Realism Invictus

[globosud]

if it helps, in realism there is a change to the mechanics of the defensive pact, they are not canceled when you declare war, so they are both offensive and defensive, but by modifying the BBAI_Game_Options_GlobalDefines file you can only make them defensive

 

[trashmunster]

It is a bit weird to give them a production bonus. Their power doesn't get more stuff done than other power.

Nuclear power doesn't give any carbon emissions, so it should be fairly healthy, compared to other sources of power. There is just this risk of a meltdown. And in real life, nuclear power is fairly expensive to build and seal away the waste, but it came around earlier than solar and wind power.

I don't see how a connection to a world wonder is negligible. Very nice to get power in every city.

Yeah? Well in case you don't know, and you don't in this mod power plants give production bonus, coal plant gets event with +4 hammers. It's an abstraction. Access to nuclear power in real life allows bigger flexibility of energy generation resulting in better production conditions, irl most countries with nuclear power are industrially developed. Gameplay wise this argument is even more pointless, the whole game idea is to have options that give different bonuses for different situations, not to have a building you don't need, that in real human history plays a crucial role in energy generation.

 

[doctoraristotelicus]

I just want to express my gratitude to everyone responsible por the creation, improvement and maintenance of Realism Invictus. I have played Civ IV for many years in my childhood and early adolescence, and started experimenting with BTS recently, as I decided to go back to the game. One thing I started to feel as missing was time and content enough for each era to have their own vibe, so I started looking for mods and expansions. I played a little Caveman to Cosmos, but I felt like they overdid it, it was just too much. In RI I found a perfect balance and have been having tons of fun wiith it. Even in Vanilla I rarely got to win on Noble nor anything above it, I guess because I've never really put much effort into becoming better at the game, but playing it for -- let's say -- contemplative reasons, recreating (or trying to) some moments of history that I think are memorable in their own way. As I said on another post, I am generally incompetent at all kinds of games, one reason why I never enjoyed multiplayer. As I started my experiments with RI, I felt like some of the mechanics made it almost impossible to recreate some world scenarios, such as the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, the Ummayad Caliphate, much less maintaining them (I will concede that in real history they didn't last long, but I've also used to Civ IV to sort of wake up from the nightmare of history, as Stephen Dedalus would say, that is, making things work when they haven't really (yes, I know the original quote didn't refer to this, I'm just trying ot be fancy)). Instead of complaining, I accepted it was probably due to my incompetence, so I kept trying and retrying, going through the posts in this forum to get some tips, and now I am actually able to achieve my goals, at least in lower difficulties (the Soviet Union is still a bit hard). One thing I miss is the possibility of recreating the Portuguese Empire, as the Portuguese are only available on Huge World Scenario (which my poor computer can't handle beyond the Renaissance) and the Europe Scenario (which doesn't have the Americas, so I can't colonize Brazil), so sometimes I go back to RFC for that. As I said, I play only for that kind of aesthetic fun (the improved graphics really help with that -- going back to RFC is always a shock), so I don't think I'll be trying higher difficulties until the lower ones get really boring (I'm still very far from that). Anyways, I just wanted to share a bit of my experience and say how glad I am that this mod exists and is still playable.

 

[trashmunster]

RI, I felt like some of the mechanics made it almost impossible to recreate some world scenarios, such as the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, the Ummayad Caliphate, much less maintaining them (I will concede that in real history they didn't last long,

Oh attempting to recreate russian empire history on world map was fun. Used large map for the same reasons as you, huge starts to crash around renaissance. Got all the historical territories around appropriate times, the best part that was most realistic is the siberian expansion that could happen only with gunpowder units, before that its pointless to fight siberians. Whta is also cool is how overextended empire can shatter even if its fairly strong unit-wise. That recreates fall of roman or soviets.

The only drawback of earth scenario is that I never saw derivative colonial powers rise to superpower level. So no irl USA somehow. Though in random games stuff like that happened sometimes. Young civs became major powers

 

[Roland Johansen]

Yeah? Well in case you don't know, and you don't in this mod power plants give production bonus, coal plant gets event with +4 hammers. It's an abstraction. Access to nuclear power in real life allows bigger flexibility of energy generation resulting in better production conditions, irl most countries with nuclear power are industrially developed. Gameplay wise this argument is even more pointless, the whole game idea is to have options that give different bonuses for different situations, not to have a building you don't need, that in real human history plays a crucial role in energy generation.

