Realism Invictus

[Walter Hawkwood]

One known issue is that the size changes don't affect the standard Steam version, i.e. not having installed the "unsupported beta." Because I couldn't inspect the layout of that version of the EXE at the time. I have done so by now (and updated my code), but I'm still not installing Steam and so this hasn't been tested. And, if it's not the non-beta Steam version, then I don't think this can be the problem. I don't recall if RI has the BUG settings for adjusting the balloon sizes; if so, then trying to adjust those could be worth a try.

Thanks, the Steam exe was my hunch as well, which is why I asked AspiringScholar if he has the same issue on his SVN version, which could well be a different copy of Civ4. I'll try building with your changes and see if it helps

Regarding New Random Seed, maybe adding assertions to the write and setter functions (CvInitCore) could shed light, i.e. whereever the game options array gets written to. Maybe easiest just to search CvInitCore.cpp for uses of m_abOptions. An assertion directly in the read function and where the reseed call happens could show clearly whether the option gets lost directly upon reloading or some time after. New Random Seed is not for network games; conceivable that the EXE checks this at some point and turns it off through setOption? But, then, why would the EXE think that it's a network game.
The assertion would be: FAssert(getOption(GAMEOPTION_NEW_RANDOM_SEED));
Might result in false positives while still on the game setup screen, but, once launched, I don't think there's a good reason for New Random Seed to (even temporarily) toggle off.

These are good pointers - I'll rummage around, see what I'll find.

 

[PKSRoman]

Instead one Big Horde i spawn 5small hordesx 14 units + One Bigger horde across the globe
Maybe this way it will be more funny, Since in some moment barbs become passive

AAAAAH RUN THEY ARE EVERYWHERE
(btw iI thought they were going to attack with a horde (one big army of horseman, 14 units), but they just dispersed and start looting and burning)
In my case, they happily crashed on a row of crossbowmen
even though it was a small inconvenience, the French have to face two hordes, one from the west (The Horde!) and smaller from the east
I just like the idea that empires and other civ press on barbarians so hard that they decide "Screw it, we leaving" and make disruption in different parts of land
look from world-build ofc since it happen in many places on earth simultaneously

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

One known issue is that the size changes don't affect the standard Steam version, i.e. not having installed the "unsupported beta." Because I couldn't inspect the layout of that version of the EXE at the time. I have done so by now (and updated my code), but I'm still not installing Steam and so this hasn't been tested. And, if it's not the non-beta Steam version, then I don't think this can be the problem. I don't recall if RI has the BUG settings for adjusting the balloon sizes; if so, then trying to adjust those could be worth a try.

I have good news and good news - I tested this myself, and
1) The issue is indeed due to Steam version
2) Your updated code works

 

[keldath]

well how about that,
f1 has all the answers.

im very happy.

---
walter,
im gonna do an MP today i hope,
latest should be good right? excluding leader changes.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

If course, that would be amazing, just send DLL and I test it.

See attached. I hope that'll work.

Not sure if its important, I noticed also that my player name changes from my custom name to leader name.

That was deliberate, as in scenarios players are named after leaders, so otherwise you'd have everyone with their original leader names.

well how about that,
f1 has all the answers.

im very happy.

It's his code after all, who else would have all the answers

walter,
im gonna do an MP today i hope,
latest should be good right? excluding leader changes.

See the attached dll for not excluding leader changes (back up obviously in case it makes stuff explode, but should be fine).

Any other apparent OOS causes welcome too (I know barbarians settling should cause it, and I have no oomph to fix it right now, but if there's anything else, I'd love to hear it).

 

[keldath]

Ok mate,
Ill try, i usually turn off stuff that are at a risk

 

[f1rpo]

@Walter Hawkwood: Good news indeed. Really wasn't very confident that the search patterns for the Steam EXE would just work. Now I can remove a bunch of caveats in comments etc. (Well, I'll wait a little with that.)

 

[AspiringScholar]

@f1rpo, thank you sincerely for taking a look at this, especially so quickly!

