Realism Invictus

[[Y]]

There wouldn't be nearly enough leaders, whereas all (most?) playable civs have enough leaders to comfortably accommodate a full game on a per era basis. I was thinking of making it a non-default game option.

Leaders can repeat. I envisioned it with the spirit you've talked about before, where the leader isn't physically there but symbolic of the civilization's values and attitudes at the time.

 

[TheBirdMan]

I believe that we (read Walter) must make a final decision if we should continue to follow the present concept with 1 named leader throughout the whole game or we should change to the EU concept with different leaders (with different stats in different ages - sure). I prefer the current one.

But I am completely open to the fact that a leader can change his behavior and attitude towards preferred traits over such a long period of time as a game takes. So changing traits and - especially - preferred religion will most likely be to my taste. No matter if it happens at fixed years or randomly. Actually I think I would like it.

But-but-but. I'm an older "gentleman" sometimes with a somewhat special taste - at least according to my wife (and she should know - after almost 43 years together).

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

As I mentioned before, I'll make it non-default and optional, for when someone wants to spice up their game. This is not something I want to have on by default. It just makes total sense to add now that I already implemented 90% of what's needed for it anyway.

 

[RamsesII]

Quick report on my Egypt game (huge world map, Noble difficulty). I have reached 1430AD (just about 50% of the max length), my empire spans over 34 cities and stands first in all of the game's main metrics (score, power ratio, population, land mass, production, food, gnp, culture).

The save file is now ~4.3MB. Despite single-unit graphic + project lasso running in the background (trim options as indicated in a post earlier on this thread), the game now crashes every other turn. It's a pity because game loading time and turn speed time are still super fast.

I believe I am going to leave this game where it is and consider I won . Reloading every 5 turns with very frequent saves is bearable, every turn is not.

I have had an amazing time (I put in a little over 100 hours of gameplay and pedia reading) and would like again to thank all those who have contributed to this mod accross the ages.

I may try a new game in the (still large, but much smaller) earth map, at a higher difficulty level.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Yes, I would very much recommend smaller maps - try random maps too, you won't regret it.

 

[RamsesII]

Yes, I would very much recommend smaller maps - try random maps too, you won't regret it.

I will Walter, maybe actually next game, let's see. But the historical flavour and "role-play" on real maps is just so good for me, it takes a little more imagination on random maps

I did however do several random maps in civ6 which were one gigantic sea in the middle of the map and land mass all around it. I pretended it was the Mediterranean, and selected the 10 major leaders of the civilisations around the Med in ancient / classical times. It was great.

 

[RamsesII]

A quick feedback from a new civ4 / R:I player on gameplay.

Despite Egypt running away in the scoreboard and the modest difficulty level, I was surprised how it was not a walk in the park. The AI played several interesting tricks on me, which I enjoyed !

- in the classical era, the Khmers (then a leading civ) threw at me a large stack all the way from their home base to try and pop my fort at Suez. They failed, but fair play, they tried. Actually they are the only ones who tried something against me during the first two ears; Europe was pretty evendly divided and none of those kingdoms could realistically challenge me.

- my main rival civ in the scoreboard and tech has been Japan, whom I discovered (or rather, they discovered me) early Middle-Ages. I thought they would attempt a large scale naval invasion at some point but that was probably too challening in the game for this. But they did two things : in the XIth century, as I was having a difficult conquest war against Arabia (and winning), they vassalized Arabia when they were down to a single city (but very well defended on a hill) which got me thinking for a while whether I should sue for peace. In the end I continued my war and conquered the Arabs, but was in constant fear of suddenly seeing a Japanese army appear over the dunes of the Rub-al-Khali. And that is precisely what happened 200 years later: Japan fomented an alliance of 6 civs against me, and send over a very well composed and advanced stack of 15 units through the Arabian peninsula. Theirplan failed because they attacked right were I had my cavalry and most experienced units, but they got me concered for a bit; and one of the other civs - Mali - sent in a vicious stack of 10 at the same time through the Sahara to sneak attack my northern African coast with their fearsome beduin came riders. They managed to lay siege to one of my cities before I repelled them (and counter-attacked and brought war to their land in return). They failed but the whole thing was quite well set-up and could have worked had I not kept so strong garrisons almost everywhere.

- the moment other civs got crossbowmen and later longbowmen, taking cities without bombards - especially on hills - became virtually impossible other than by dedicating gigantic stack (I think north of 40 would have been required), which would have made no economic sense. Bombards however did break that, allowed me to weaken the toughest defenders (but I had like 6 or 7 of them) and that enabled to conquer new provinces, but at a slow pace and with some severe losses. It was cool.