I don't see a production bonus for any of the power plants themselves in the civilopedia.

In my opinion, the nuclear plant shouldn't give any emissions as it doesn't create carbon emissions in real life. But it does create unhappiness. That's a good way to differentiate. And in real life, it is expensive (in construction and locking away nuclear waste). A way to differentiate could be that it actually has a small maintenance cost (1) to it. But it should not have the unhealthyness.

The number of people that have died due to gas and coal plants (estimates in live reduction due to emissions) is far far higher than that of nuclear plants. But of course, nuclear plants do give that feeling of unrest as we all have heard about catastrophic meltdowns, while death caused by emissions is very invisible.

Before the ultimate late game solar plant, you could then have the choice of cheap dirty coal, lightly polluting gas or hydro, or unhappiness creating nuclear. Pick your pain depending on what you lack (happiness, health, some resource).

 

[trashmunster]

I don't see a production bonus for any of the power plants themselves in the civilopedia.

Its event based

 

[Roland Johansen]

Hey, Walter, if I may ask, why does Solar not obsolete everything? It is the most expensive, needs most technology and is the cleanest. But it gets obsoleted by a dirtier version of hydro energy. Playing the latest 3.61 distributed version. (Maybe something was changed afterwards.)

 

[AspiringScholar]

It is a bit weird to give them a production bonus. Their power doesn't get more stuff done than other power.

Nuclear power doesn't give any carbon emissions, so it should be fairly healthy, compared to other sources of power. There is just this risk of a meltdown. And in real life, nuclear power is fairly expensive to build and seal away the waste, but it came around earlier than solar and wind power.

I don't see how a connection to a world wonder is negligible. Very nice to get power in every city.

I like the idea of differentiating them a little more, but yeah, the nuclear plant's lack of a massive unhealthiness penalty is already the advantage to my mind, and it comes at the price of being more expensive anyway (not only in sheer hammer costs, but in requiring a successful nuclear program, which is actually something of a complex hurdle in this mod).

if it helps, in realism there is a change to the mechanics of the defensive pact, they are not canceled when you declare war, so they are both offensive and defensive, but by modifying the BBAI_Game_Options_GlobalDefines file you can only make them defensive

Unfortunately, this setting actually doesn't work (at least in my playtesting). I deliberately wanted to try that, and positing "2" in the BBAI file still behaves as if they were default DPs that cancel when triggered by any new war.

Hey, Walter, if I may ask, why does Solar not obsolete everything? It is the most expensive, needs most technology and is the cleanest. But it gets obsoleted by a dirtier version of hydro energy. Playing the latest 3.61 distributed version. (Maybe something was changed afterwards.)

I tried to find where this was documented and have given up after a few minutes' search, but I believe this was strictly to retain the alternative options. In many late game scenarios, health is superabundant and you'd much rather build a coal plant in a newly founded city in some small island somewhere which won't realistically hit its health cap than be forced to invest in expensive power infrastructure for every single city lacking it once it becomes available.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I like the idea of differentiating them a little more, but yeah, the nuclear plant's lack of a massive unhealthiness penalty is already the advantage to my mind, and it comes at the price of being more expensive anyway (not only in sheer hammer costs, but in requiring a successful nuclear program, which is actually something of a complex hurdle in this mod).

The nuclear plant in the game is still unhealthier than the gas plant, while a gas plant has carbon emissions and a nuclear plant does not. I do agree that the nuclear plant is very costly in real life, both in building (safely) and in storing the nuclear waste securely. But it doesn't have the emissions of a gas plant. Of course, in real life, it does create unrest, so the unhappiness addition is a creative way to do that.

I tried to find where this was documented and have given up after a few minutes' search, but I believe this was strictly to retain the alternative options. In many late game scenarios, health is superabundant and you'd much rather build a coal plant in a newly founded city in some small island somewhere which won't realistically hit its health cap than be forced to invest in expensive power infrastructure for every single city lacking it once it becomes available.

