Realism Invictus

[PKSRoman]

That may be the case for you, but it is what is now, and since you won't be able to edit the gamefont file by yourself, you're stuck with it unless you roll back to an earlier version. Trying to use an earlier gamefont file will likely just scramble everything, as IIRC some offsets have changed.

i already notice it, thanks xD
ehh, time to install again 3.61 :/

 

[trashmunster]

can somebody post an example of a new font?

 

[PKSRoman]

can somebody post an example of a new font?

sure
Old font

vs "New, better"

both have field of view - 55
but on different angle,if you wish i could try search my old screenshots who posted here
air view from distance looks even worse then close-view in this new version

 

[trashmunster]

Thanks, I guess its a taste preference, its not too bad, for me personally, no difference in readability. But that depends on screen size and your distance to the screen. Try making that font bigger maybe?

 

[PKSRoman]

Thanks, I guess its a taste preference, its not too bad, for me personally, no difference in readability. But that depends on screen size and your distance to the screen. Try making that font bigger maybe?

Doesnt work since it is made in TGA font file

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Thanks, I guess its a taste preference, its not too bad, for me personally, no difference in readability. But that depends on screen size and your distance to the screen. Try making that font bigger maybe?

Heh, if only it was that simple. Unfortunately, that particular part of the interface - the city billboard - is bitmap-based; it's not a true Windows font, as in everywhere else in the game, it's literally a collection of small pictures (same as used for health, happiness and such). So there is very limited space to work with, and the original font is far too small for its task on most modern monitors. I tried increasing the size and legibility as much as I could, and used a - as correctly pointed out - rather narrow font, as otherwise longer city names simply wouldn't fit with a bigger letter size. After many iterations, to me, at least, the improvement over the old one is obvious. This is probably as good as we can get, given the tools we have.

 

[PKSRoman]

true, even if i download old version, program force me to re-size bitmap end look even uglier then 1.61 version
..but it looks we have some unused bmp files for new corporations

 

[PKSRoman]

Where did the button from checking separatism disappear?
any shortcut to check it?

EDIT: ok, it exist, but is invisible

 

[AspiringScholar]

Where did the button from checking separatism disappear?
any shortcut to check it?

View attachment 693034


View attachment 693035
EDIT: ok, it exist, but is invisible
View attachment 693036

If you're playing on low graphics, it's not visible but it is actually still there if you click the same spot.

 

[PKSRoman]

I have a question
shouldn't the AI of computer opponents focus more on trade? I sell every kind of raw material I have at low prices (spices for 3 gold pieces per ture for example and also amber, fish, etc) and I am able to raise my GDP by 10-20% this way.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make AI trade with each other in the same way?

I see the little joke that walter put here.Too bad that their love for open borders is rather one-sided

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

If you're playing on low graphics, it's not visible but it is actually still there if you click the same spot.

Thanks, that was actually important info. This will be fixed in the next SVN revision.

 

[Pepo]

Some feedback from the game I'm running in the latest stable version:
- Organized religion can probably do without from others religions. Happiness seems actually very hard to come by in classical and middle ages and considering it is High upkeep and fundamentalism and monasticism provide other different kind of bonus.
- I see that barbarian civs is included which is honestly one of my favourite civ 4 mod addittions. Can we get the option to customize it in game? Also there are some features that are pretty nice on it like barb civs in new world maps popping 1-2 ages behind to represent pre-columbian societies.
- The revolt module. I think it does some thing better to the classic Rev module found in other mods like being more clear . However I do think there are some issues with it. First off, factors: revolts happening seem to be too easy specially with cities joining. America in my game went from 15 cities to 4(!) after 5-10 turns of war with a massive texan rebellion sweeping all their cities. India , great power of antiquity in my game, get constant revolts starting in the middle ages the moment they get into a somewhat prolonged war, having generated 5 civs in total from rebellions though the game. Also that there is not figthing bugs me and is something I think the rev module in other mods do better. If polish nationals are raising up to reclaim their nation, the Ai should not placidly allow then to secede. If the city garrison is strong enough, it shouldn't get evicted but rather figth against the revolters. I think it would also help the Ai to hold onto the cities ( that should be revolting) and battle it out with the rebels units.
- I'm not a fan of scaling unit cost but playing without it lead to very cheap costs overall. I wonder if there would be an option for unit cost to be expensier when not running it. Also perhaps the scaling cost could be tied to civ pop or resources ( Civ4 reimagined do the latter and I think is brilliant, Civ V as much as I dislike it also make having repeated instances of resources more costly) rather than number of units in play.
- In regards to Diplo, I find lacking the option of tech trading really impacts in regard to strengthening my vassals. I also find AI decisions a bit strange, like refusing open borders at pleased, but I imagine is bc I ticked the AI plays to win option.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

- Organized religion can probably do without from others religions. Happiness seems actually very hard to come by in classical and middle ages and considering it is High upkeep and fundamentalism and monasticism provide other different kind of bonus.

Having more than one religion in your cities should, in my opinion, be a negative factor at least some of the time.

- I see that barbarian civs is included which is honestly one of my favourite civ 4 mod addittions. Can we get the option to customize it in game? Also there are some features that are pretty nice on it like barb civs in new world maps popping 1-2 ages behind to represent pre-columbian societies.

