Realism Invictus

[fnsnad]

Thanks, though I don't think it's illegal. "I nor anyone on this thread own the intellectual property belonging to Christopher Tin in his critically acclaimed Calling All Dawns album." As long as you say that, I don't think there are any problems, though if you actually attached the file, unfortunately I don't see it.



I hate that setting. It removes all personality from the AI leaders and they just psychopathically attack you constantly, even if they're likely to lose. I played one game all the way through with that and it made diplomacy worth zilch, because everyone was basically constantly at war. On the one hand it was kind of interesting with the kaleidoscopic balkanization of everything because the AI already couldn't deal with separatism under the old global WW modifier, but it pretty much destroyed any immersion you could have entertained from any leader personalities or diplomatic situations.

I turn it OFF every single game now. The crazy warmongers who are programmed to attack constantly are the ones I should expect that from, not literally everyone all the time.

I had one amazing game with it on where I was being attacked by the ethiopians who were on friendly terms with me after they just beat up the rest of the subcontinent. I survived by the skin of my teeth because it came just in time when I got access to minutemen (as America), and that's when I found out that the minutemen in RI are ridiculously powerful. Other than that one game, I've not had great experiences with it either.

hadn't given it any thought since I'm still learning the mechanics of the game and have not ventured into the code to see what's really going on.

If I understood the description correctly, I thought this setting caused the AI to understand the different victory conditions. With this setting turned off, the AI plays to only maximize points.

Based on the description, I've been playing with it turned on. I haven't played it any other way, so I can't say what the different gameplay would be like.

On paper I'd love if it didn't turn out to be a war game cesspool, as I'd love a game with heightened stakes and drive. In practice however, it seems that, as AspiringScholar mentioned, it throws diplomacy out of the window.

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

I had one amazing game with it on where I was being attacked by the ethiopians who were on friendly terms with me after they just beat up the rest of the subcontinent. I survived by the skin of my teeth because it came just in time when I got access to minutemen (as America), and that's when I found out that the minutemen in RI are ridiculously powerful. Other than that one game, I've not had great experiences with it either.

On paper I'd love if it didn't turn out to be a war game cesspool, as I'd love a game with heightened stakes and drive. In practice however, it seems that, as AspiringScholar mentioned, it throws diplomacy out of the window.

In the games that I've played, I've had AI civs make demands of tribute, offer resource trades, ask for open borders, ask to become a vassal, and withdraw from vassalage.

Isn't that diplomacy?

BTW...

I restored a prior savegame where my city killer stack fleet was returning home from conquering Ashoka. I diverted that fleet to attack Inca Rosa's third cultural city (it had 20 more turns before becoming legendary). I sacked the city and took control of it, thinking it might reach legendary before my own city would (it still had 65 turns to go). The other option was to raze it and let my city proceed.

I want to see how this plays out. The city went into revolt for 14 turns before I can take over (still 9 turns to go). Since this is a distant city on another continent, the cost to maintain it will be very high. I have to raze the nearby cities or else the near-legendary city would not have access to the farms in its zone. I don't want a near-legendary city that immediately begins to starve.

If it turns out that this city, in my control, is impossible to keep, I will revert to the save where I capture it and just raze it. I might keep the war with Inca Rosa going so my vassals can grab some territory.

 

[fnsnad]

In the games that I've played, I've had AI civs make demands of tribute, offer resource trades, ask for open borders, ask to become a vassal, and withdraw from vassalage.

Isn't that diplomacy?

To be fair, it is a mild exaggeration. However, having the option on makes it so that its not sensible to befriend any warring civ as they can not be trusted to be an ally, as they'll probably eventually turn on you - even if you're on friendly terms with them. Now to be fair, not everyone is a war hungry demon with the setting on; if I were to give a guess, probably like 1/6 of all the AIs will be fuelled to win by domination. However, 1/6 is a lot of civs if you think about it to all be going for world domination.

I'd personally love it if that setting made war hungry civs even more cut-throat later in the game, as late game warfare is such a treat compared to pre renaissance warfare. Plus, it gives the warring civs a chance to actually grow and become a real threat, as I find that leaders like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler with natural warring dispositions get eliminated fairly early and pose no threat at all as they fall behind because they do constant wars, heeding no attention to anything else.