The route of obsolete doesn't help with what you say. According to the Civilopedia it is:

Coal -> Gas -> Solar -> Hydro. Nuclear is not part of this upgrade path. So, I guess if you add a Hydro plant to a city with a Solar plant, you just create some extra unhealthiness and a chance for a dam break. I am probably missing something here, but I don't know what.

 

[jamnole]

Thanks for all the work and information! Question from an RI newbie, and player returning to Civ in general after almost 2 decades "away". I have tried to figure this out on my own, including the RI PDF manual and some forum type searches.

Can you play with only a limited # of civilizations / nations? How?

I tried RI (Custom Game) and had 12 listed, but met about 8 in the first 25 turns alone (!!), meaning we were all slammed up against each other in a small area on the map. That implies there were a whole lot more than 12 civilizations.

I personally like operating space and to explore and develop without having to intensely battle for space and resources from the very start.

Thanks you.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Could it be that you chose a map script with an old world and a new world and everyone starting in the old world? That makes the start more crowded. It is for instance one of the options in the Totestra map script.

Also, if there is a slow expansion initially and land is left open for a long time, then barbarians can appear, they can settle cities after a while. And new in this mod, those cities can develop into full blown civilizations. But I doubt that is your case. As you are saying it was crowded from the start and that means little space for developing barbarian cities.

If you do start with an old and a new world, then the new world could get settled by barbarians that after a while develop into full blown civilizations.

 

[AspiringScholar]

The nuclear plant in the game is still unhealthier than the gas plant, while a gas plant has carbon emissions and a nuclear plant does not. I do agree that the nuclear plant is very costly in real life, both in building (safely) and in storing the nuclear waste securely. But it doesn't have the emissions of a gas plant. Of course, in real life, it does create unrest, so the unhappiness addition is a creative way to do that.


The route of obsolete doesn't help with what you say. According to the Civilopedia it is:

Coal -> Gas -> Solar -> Hydro. Nuclear is not part of this upgrade path. So, I guess if you add a Hydro plant to a city with a Solar plant, you just create some extra unhealthiness and a chance for a dam break. I am probably missing something here, but I don't know what.

Having loaded up the game to double check, what I think I was trying to find was a reference to the solar plant remaining buildable after the hydro plant becomes available (though now I am unsure, honestly, because the building upgrade path shows it being strictly obsoleted). The hydro plant is significantly cheaper, but it does require a strategic resource (concrete, which, admittedly, you likely wouldn't have made it this far without) and doesn't provide the +2 that the solar plant does, all else aside, so I think both should remain buildable, even if you already have a hydro plant and want to switch to solar for the health bonus. Also, I don't see this listed, but shouldn't the hydro plant require fresh water? Is that already a requirement, just undocumented? It wouldn't make sense to be able to build it inland.

My argument for the nuclear plant actually had the coal plant in mind as the alternative, which is, of course, much dirtier if also substantially cheaper. In many late-game cities, it's still my preferred power plant when the city is still developing, because it's much more accessible at a time when it's unlikely to hit its health cap, enabling the power-requiring buildings to be built as it grows up towards this, and can then be replaced later. I actually don't fully understand the rationale for the unhappiness from nuclear plants, however. Is that supposed to model the controversy surrounding them being implemented? Honestly, I'm not sure how contentious they were prior to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which would be well after they started being used. Currently, countries like France derive almost all of their energy from nuclear power and (though I am not a Frenchman) I doubt it is a controversial thing there.

Thanks for all the work and information! Question from an RI newbie, and player returning to Civ in general after almost 2 decades "away". I have tried to figure this out on my own, including the RI PDF manual and some forum type searches.

Can you play with only a limited # of civilizations / nations? How?

I tried RI (Custom Game) and had 12 listed, but met about 8 in the first 25 turns alone (!!), meaning we were all slammed up against each other in a small area on the map. That implies there were a whole lot more than 12 civilizations.

I personally like operating space and to explore and develop without having to intensely battle for space and resources from the very start.

Thanks you.

My guess is that this has to do with barbarian civs forming and possibly a few spawning from revolutions, as well. There are 9 starting civs on a standard sized map in RI to begin with, but that number often peaks to around 12-15 in most of my games at some point, before reconsolidating down to below the original starting number oftentimes.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Coal -> Gas -> Solar -> Hydro. Nuclear is not part of this upgrade path. So, I guess if you add a Hydro plant to a city with a Solar plant, you just create some extra unhealthiness and a chance for a dam break. I am probably missing something here, but I don't know what.