- because of this, and probably also less infrastructure to build and then slower tech times - maybe because my empire was very large - the Middle-Ages felt a lot "slower" than the previous two eras. But I actually liked it and it may have felt pretty spot on flavour wise too. Renaissance was probably going to see some divergence again - I was starting to fight with arquebusiers and cuirassiers and boy, did they make a difference compared to men-at-arms and cataphracts.

- War elephants rock. They are not good against cities but they are beasts in every other fight. Excellent at holding defensive positions too. And their animation and sound are great.

 

[trashmunster]

But the historical flavour and "role-play" on real maps is just so good for me, it takes a little more imagination on random maps

Since you enjoy real world map so much you could at least try large earth scenario (no huge) it worked for me many times and the game is playable till the end without turning graphics down or lasso. Making graphics worse in RI is a huge waste, since units are so diverse and objectively good.
So yeah, large earth map isnt as breathtaking as huge, but its possible to finish.

And random maps are awesome too, they present unique challenges and surprises. Totestra map script is the best and most aesthetically pleasing IMO.

 

[giorgio1234]

The good thing is, this time it's an actual effect that exists within a save and I can reproduce that on my side. The bad thing is, still no idea why or when that happens, as you admit yourself.

Hi @Walter Hawkwood ,
I think I've finally identified when this problem (messed up roles between irregulars and heavy infantry units) occurs.
I still don't understand what happens, but I've got a savegame where, from a correct situation, it's enough to move on the next turn and the problem appears.

In the attached savegame, we have the following situation:
- 22 warbands
- 5 swordsmen
Everything is ok, if you try to build one unit you see:
- warband +66% (irregular +3%)
- swordsman +75% (heavy infantry +15%)
and the situation is correct even in the civilopedia (unit upgrade chart).

If you now go to the next turn (you get some diplomatic relations and some productions - skip everything), military engeneering is discovered (which upgrades swordsmen to medieval swordsmen).
I don't know if it's important, but I still haven't discovered land tenure, that enables levy; so we are in a situation where the warbands don't have their irregular upgrade yet and they don't even have the regular upgrade anymore (swordsmen).
Now if you try to build a unit you find that:
- warband is no longer available
- medieval swordsman +75% (heavy infantry +15%)
and, If you look at the civilopedia, you will see that now warband has heavy infantry role (!!!).

If you now reload the previous savegame (without exiting the game), you get the following situation:
- warband +75% (heavy infantry +15%)
- swordsman +75% (heavy infantry +15%)
and still warband has heavy infantry role even in civilopedia.

I hope this helps you understand what the problem is.
If you still can't figure it out, I can try to research land tenure before military engineering and see if that's where the problem comes from.

 

[RamsesII]

Since you enjoy real world map so much you could at least try large earth scenario (no huge) it worked for me many times and the game is playable till the end without turning graphics down or lasso. Making graphics worse in RI is a huge waste, since units are so diverse and objectively good.
So yeah, large earth map isnt as breathtaking as huge, but its possible to finish.

Hi, that is exactly what I did, large earth map with Egypt again, on Monarch difficulty. I disabled single-unit graphics (which is checked by default). I find the start more challenging, there is very little space and the big threat early on is Nubia to the south and its powerful Medjay archers (S4). I went for the coast quickly to secure access to horses, then Sphinx and trying to get Pyramids too. I need to get war chariots out before Taharqa attacks, I might have been a little too greedy with my opening, let's see.

Spoiler :

And random maps are awesome too, they present unique challenges and surprises. Totestra map script is the best and most aesthetically pleasing IMO.

They're next on my list

 

[Takofloppa]

Totestra is great, pretty much the only map I play - but I always take a fast peek (really fast, so I have no time to remember it) in WorldBuilder to be sure that it didn't generate something too weird, it would be sad to discover this after x hours.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I got a wonderfully weird Totestra start this weekend when I was testing, a 1-2 tile wide, very long (fit 5 cities eventually) squishy island sandwiched between two large continents. Would have been ideal if I were Austronesian, much less so for Poland (no fresh water sources!), but was fun anyway.

 

[PKSRoman]

How did that one happen?

prince difflucty, no one invaded that island, no another barbarians island anywhere
i discover it around ~1400 AD
this is not so strange, I have often seen such cities having 80 - 130 units in towns like this in rennesaice era
this one is just bigger then usual
(ahh imagine that during the event “something drove the barbarians away" when you enter the medieval era half of such a horde is placed at some weak civilization, mmm.)