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

To be fair, it is a mild exaggeration. However, having the option on makes it so that its not sensible to befriend any warring civ as they can not be trusted to be an ally, as they'll probably eventually turn on you - even if you're on friendly terms with them. Now to be fair, not everyone is a war hungry demon with the setting on; if I were to give a guess, probably like 1/6 of all the AIs will be fuelled to win by domination. However, 1/6 is a lot of civs if you think about it to all be going for world domination.

I'd personally love it if that setting made war hungry civs even more cut-throat later in the game, as late game warfare is such a treat compared to pre renaissance warfare. Plus, it gives the warring civs a chance to actually grow and become a real threat, as I find that leaders like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler with natural warring dispositions get eliminated fairly early and pose no threat at all as they fall behind because they do constant wars, heeding no attention to anything else.

I do believe the game docs state this, that even friendly civs can turn on you if you show weakness. In my games, I learned to be strong enough to resist. Also, the diplomacy that I spoke of upthread with many civs on a huge map creates a vassal bloc that also deters the warlike civs from attacking lest a half-dozen civs attack back.

That said, do you consider the traits of the AI civs? I look at the cruel, dictator, warmonger, deceitful traits and make sure to set up proper defenses if they are on my border. If an attacking civ has one of those traits, I don't consider this a problem with this game option.

Still, I'd have to play a game without it to have a proper perspective.

 

[Hafenguy]

I have a question about combat. Currently I am trying to capture a Korean city on a hill. It has palisades, 3 archers and a spearman.
I have bombed the culture defense down to 0 with 5 battering rams.
My stack for the support bonus consists of 5 battering rams, an archer, an axeman, a spearman and a skirmisher. From the second row, I run the attack units through to the stack and immediately grab the city. In the first attack wave there are a lot of short sword fighters.
It costs an insane amount of units to damage the defenders.
Am I doing something wrong?

Also, I noticed that not every unit gets the same support bonus.
I had seen that a short sword fighter from the battering rams got siege bonus 3, while a spearman only got siege bonus 2.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Anyone ever tried Realism Invictus with multiplayer pitboss? I've found a strange bug where if playing pitboss some graphical features disappear when Graphical Paging option is enabled, i.e. I can't see cities, some resources, sometimes some units. If I turn off Graphical Paging everything's fine. If I play single player with Graphical Paging on, everything's fine. It's just Pitboss and Graphical Paging that don't seem to work together, which is really unfortunate because playing huge maps becomes impossible without Graphical Paging.

 

[fnsnad]

I do believe the game docs state this, that even friendly civs can turn on you if you show weakness. In my games, I learned to be strong enough to resist. Also, the diplomacy that I spoke of upthread with many civs on a huge map creates a vassal bloc that also deters the warlike civs from attacking lest a half-dozen civs attack back.

That said, do you consider the traits of the AI civs? I look at the cruel, dictator, warmonger, deceitful traits and make sure to set up proper defenses if they are on my border. If an attacking civ has one of those traits, I don't consider this a problem with this game option.

Still, I'd have to play a game without it to have a proper perspective.

Yeah, I do take this into account. But with the setting on, it's really apparent when an otherwise passive civs go on a spree. For example, the game in question was with the Ethiopians, the leader being Mentewab. According to her description, she "Normally never declares war on friendly relations" - which we were on. I sort of knew she was going to come after me though, because she was absolutely bullying all her neighbors first before she turned on me. Almost every civ I meet I inspect their personality traits to see if they will be a threat.

I have a question about combat. Currently I am trying to capture a Korean city on a hill. It has palisades, 3 archers and a spearman.
I have bombed the culture defense down to 0 with 5 battering rams.
My stack for the support bonus consists of 5 battering rams, an archer, an axeman, a spearman and a skirmisher. From the second row, I run the attack units through to the stack and immediately grab the city. In the first attack wave there are a lot of short sword fighters.
It costs an insane amount of units to damage the defenders.
Am I doing something wrong?