TBH, I don't recall the exact logic behind that.

Which means I will definitely revisit power plants and their effects.

Can you play with only a limited # of civilizations / nations? How?

I tried RI (Custom Game) and had 12 listed, but met about 8 in the first 25 turns alone (!!), meaning we were all slammed up against each other in a small area on the map. That implies there were a whole lot more than 12 civilizations.

I personally like operating space and to explore and develop without having to intensely battle for space and resources from the very start.

If you're not particularly attached to that game, I'd recommend opening WorldBuilder and looking at the map. There are several possible explanations, both given above are quite plausible, or might just be that particular roll of the dice. Play with map settings a bit, find your own comfortable balance...

 

[Roland Johansen]

Having loaded up the game to double check, what I think I was trying to find was a reference to the solar plant remaining buildable after the hydro plant becomes available (though now I am unsure, honestly, because the building upgrade path shows it being strictly obsoleted). The hydro plant is significantly cheaper, but it does require a strategic resource (concrete, which, admittedly, you likely wouldn't have made it this far without) and doesn't provide the +2 that the solar plant does, all else aside, so I think both should remain buildable, even if you already have a hydro plant and want to switch to solar for the health bonus. Also, I don't see this listed, but shouldn't the hydro plant require fresh water? Is that already a requirement, just undocumented? It wouldn't make sense to be able to build it inland.

Yeah, you're making the same points that I did. We agree. And probably you actually want to have a river for the hydro plant since a fresh water source can also come from a water building in Realism Invictus. And in reality, you need a bit more for a hydro plant.

I actually don't fully understand the rationale for the unhappiness from them, however. Is that supposed to model the controversy surrounding them being implemented? Honestly, I'm not sure how contentious they were prior to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which would be well after they started being used. Currently, countries like France derive almost all of their energy from nuclear power and (though I am not a Frenchman) I doubt it is a controversial thing there.

For instance Germany stopped all their nuclear plants after Fukushima. Quite an exaggerated response, I think, but it does show that there can be unrest due to the building. I actually think it should only have an unhappiness effect (maybe larger so) and no unhealth effect. Maybe a low maintenance as it is expensive to get rid of the nuclear waste afterwards.

 

[Roland Johansen]

TBH, I don't recall the exact logic behind that.

Which means I will definitely revisit power plants and their effects.

Great, thanks for looking into it.

 

[jamnole]

Having loaded up the game to double check, what I think I was trying to find was a reference to the solar plant remaining buildable after the hydro plant becomes available (though now I am unsure, honestly, because the building upgrade path shows it being strictly obsoleted). The hydro plant is significantly cheaper, but it does require a strategic resource (concrete, which, admittedly, you likely wouldn't have made it this far without) and doesn't provide the +2 that the solar plant does, all else aside, so I think both should remain buildable, even if you already have a hydro plant and want to switch to solar for the health bonus. Also, I don't see this listed, but shouldn't the hydro plant require fresh water? Is that already a requirement, just undocumented? It wouldn't make sense to be able to build it inland.

My argument for the nuclear plant actually had the coal plant in mind as the alternative, which is, of course, much dirtier if also substantially cheaper. In many late-game cities, it's still my preferred power plant when the city is still developing, because it's much more accessible at a time when it's unlikely to hit its health cap, enabling the power-requiring buildings to be built as it grows up towards this, and can then be replaced later. I actually don't fully understand the rationale for the unhappiness from nuclear plants, however. Is that supposed to model the controversy surrounding them being implemented? Honestly, I'm not sure how contentious they were prior to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which would be well after they started being used. Currently, countries like France derive almost all of their energy from nuclear power and (though I am not a Frenchman) I doubt it is a controversial thing there.



My guess is that this has to do with barbarian civs forming and possibly a few spawning from revolutions, as well. There are 9 starting civs on a standard sized map in RI to begin with, but that number often peaks to around 12-15 in most of my games at some point, before reconsolidating down to below the original starting number oftentimes.