Changes based on era don't make much sense to me from a flavor perspective (feels more in line with what Civ 7 is trying to do), but for years I've been thinking about having your leader changed every time you enter anarchy. Or maybe a % chance of it happening as part of anarchy.

From my perspective, in each era, each nation has a slightly different preference as to what direction they should take as a whole community
One “immortal ruler” who rules throughout the history of civilization and does not change his behavior over time is just something weirder
Roman Empire have different main targets then than their descendants in city-states in rennasaince era. And their successors in industrial era had different plans on world, again
Medival Germans wanted spread the christianity, rennesaice germans discover new things,make science and try to oppose their neighbours from their plans, industrial wanted concquer the world and modern focus on finanse and culture
The goals of empires,kingdoms and states change over time, that's my point

Also, I'm a bit worried about the increase in epidemics chance for trade route.

If i good remember in rhye`s fall of civilization, mod for beyond the sword have a chance that "great epidemic" happen and it will be move from town to town using a city trade routers. AI seeing how it crawl to their cities closer and closer could close borders to prevent that

First time i have a situation where second class civ (like Finland in that example) grow to become threat to whole world. With new "Alliance" addition i have a small chance that whole world make alliances to prevent finland from further grow and win the game.
Something similiar to Stellerais where if some civ grow too big others band togheter to have any chance aganist them.
It would be interesting to see how, for example, the rest of the civilizations get a bonus to diplomacy the stronger and more powerful the top1 is (+0.5 to diplomacy for every 10% stronger military and number of points)
“The strongest civilization is a potential threat to us”.

especially in the context that Finalndia is isolationist and cuts off access to raw materials and trade if you don't bend your neck before it
And in my game very long had "Cult of the Leader" (since medival era)
They very late swap to free religion, due lands who they conquer

headless horseman, immune to critical head shots

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

So I installed process lasso and put the settings as indicated in the link provided by @Takofloppa

Would you mind sharing that again? I did it myself but I doubt it had any effect (but I used it on Cavemen 2 Cosmos, which probably just can't be saved).

 

[[Y]]

The goals of empires,kingdoms and states change over time, that's my point

I agree with that! I just feel that having it automatically change with era falls more into the Civ 5/6/7 philosophy of simplification and streamlining gameplay than the Civ 4/RI philosophy of nuance and consequence. I'd love for there to be a way for civs to change their leadership, but I'd rather see it be connected to gameplay decisions and organic development than something that automatically happens when you hit broad milestones.

 

[PKSRoman]

I just feel that having it automatically change with era falls more into the Civ 5/6/7 philosophy of simplification and streamlining gameplay

Seemingly it looks that way but remember that in one era you realistically have, for example, 10 or 15 leaders.
If we wanted to take a realistic approach, one random trait (positive or negative) should change every 50 turns, and I doubt such a thing would be possible without heavy coding of the whole game or the whole engine.
That's why I think a small element of randomness will add color to the game.Eventually, you can also test it and draw conclusions together later.

 

[AspiringScholar]

This is just my take, but the "immortal leader" abstraction is one that I am keen on in the series. It personifies the other players and makes them feel more real to compete against and interact with, and having a revolving door for this instead would result in this feeling alienating instead.

 

[[Y]]

This is just my take, but the "immortal leader" abstraction is one that I am keen on in the series. It personifies the other players and makes them feel more real to compete against and interact with, and having a revolving door for this instead would result in this feeling alienating instead.

That's valid, and does change my mind about have any such feature. I also want to recognize that a lot of what we're describing should be represented through the civic system, which begs the question: Do civics fulfill the wanted sensation, or is the want of the feature a sign that there's more that can be done with civics? And does anyone have the technology to get a picture of Walter's face even at the thought of possibly adding another civ set?

 

[Ahnarras]

And does anyone have the technology to get a picture of Walter's face even at the thought of possibly adding another civ set?

I don't know about that, but he sure seems active quite a lot since the 3.7 launch !
I just saw that he already updated the SVN to have the leaders changing by eras.

I'm more a "immortal leader" fan so I probably won't try that (thanks for making it an option, btw) but it adds even another layers of flavor in R:I, and that's always good to have !

 

[RamsesII]

Would you mind sharing that again? I did it myself but I doubt it had any effect (but I used it on Cavemen 2 Cosmos, which probably just can't be saved).

Sure, here is what @Takofloppa shared and the instructions on options set-up are in the reddit message. It was not as impactful as described but it did allow me to push my game from ~1350AD to ~1450AD.

Link to download: https://bitsum.com/download-process-lasso/
Here someone described what to change in settings so you can try:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CivIV/comments/1aei044/shoutout_to_the_realism_invictus_creator_it