacrificing a couple of units vs failing to make any damage
- Siege units pre-gunpowder are strictly for sieging cities (and siege aid); gunpowder artillery can (and should) use ranged attacks
- Attacking cities with cavalry is usually a bad idea
- Skirmishers can be surprisingly powerful and cost-effective outside cities when not countered by archers or horsemen
- Traditions and doctrines - make good use of them (also note that early on, founding one or more is a good way to buff your power score to make yourself into a less tempting target)
- Early on you have no access to medic promotions except for some special units and generals; might be a good idea to keep one general in the stack simply for that
- National units (limited in number) are usually powerful enough to build your strategy around those when available

Really like this advice and wanted to add a couple extra strats that can help wage war against unfair AI armies in immortal+

- Only build units in heroic epic city
- Nothing wrong with burning down cities that you can't keep/support and peacing out especially early on. Even in deity, the AI has a hard time recovering from having its top 3 cities gone.

Ancient/Classical:
- Try to stay as peaceful as possible (keep defensive wars short with skirmishers specializing in rough terrain)
- You need a fairly good tech rate to win the doctrines/wonders descibed below. This can be done by having only 2 cities and beelining Cheomseongdae + shwedagon paya and not being neighbors with Monty. Founding Zoroastrianism is surprisingly doable and can help with getting the wonders (organized religion).

Medieval:
- Having horse archers maybe be a matter of life and death for repelling invading armies. Get a civ like Japan or Mongolia that has them.
- The holy war doctrine makes melee units very strong offensively. You could max out this promotion line and follow up with city raider's to win cities with a vastly outnumbered force (wako is great here)
- Get archer guild (for horse archers and longbowmen), the bonus strength and first strikes is unparalleled; these longbowmen will protect the vulnerable melee units.
- Having the above 2 doctrines + Art of War is even better.
- I would recommend against irregulars since the AI outproduces you anyways but make an exception when the enemy has the 'targets melee outside of cities' ability
- Having 2 or 3 heavy cavalry in the stack is good for mobility aid.
- Bombards are far superior to trebs
- (If you are the brutal type: all units have commando with fortress alamut -> launch a lightning invasion without siege (by using a city revolt) to burn down an enemy capital and sue for peace before they mobilize.

Renaissance:
- If I haven't mentioned this earlier, the leader should be progressive. Upgrading these earlier units to line infantry and crusader grenadiers is a huge bonus.
- Best to stay quiet once reaching 7 - 8 good cities (can get oxford, globe theatre if lucky). Even on deity the top AI will be far ahead in score (large map) due to having many cities but will lag in tech. Try to get them to pleased and they will surely collapse into failed states sooner or later
- Invest heavily in mortars in border cities
- It's ok to beeline market regulation or patent rights, but only after getting flintlock and upgrading all of your units.

Industrial:
- Develop a strong economy and amass an army of shock troops and heavy artillery to win the game.

My favorite leader for this strategy is mutsuhito. His only problem is the diplo hit which stings the most in the early game.

 

[aantia]

Really like this advice and wanted to add a couple extra strats that can help wage war against unfair AI armies in immortal+

- Only build units in heroic epic city
- Nothing wrong with burning down cities that you can't keep/support and peacing out especially early on. Even in deity, the AI has a hard time recovering from having its top 3 cities gone.

Ancient/Classical:
- Try to stay as peaceful as possible (keep defensive wars short with skirmishers specializing in rough terrain)
- You need a fairly good tech rate to win the doctrines/wonders descibed below. This can be done by having only 2 cities and beelining Cheomseongdae + shwedagon paya and not being neighbors with Monty. Founding Zoroastrianism is surprisingly doable and can help with getting the wonders (organized religion).

Medieval:
- Having horse archers maybe be a matter of life and death for repelling invading armies. Get a civ like Japan or Mongolia that has them.
- The holy war doctrine makes melee units very strong offensively. You could max out this promotion line and follow up with city raider's to win cities with a vastly outnumbered force (wako is great here)
- Get archer guild (for horse archers and longbowmen), the bonus strength and first strikes is unparalleled; these longbowmen will protect the vulnerable melee units.
- Having the above 2 doctrines + Art of War is even better.
- I would recommend against irregulars since the AI outproduces you anyways but make an exception when the enemy has the 'targets melee outside of cities' ability
- Having 2 or 3 heavy cavalry in the stack is good for mobility aid.
- Bombards are far superior to trebs
- (If you are the brutal type: all units have commando with fortress alamut -> launch a lightning invasion without siege (by using a city revolt) to burn down an enemy capital and sue for peace before they mobilize.

Renaissance:
- If I haven't mentioned this earlier, the leader should be progressive. Upgrading these earlier units to line infantry and crusader grenadiers is a huge bonus.
- Best to stay quiet once reaching 7 - 8 good cities (can get oxford, globe theatre if lucky). Even on deity the top AI will be far ahead in score (large map) due to having many cities but will lag in tech. Try to get them to pleased and they will surely collapse into failed states sooner or later
- Invest heavily in mortars in border cities
- It's ok to beeline market regulation or patent rights, but only after getting flintlock and upgrading all of your units.

Industrial:
- Develop a strong economy and amass an army of shock troops and heavy artillery to win the game.

My favorite leader for this strategy is mutsuhito. His only problem is the diplo hit which stings the most in the early game.

What settings do you play on? Sounds like a v. high difficulty with separatism on, yes?

 

[AspiringScholar]

Some thoughts along those lines:

- Has anyone ever done well with more than 2-3 cities before well into the midgame (free market is what comes to mind as the dividing line here)? I don't know that it's fair to call it optimal every time, but it seems like this is generally the winning card as far as expansion goes. I tend to see some AI civs (the Nguni in particular) remain in a leading position throughout much of the game in spite of founding numerous cities in the early game.

- Can someone explain the mechanic for production with scaling building prerequisites? With things like cathedrals and fortress mortars, the number of existing temples or fortresses you respectively need increases, but I don't know what the ratio actually is, since the 'pedia just lists the building itself as a requirement within the city in question. So, if I need 4 temples to build my first cathedral, what is the logic behind the increased number on the following (and same for emplaced artillery)? I'm a little embarrassed asking this after playing the mod obsessively for a year now, but I never quite understood this.

- I'm intrigued by Pink Floyd's "The Wall" being the selection for a modern great work of art. Was there a reason this album in particular was chosen to represent the "music slot" for the modern era's great works of art? Was this album immensely significant or was it just chosen at random as a good candidate? I'd think something like The Beatles or Elvis Pressley would be the most influential for the "modern era" (e.g., ending with the Cold War) of the game. It's all before my time and remembered cultural references of course (90s/2000s stuff like System of a Down, Tool, Slipknot, etc.), but I'm still arbitrarily curious what kind of thought went into this decision.