I too am not much a fan of Steam, especially when (as in this case) I already own a copy of the game otherwise. Since my new desktop lacks an optical drive, though, I wasn't able to do a fresh install from my CD I bought back in 2008, and I ran into a missing .dll complication after attempting to port it with an external hard drive, so I purchased it through that platform to reinstall RI, which otherwise worked fine. Copying the mod folder back over to the ported CD-install along with the .dlls acquired through Steam seems to have solved it.

Meanwhile, after all of these hotfixes and reinstalls, time to reconfigure my truncated Domestic Advisor with two thousand clicks for a fourth or fifth time...

 

[AspiringScholar]

Somewhat relatedly inasmuch as it pertains to configuration complications, does anyone know how to work around the error notification advising of an unusable audio capture device? I have had that before but it's resurfaced now. Even if I deselect "Enable Voice Chatting," it's triggering this notification, but the dropdown for it is blank. If I do plug in my headset before starting the game, the notification doesn't appear and the Options menu recognizes the device, but if I load the game without it plugged in, it shows back up. I don't normally have my microphone plugged in, so is there a way to disable this? It's just an annoying little nuisance (though, for some reason there are multiple notifications behind it, and you have to click "X" about three times to get it to disappear), but it didn't used to happen consistently.

Spoiler :

 

[Takofloppa]

Go to C:\Users\[username]\Documents\My Games\Beyond the Sword\CivilizationIV.ini and check if EnableVoice is set to 0 (if not, try to do it). I had a problem where there was no sound with headphones because something was messing up with the capturing device and this helped.

 

[f1rpo]

Copying the mod folder back over to the ported CD-install along with the .dlls acquired through Steam seems to have solved it.

That sounds ... a little wild, but I guess it makes sense. Steam (non-beta) was reluctantly in use, balloon changes didn't work, now working with a CD version plus DLLs from Steam, hopefully soon also working with any Steam version if need be.

Maybe resetting the user profile is worth a shot - under "Other". Since you're so fond of reconfiguration tasks. I could imagine that either the device name or a blank somehow got stuck in the profile and always gets loaded from there. But I could also imagine that it's some inscrutable incompatibility with modern hardware, and that the profile is fine. You could make a backup on disk. Or perhaps switch to a new profile for a test. The popup seems to get shown by the EXE.
Edit - cross-post: That also sounds promising - and quick.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Go to C:\Users\[username]\Documents\My Games\Beyond the Sword\CivilizationIV.ini and check if EnableVoice is set to 0 (if not, try to do it). I had a problem where there was no sound with headphones because something was messing up with the capturing device and this helped.

Worked perfectly, thank you! Interesting though that the checkbox within the UI which is supposed to control for the same thing has no bearing, and setting the .ini to "0" didn't cause the menu item to disappear, either.

That sounds ... a little wild, but I guess it makes sense. Steam (non-beta) was reluctantly in use, balloon changes didn't work, now working with a CD version plus DLLs from Steam, hopefully soon also working with any Steam version if need be.

Maybe resetting the user profile is worth a shot - under "Other". Since you're so fond of reconfiguration tasks. I could imagine that either the device name or a blank somehow got stuck in the profile and always gets loaded from there. But I could also imagine that it's some inscrutable incompatibility with modern hardware, and that the profile is fine. You could make a backup on disk. Or perhaps switch to a new profile for a test. The popup seems to get shown by the EXE.
Edit - cross-post: That also sounds promising - and quick.

Once again, I appreciate your taking a look! I think Takofloppa's solution to the voice capture device notification works seamlessly.

... and I'm not so fond of reconfigurations. So much so that I redid it on the Domestic Advisor entirely again, and then forgot to save the changes. That's 100% on me, though.

 

[[Y]]

As experience shows, it'll be there in any case, whatever I do or don't do! Seems like any change will have someone who absolutely hates it and is very vocal about it (and then in 90% of cases they try it and somehow find it actually works better than before*).

-----
* and then there is the other 10% where the person will be "I can't play this mod anymore because there are no stacks of 150 barbarian units every turn like there were in 2014! You ruined it!"