Having loaded up the game to double check, what I think I was trying to find was a reference to the solar plant remaining buildable after the hydro plant becomes available (though now I am unsure, honestly, because the building upgrade path shows it being strictly obsoleted). The hydro plant is significantly cheaper, but it does require a strategic resource (concrete, which, admittedly, you likely wouldn't have made it this far without) and doesn't provide the +2 that the solar plant does, all else aside, so I think both should remain buildable, even if you already have a hydro plant and want to switch to solar for the health bonus. Also, I don't see this listed, but shouldn't the hydro plant require fresh water? Is that already a requirement, just undocumented? It wouldn't make sense to be able to build it inland.

My argument for the nuclear plant actually had the coal plant in mind as the alternative, which is, of course, much dirtier if also substantially cheaper. In many late-game cities, it's still my preferred power plant when the city is still developing, because it's much more accessible at a time when it's unlikely to hit its health cap, enabling the power-requiring buildings to be built as it grows up towards this, and can then be replaced later. I actually don't fully understand the rationale for the unhappiness from nuclear plants, however. Is that supposed to model the controversy surrounding them being implemented? Honestly, I'm not sure how contentious they were prior to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which would be well after they started being used. Currently, countries like France derive almost all of their energy from nuclear power and (though I am not a Frenchman) I doubt it is a controversial thing there.



My guess is that this has to do with barbarian civs forming and possibly a few spawning from revolutions, as well. There are 9 starting civs on a standard sized map in RI to begin with, but that number often peaks to around 12-15 in most of my games at some point, before reconsolidating down to below the original starting number oftentimes.

Re.: # of civilizations (nations): thanks! These were not barbarian cities / nations, but rather actual civilizations (whether playable or not by us, I do not know). Looks like "RI World Map scenario large" requires 50ish civilizations to be playing. (and that may be the primary point of RI - that, yes, all these folks are there, deal with it!)

 

[Roland Johansen]

Great, thanks for looking into it.

By the way, as reported earlier, even some random event adds 4 production to the coal plant which is quite a nice bonus that changes the balance between the power plants. Hard of course to take random events into account.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Re.: # of civilizations (nations): thanks! These were not barbarian cities / nations, but rather actual civilizations (whether playable or not by us, I do not know). Looks like "RI World Map scenario large" requires 50ish civilizations to be playing. (and that may be the primary point of RI - that, yes, all these folks are there, deal with it!)

Kinda. I'd rather recommend playing a random map instead, whether with one of the bundled map scripts (Totestra / PerfectWorld / PlanetGenerator) or even with one of the stock ones. Though some people love scenarios too. If you want few players on a real Earth map, use EarthEvolution3.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Whoever's playing SVN - I just pushed an update with some AI changes that really need playtesting. I'd love some feedback on whether rebel slaves still go sightseeing, on whether AI is now better with ranged artillery fire, on whether you still see stupid one-tile-away-from-the-shore city placement, on whether AI is now properly dealing with poorly defended barbarian cities in scenarios.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Gladly, once I finish my second game on it.

Spoiler :

- Major Bug: I don't know what triggered this (whether it was a civic combination or something else, I'm not sure), because it eventually stopped, but in a game as Transoxiania, food was not functioning as a production input for settlers, workers and irregulars. In the ancient era, this was quite debilitating, but at some point later I noticed that it wasn't replicating. I don't know what caused it or if it was a true edge case anomaly, but that constitutes a massively broken feature however it came about. See the attached save for reference.

- This is more of a suggestion for aesthetic consistency than anything functional or gameplay-impacting, but I recall reading that the tech tree was divided such that all vertical rows of techs would belong to the same era. Meditation is uniquely (and I believe the only example of this) in a row of all classical techs but is itself ancient. Is this intentional? I also recall in the official release one of the arrows leading between techs running through the listing for the tech itself but could not find this in the SVN, so perhaps this is the result of fixing that.

- I had a worker stop building an improvement randomly but there was no enemy in sight. Rightly, it turned out, I judged that it detected a 2 barbarian scout that was poised to kill it the next turn even though it was in the fog. I moved the worker away and sure enough, a primitive scout showed up out of the unexplored land onto that tile. Should workers be able to "wake up" when detecting a unit the player should have no knowledge of because it is in unexplored land?