Did you take a look at their promotions? Archers with drill on a hill are a huge force to be reckoned with. And were they archers or the Korean's national unit? The korean's national units (Hwarang) are some of the best city defenders I have ever seen; so much so that I will never attack Korea as long as their national units are relevant, which is pretty much most of the medieval and renaissance period. What makes them so deadly is their free promotion, Drill IV. The drill promotions are really, really powerful on defenders. Drill promotion is also great for 'suicide' attacking stacks, where their main job is to just weaken the enemy before you send in your city attack stack.

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

Well, I should have known that capturing a city resets its culture back to poor. Oh, well... I'll go back to the save when I capture the city and just raze it and get on with my game from that point.

 

[Hafenguy]

Thank you. The short swords don't have drill promotion, but with the battering rams and skirmishers as support, the short swords also had a few initial attacks and it worked. Seoul has fallen.

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

Thanks for the extensive reply. I think I'm not alone in the standard map preference (IIRC, Walter said he plays standard maps), but I know I'm definitely in the minority among regular posters here. The thing is, though, that the global modifier as it was literally broke the game on that setting, so I don't think my suggestion was out of place. It's likely that you're a stronger player than me (I'm starting to get comfortable on Monarch with raging barbs) and are better at managing it in general, but in the long post where I mentioned that, I hadn't even conquered so extensively, nor lost more than perhaps a third of the stack I was using in an overseas invasion, and my global modifier skyrocketed to well over 200% if I remember correctly, which is beyond the pale of anything you can realistically do as the player to control it. It was also redundant because excess unhappiness from war weariness is already a significant source of separatism, but that one actually has bearing on your local stability via varying levels of happiness. I am almost positive that this is the reason why the feature was considered broken and removed from the game, for the AI and the player.

The biggest variable here does seem to be the map size though, since the war weariness quotient does scale directly with map size, while I'm not sure that the revolution mechanic recognizes this and adjusts accordingly. Still, though, I get positive separatism issues and see actual revolutions in my games almost every time (and the "you're leading the score" global modifier is also really hard to deal with, since AFAIK it's a direct ratio with your percentage of score lead, so that if you're ahead by 25%, you now have that applied to every city in addition to anything else, which is a lot), so I don't think it was overcorrected. It's just that it doesn't break the feasibility of conquest completely. I'm probably a 6/10 on the warmongering preference scale - I prefer expand aggressively in the early game via peaceful settlement, then build up domestically until relatively late in the game, if I decided to go for domination. Generally, I only wage occasional opportunistic wars unless they are meant to be a home stretch to winning the game, but it's very annoying when even doing that results in unavoidable collapse of your empire. Either way, long and short, I think it's the map size making the enormous difference here between our experiences.

If you don't mind me asking, I recall when this was originally discussed. I stayed out of it because I wasn't familiar enough with the mechanism or the people who were active here (enough to speak up against old-timers). My question is, how did you come up with the final setting of 10% for the War Weariness amount?

I ask this because I want to know if you considered the other WW modifiers in the game and how they may be impacted? For example, the Theocracy civic reduces WW by 25%, as does Rule of Fear; Collectivism reduces it by 50%. In the other direction, Democracy and Labor Unions add 25%. Pacifism adds 50%, as does Free Market and Social Justice. Welfare State adds 100%. Then there are the various Wonders that sway WW, too, as well as buildings.

As I said in another thread, I'm loathe to play civics that involve things like slavery, even though they are advantageous in game terms. Do you have a similar bias in that you stay away from civics that might have affected WW in ways that you chose to not use because you preferred other civics? Was the reduction of WW to 10% a way to get around having to choose civics that did the same thing, in other words, get the benefits of those civics without actually having to use them? Would a number like 25% reduction (or some other amount based on analysis) have gotten a result that didn't nerf the civics that addressed WW?

I don't mean to be accusatory, but I'd like to understand how you arrived at a 90% reduction in the impact of WW, instead of something less drastic.

 

[DeityNoob]

If you don't mind me asking, I recall when this was originally discussed. I stayed out of it because I wasn't familiar enough with the mechanism or the people who were active here (enough to speak up against old-timers). My question is, how did you come up with the final setting of 10% for the War Weariness amount?