Both it and revolutions are mostly written from scratch, so the references to features of the original are lost on me. I considered spawning native civs that are low-tech in the New World starts, but on the whole, I'd rather have a chance of a strong New World civ in such games, so I feel spawning something post-colonial rather than native is more impactful. Natives are modelled by barbarian cities quite well already.

- The revolt module. I think it does some thing better to the classic Rev module found in other mods like being more clear . However I do think there are some issues with it. First off, factors: revolts happening seem to be too easy specially with cities joining. America in my game went from 15 cities to 4(!) after 5-10 turns of war with a massive texan rebellion sweeping all their cities. India , great power of antiquity in my game, get constant revolts starting in the middle ages the moment they get into a somewhat prolonged war, having generated 5 civs in total from rebellions though the game. Also that there is not figthing bugs me and is something I think the rev module in other mods do better. If polish nationals are raising up to reclaim their nation, the Ai should not placidly allow then to secede. If the city garrison is strong enough, it shouldn't get evicted but rather figth against the revolters. I think it would also help the Ai to hold onto the cities ( that should be revolting) and battle it out with the rebels units.

Meh. I am not really motivated to balance that one further, as I personally don't like it, and it's turned off by default. I may revisit it at some point, but that is unlikely.

- I'm not a fan of scaling unit cost but playing without it lead to very cheap costs overall. I wonder if there would be an option for unit cost to be expensier when not running it. Also perhaps the scaling cost could be tied to civ pop or resources ( Civ4 reimagined do the latter and I think is brilliant, Civ V as much as I dislike it also make having repeated instances of resources more costly) rather than number of units in play.

Already more expensive. Just goes to show you how easy it spirals out of control. The resource thing you suggest would require a rather massive AI rewrite to reevaluate resources to be done properly, so it is unlikely.

- In regards to Diplo, I find lacking the option of tech trading really impacts in regard to strengthening my vassals. I also find AI decisions a bit strange, like refusing open borders at pleased, but I imagine is bc I ticked the AI plays to win option.

Vassals get a massive additional tech transfer bonus, so they should generally catch up on tech rather quickly - plus, in a pinch you can provide them with guns. AI, in general, is much more judicious with open borders in RI since the tech transfer bonus is tied to them. A lot depends on a particular AI personality as well.

 

[AlfaLeporis]

Meh. I am not really motivated to balance that one further, as I personally don't like it, and it's turned off by default. I may revisit it at some point, but that is unlikely.

Wouldn't it help to make the effect of war weariness for stability less impactful (at least for AI)? I always play with revolutions since it adds a lot of immersivity and depth, although I remember some time ago I saw a similar thing described by @Pepo where the number one opponent after being defeated by me went into a rebellion spiral trying to reclaim cities and then losing them again. I don't complain because it was fun to watch (and I didn't like them anyway), but just wondering.

If I find where in the XMLs are revolution factors, I will try to balance it for myself and check how it works.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Already more expensive. Just goes to show you how easy it spirals out of control. The resource thing you suggest would require a rather massive AI rewrite to reevaluate resources to be done properly, so it is unlikely.

You mean that the units without 'unit cost scaling' start off more expensive and only after several levels of scaling, the scaled unit costs get to be higher?

Interesting.

 

[Jure]

Hello everyone! I am glad that the active development of this excellent mod continues. I have to say, that Civ4 + RI is still the best civ experience available, even after playing Civ6 and Civ5+Vox Populi for some time.

I have some feedback regarding the SVN5395:
1) The icons for separatism in Event Log and in the popus that show after the global separatism modifiers change are messed up. In event log, the health icon is used instead of "separatism fist" icon and in the popup, the "happy face" is shown instead of "separatism fist" (screenshots below). Ignore this, if this is itentional
2) The tech "Propaganda" has different era and tech cost than the other tech of the same tier (screenshot below).

Otherwise the mod is super fun and very polished, I like the UI changes a lot.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Wouldn't it help to make the effect of war weariness for stability less impactful (at least for AI)? I always play with revolutions since it adds a lot of immersivity and depth, although I remember some time ago I saw a similar thing described by @Pepo where the number one opponent after being defeated by me went into a rebellion spiral trying to reclaim cities and then losing them again. I don't complain because it was fun to watch (and I didn't like them anyway), but just wondering.

If I find where in the XMLs are revolution factors, I will try to balance it for myself and check how it works.

This was already done for 3.6, and since then I haven't seen this manifest as a problem in general. Is this really what everyone has has been seeing in the official release, since then?

 

[AlfaLeporis]

I don't see this as a problem per se, watching how big empires disintegrate is fascinating and one of the reasons I play RI - although playing for war weariness is a pretty effective strategy, especially in the late game against big (or even over-expanded nations), so there's probably still some room for experiments here.

 

[Roland Johansen]

(When playing with revolutions) Isn't it a bit boring from a gameplay (not realism) point of view that however successful an AI empire is, it cannot really handle the revolution risks well and therefore a big AI empire will always disintegrate in a war with some war weariness maybe combined with a targeted spying effort. It basically means that you can't lose a bit later in the game after surviving the early game. At least, that is what I read here from everyone using the revolution option of Realism Invictus.

In a game, I always like to keep the risk of losing as long as possible in a game. From the moment that I know that I will win, the game becomes a lot less interesting.

 

[AlfaLeporis]

On the other hand sometimes it prevents AI from snowballing, and I would rather increase the difficulty level than disabling revolutions if I see that I'm getting ahead too soon. Also, I like to role-play instead of just going into a particular victory and watching such a dynamic world is very satisfying.