- This is in favor of a "rebuff" following the original nerf that it got years ago, but I feel that The Great Library should provide a scientist slot or two, even while it retains its more bland +10%. The former +2 free scientists (and the GP points that they accrue) is rather more powerful in RI given the great works of science, I'd agree, and a nerf was probably in order, but having the ability to run more scientists seems entirely natural (seeing as how they literally kidnapped itinerant scholars in real life, anyway) since you will have to pay an opportunity cost with your population for it and it would require surplus to make full use of, and that additional scientist slots beyond the 1 from the library are virtually nonexistent until renaissance. The static bonus is kind of lame on its own.

- What is the reason for incense as a resource only providing via a religion, when its aromatic properties seem like they would constitute an ancient luxury on their own in the absence of one, much as several other luxuries in the game that provide independently? Especially since RI softly models an effect from more informal religious practices with both paganism and animism, it seems appropriate to me that incense should either provide happiness through pagan temples as well or simply do so through the market as with most of the other unfinished luxury goods that aren't metals and already do so through the jeweler.

- I believe this is a documentation gap, but I was somewhat surprised to see an interesting looking cavalry unit for Persia called the Zhayeda, which I then found was a national unit that wasn't referenced in the national unit list for Persia in the Pedia. I am not sure if there are other NUs that didn't get linked to their main civ page, but this seems to be the case here. I might have tried Persia again more recently had I seen something to recommend them outside of the very early game.

- For Transoxiania, why is the Nogai Rider classified as a range mounted unit when it wields a lance? I had founded the chivalry doctrine intending to promote them alone that path, and was surprised to find that they were ineligible for it, until I found out that they were another ranged mounted unit just like the late horse archer I was intending to pair them with. Is this for balance reasons, or is there some historical argument for this? Visually, it seems like melee light cavalry (well, for its high anyway, even though it is powerful), which should be charge mounted.

- I find it somewhat strange that resource trades do not trigger a mandatory peace treaty as some other deals do. Why is this the case, when signing open borders (which, I would think a sanctioned and predetermined flow of goods across borders is effectively the same in this regard) already does this on its own? I think this could have a good gameplay effect as well. Have you considered implementing this?

- Likely bug: I had a pirate trade ship (not transoceanic) cross an ocean tile and start pillaging my seafood. It didn't have a promotion enabling this, so I don't know how it managed this. (Save provided.)

- I think it's kind of silly that generic explorers get a rather immense bonus defending in the desert, especially when their predecessor (the skirmisher, outside of civ-specifc flavoring) doesn't. I can see the reasoning for forests and jungle (and skirmishers have one of the most uniquely long shelf-lives and depreciation arcs of any unit in the game, so their long-awaited replacement being effective makes sense to me) but a +50% defense bonus in desert doesn't really make sense to me. They're already an 8 unit with great mobility for lacking horses, and deserts are supposed to be inhospitable for everyone. I would suggest modifying this to oasis or flood plains exclusively, to make it more plausible that any amount of standing military forces could meaningfully operate in such an environment to receive such a bonus.

- Why is the holy palace not listed in the Pedia page for each respective religion? It is documented in the prophets' great works page, but it would be more natural if it was linked to each religion, as well. Also, it might be a good idea to verbally tag each holy palace as a holy palace instead of only with its exclusive religious name (much as with the new 3.6 unit name scheme), since the tech unlocking the holy palace only refers to this generically and each specific example is not explicitly labeled as a holy palace.

- Along the lines with the comment about incense above, why are dyes unique in providing without any additional infrastructure in addition to more with the theater, when other luxuries only provide any alongside some kind of building? Are they meant to be more potent or valuable somehow, by design? I don't mind this being the case, but am simply curious why they're an exception in this regard. As it is, spices (providing dual and with the relevant infrastructure) and dyes (providing double ) seem to be the "premium" goods for much of the game's timeline. That could make sense, but I don't know if it's intentional that luxury goods be stratified.

- Likely bug: the Pedia states that rocky islands provide a 10% defensive bonus, which should be on top of the existing 10% defensive bonus provided by coast itself, but the tooltip only identifies a total of 10%. Is this not summing correctly or otherwise broken?