I ask this because I want to know if you considered the other WW modifiers in the game and how they may be impacted? For example, the Theocracy civic reduces WW by 25%, as does Rule of Fear; Collectivism reduces it by 50%. In the other direction, Democracy and Labor Unions add 25%. Pacifism adds 50%, as does Free Market and Social Justice. Welfare State adds 100%. Then there are the various Wonders that sway WW, too, as well as buildings.

As I said in another thread, I'm loathe to play civics that involve things like slavery, even though they are advantageous in game terms. Do you have a similar bias in that you stay away from civics that might have affected WW in ways that you chose to not use because you preferred other civics? Was the reduction of WW to 10% a way to get around having to choose civics that did the same thing, in other words, get the benefits of those civics without actually having to use them? Would a number like 25% reduction (or some other amount based on analysis) have gotten a result that didn't nerf the civics that addressed WW?

I don't mean to be accusatory, but I'd like to understand how you arrived at a 90% reduction in the impact of WW, instead of something less drastic.

From my understanding, WW reduction civics only reduce its effect on happiness. 10% WW applies to direct effect on separatism. So I think the rationale was for wars to increase separatism mainly through unhappiness instead of an uncontrollable modifier.

 

[DeityNoob]

Ps I loathe labor union and stay in working class

 

[fnsnad]

Ps I loathe labor union and stay in working class

I only do labor union to shut up my cities for asking for labor union. Honestly RI does a pretty good job at balancing civics now that I think of it. The more democratic civics usually provide powerful bonuses but have really freaking high war penalties. Issue is, I don't really like switching civics during times of war and sometimes wish that as a democratic power, if fighting a defensive war, there was something you could do to transform your civ into a warring civ temporarily, sort of like the US after pearl harbor.

 

[DeityNoob]

I only do labor union to shut up my cities for asking for labor union. Honestly RI does a pretty good job at balancing civics now that I think of it. The more democratic civics usually provide powerful bonuses but have really freaking high war penalties. Issue is, I don't really like switching civics during times of war and sometimes wish that as a democratic power, if fighting a defensive war, there was something you could do to transform your civ into a warring civ temporarily, sort of like the US after pearl harbor.

You won't get much WW if fighting within your own borders (I believe it depends on % culture on a tile) so defensive wars in that sense are fine. But fighting abroad against an aggressor isn't counted as defensive lol

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

I only do labor union to shut up my cities for asking for labor union. Honestly RI does a pretty good job at balancing civics now that I think of it. The more democratic civics usually provide powerful bonuses but have really freaking high war penalties. Issue is, I don't really like switching civics during times of war and sometimes wish that as a democratic power, if fighting a defensive war, there was something you could do to transform your civ into a warring civ temporarily, sort of like the US after pearl harbor.

And that, I think, fairly summarizes my concern.

You don't like switching civics, and neither do I. I've been playing a theocratic civ: I founded a religion and then used that religion to build a vassal bloc of like-minded civs to join with me. Also, I get intel from other civs who's cities have my religion. This strategy only works when there are a LOT of civs in the game, which seems to be anathema to most players. (try playing the historical 55-civ scenario in RI)

I've switched between civics that boost military production, civics that boost culture, and civics that boost war acceptance. But I haven't made fundamental shifts been capitalist and communist, slavery and democracy, monastic and free religion, etc., because my entire economy has grown around the basis of my empire (economy, food, production, research, etc.) and constantly shifting the modifiers situationally really messes things up.

I'm just concerned that the base game modifiers are being tweaked to compensate for a bias against choosing certain civics over others for personal gameplay preferences. However, I personally have no evidence to say one way or another, and haven't played enough variety to experience the total set of possibilities.

I know the game is called "civilization," but the idea that it's expected to be played on a medium map with a few civs versus a global map with many civs is strange to me: I'd have assumed that a game called "civilization" that claims to mimic the history of the world would be expected to be played on as large a map as possible with as many civs as possible, so that the true experience of navigating sustenance, growth, competition, defense, research, expansion, diplomacy, cooperation, war, and perseverance can be experienced. Perceived shortcuts in the game system should be carefully assessed to make sure that it fits in with the full experience of the game and all of its other component options.