Well, if you're just going to invite me in like that...

Thanks for giving the semitic skirmishers a boost, but I feel like the approach taken misses the point of what I was trying to convey about the power imbalance between forest/jungle skirmishers and desert skirmishers. It wasn't that the desert skirmishers are weak by comparison, but that the forest/jungle bonus is an important balance factor in its own right, and a civ without that bonus is at an immense disadvantage.

As a personal example, in my current Carthage game, Russia just invaded with a stack of 8 skirmishers. They move into a forest tile and essentially become impervious to all of my units, with a hefty +50% defense. Meanwhile, if I move my forces adjacent to theirs, I'm extremely vulnerable to their units, whether I'm in a forest or not. Forests offer me no protection, but offers them a huge amount of protection. This is also seen with barbarian units, many of which get +25% forest strength. They have +75% defense in forests, and I have no proper counter to that. I can invest into both Woodsman I and II promotions, but all that does is even the odds (unless the defender has any promotion, in which case, it doesn't even do that), and only for the units in which I promote this way.

If forests only offered a meager amount of protection I don't think this would be an issue, but 50% is serious stuff. One side of a war having a 50% bonus the other side simply cannot access is an immense power imbalance. I could try to chop down the forests, but the maps in the mod generate so many forest tiles. And it's become even more difficult after chopping a forest became more expensive. While I love the flavor of each skirmisher being at an advantage in its home turf, I don't think the numbers support that flavor without creating problems.

I'd like to explore a couple ideas of fixing this.

1. Giving skirmishes smaller bonuses. If skirmishers only had +25% in forests/jungles, then they can still have an advantage over semitic skirmishers without leaving the semitic civ with no forest defenses of their own. A promotion of Woodsman I would allow forest skirmishers to ignore forest bonus entirely, and would allow semitic/jungle skirmishes to attack into forests with less of a penalty.

2. Giving skirmishers +25% in forests/jungles, and reducing forests/jungles to +25% defense bonus. This change would allow forests to still offer defense bonuses, but of such an amount that can still let attackers trade in reasonable amounts (reasonable for a random tile that wasn't set up for defenses, like a fort or a walled city, that is). It also puts more emphasis on first strikes instead of straight up strength, which I think would make non-city combat more interesting. Forest skirmishers still have the ability to ignore the forest entirely, but the civs that can't mirror this advantage aren't as drastically helpless as they currently are. It also gives more cause to build forts, since no forest can match a fort's bonus (unlike now, where it's often the case).

I'm not really sure why forests offer a bigger bonus than hills anyway, and enough to equal defending in a walled city, too. Maybe someone with more military insight can expand on that for me, but forests in general seem like an environment that can be leveraged by both attacks and defenders, unlike hills, which by definition offer an uphill battle only to those assaulting the position.

---

Militaristic/Conquering leaders really love rushing to Weapon Smithing and sending an army of Warbands on whoever they can, very early. I wonder if it would be good to add an additional prerequisite to WS so that they can't simply rush Bronze Working and then Weapon Smithing back to back, and having an immense power boost over any neighbor that hasn't prioritized military techs as fervently. Or maybe spreading out the military bonuses over more techs. Getting Barracks, Spearmen, Skirmishers, Axeman, Warbands, and Autocracy all across two techs is a big one-two punch setup. Would it make sense for skirmishers to be unlocked by Architecture instead, so that civs focusing spearman/axeman/warbands don't also pick up skirmishers along the way? Or for Barracks or Autocracy to be unlocked by something else, so that prioritizing melee units doesn't also give you more experience points and city happiness?

I'm also curious about Shipbuilding requiring Weapon Smithing. Wouldn't Trade make more sense?

---

Edit: The russian stack actually has 11 skirmishers, 2 battering rams, 2 militia, and 9 warbands. I don't think I'm wearing them down in a numbers game.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I'm not really sure why forests offer a bigger bonus than hills anyway, and enough to equal defending in a walled city, too. Maybe someone with more military insight can expand on that for me, but forests in general seem like an environment that can be leveraged by both attacks and defenders, unlike hills, which by definition offer an uphill battle only to those assaulting the position.