 

[fnsnad]

I know the game is called "civilization," but the idea that it's expected to be played on a medium map with a few civs versus a global map with many civs is strange to me: I'd have assumed that a game called "civilization" that claims to mimic the history of the world would be expected to be played on as large a map as possible with as many civs as possible, so that the true experience of navigating sustenance, growth, competition, defense, research, expansion, diplomacy, cooperation, war, and perseverance can be experienced. Perceived shortcuts in the game system should be carefully assessed to make sure that it fits in with the full experience of the game and all of its other component options.

I think your last concern is valid, but I think it's more because civ4 is poorly optimized, and I for one don't want to wait 3 minutes for one turn. Still, it's worth pointing out that I always play on larger maps. Currently in a map that's larger than the built in RI huge world map with around 45 civs at the time of this post (started with like 30, a ton of civs formed from the barbarians) and I think that RI's strengths play out very well on larger maps indeed, as you pointed out. I love the feeling that the game is truly dynamic such that my weak neighbor right now in the classical era may end up being the world superpower in the modern era. A larger mistake doesn't cripple you throughout the entire game in the same way a great strategic move doesn't set you up for the entire game. It's almost startling that in the span of a single game, I can remember and reminisce so many distinct moments that happened due to the excellent pacing.

And that, I think, fairly summarizes my concern.

You don't like switching civics, and neither do I. I've been playing a theocratic civ: I founded a religion and then used that religion to build a vassal bloc of like-minded civs to join with me. Also, I get intel from other civs who's cities have my religion. This strategy only works when there are a LOT of civs in the game, which seems to be anathema to most players. (try playing the historical 55-civ scenario in RI)

I've switched between civics that boost military production, civics that boost culture, and civics that boost war acceptance. But I haven't made fundamental shifts been capitalist and communist, slavery and democracy, monastic and free religion, etc., because my entire economy has grown around the basis of my empire (economy, food, production, research, etc.) and constantly shifting the modifiers situationally really messes things up.

To be fair, constantly shifting modifiers does mess things up - perhaps that is sort of the point? I mean, large scale social/economic/etc changes in an entire country has rarely ever been smooth. That said, yes, perhaps as it stands currently, its more of a nuisance to deal with than a game mechanic to enjoy. Speaking of - especially during late stage wars - the revolutions take so long to cease that many cities' separatism shoots up that it becomes a serious threat that your civ will fracture; realistic, sure, but... y'know... I don't know if I particularly enjoy that.

 

[Sinocpm]

I think your last concern is valid, but I think it's more because civ4 is poorly optimized, and I for one don't want to wait 3 minutes for one turn.

Just a little input from my side, since I've seen this pop up a few times: On my system (i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz, 16 GB RAM, GTX 1050Ti, SSD, Process Lasso running in the background) the waiting times between turns on the huge world map in the year 1910 are less than/around 30 seconds I'd say. I do still get the occasional crash to desktop every now and then though

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Just a little input from my side, since I've seen this pop up a few times: On my system (i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz, 16 GB RAM, GTX 1050Ti, SSD, Process Lasso running in the background) the waiting times between turns on the huge world map in the year 1910 are less than/around 30 seconds I'd say. I do still get the occasional crash to desktop every now and then though

Are you also using Graphic Paging option?

 

[Sinocpm]

Are you also using Graphic Paging option?

I haven't so far but I'm gonna turn it on to see if it has any effect. Everything is set to high btw, 1920x1080 resolution, Anti-A MultiSamp set to 16

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

Just a little input from my side, since I've seen this pop up a few times: On my system (i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz, 16 GB RAM, GTX 1050Ti, SSD, Process Lasso running in the background) the waiting times between turns on the huge world map in the year 1910 are less than/around 30 seconds I'd say. I do still get the occasional crash to desktop every now and then though

Fortunately, I haven't had any CTD issues in my game. I'm in the year AD 1966 now, and many civs have been eliminated from the game.

RE: the GPU... have you considered going into the NVIDIA Control Panel and adding the CIV4BTS executable to the list so you can manually override some graphic settings?

Also, if you're running Windows, you can go into the Graphics settings to ensure that the executable is using the GPU and not the integrated graphics chip.