The severity of that bonus though is a natural counter to the offensive advantages enjoyed by so many flavor skirmishers in that environment though, no? I also think it's easily countered by the Woodsman promotion line, and modifying this would throw that out of balance.

---

And now with all of my configuration done, a little ancient era hype before starting my next enormous, epic game on my new setup which runs it seamlessly. I've been playing this game on a potato for so many years that this is going to be great.

 

[[Y]]

The severity of that bonus though is a natural counter to the offensive advantages enjoyed by so many flavor skirmishers in that environment though, no?

Unless my memory of vanilla Civ 4 has been warped by years of RI, no. The opposite actually. +50% forest defense is a vanilla feature that made many a player cross their arms, furrow their brow, pout, and mutter about the unrealistic way in which an enemy army would plop down in a forest tile and sit there for ages. Vanilla has no equivalent to the skirmisher (it has the explorer, a 4-strength, 2-move recon unit with Woodsman I and Guerilla I, but it can only defend, not attack). The skirmisher is a counter to that frustrating vanilla situation, except that some civs now don't get it. I don't know if it was always the case that they didn't get any bonuses to forests/jungle, but I'm pretty sure that for most of RI's history, all skirmishers were identical in getting a bonus to jungles, forests, and hills, with the flavor differentiation being relatively recent.

I also think it's easily countered by the Woodsman promotion line, and modifying this would throw that out of balance.

I would argue that If anything, this is an argument against skirmishers having a bonus to forests in the first place, not an argument against specific skirmishers not having the bonus.

I don't mean for this to come off as a challenge, but how often do you play as Carthage or Arabia? Are you weighing in from experience playing semitic cultures that don't get this bonus?

 

[JDCP]

but 50% is serious stuff

But aren't skirmishers, a specialized unit for that kind of terrains which is hard to traverse for untrained soldiers, meant to be unbeatable while there? I think it's very realistic, it's like they are setting a trap to enemies who might want to chase them into the woods, it's basically what they do.

Can be unbalanced? maybe, but it's really not hard to chop down all the trees around important locations and like they said if they really become a big problem the player can just get a stack with woodsman to wipe them out or at least get some out.

I think of this forest bonus as a great opportunity to try a different strategy than the usual ''send some mounted charged units and shock troops to deal with them'' it's your chance to try some crazy stuff to lure them out or somehow push them out. or for example ''ok this guy got a lot of skirmishers on the woods surrounding his city, guess it's time to go find another path to there'' obstacles are fun!

I checked and the Semitic Skirmisher is pretty strong lol but how could they not be? they are the distinctive units for 3 empires well known for that kind of tactics and great mastery on those terrains.

I'm not really sure why forests offer a bigger bonus than hills anyway

But can you hide or cover in a hill? Yeah sure you got the high ground, but can you surprise someone in such a barren land? There's no shadow up there, only the noise of wind (contrary to the sound of animals, leaves and maybe a river you can get in a forest to confuse enemies) The way I see when Skirmishers attack or defend they do so by running and hiding from enemy troops, slowly attacking defenseless soldiers and taking down one by one while not leaving their hideout or coming out for a short time, then going back to hide. I can't see where they could do this in a hill, but in a forest... quite a lot of trees to get behind.

Basically, a well planned skirmish...

The Skirmisher tradition goes in depth about this:

Harass, strike hard, fleed when needed, come back, repeat until nobody is left alive. Hard to do that in open terrain. That would be a task fitting more for Horse Archers that can retreat quickly rather than skirmishers who go on foot

I'm no ''military strategist'' so I might be wrong though.

And now with all of my configuration done, a little ancient era hype before starting my next enormous, epic game on my new setup which runs it seamlessly. I've been playing this game on a potato for so many years that this is going to be great.

Enjoy!!

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Well, if you're just going to invite me in like that...

Noooooo! What have I done!

1. Giving skirmishes smaller bonuses. If skirmishers only had +25% in forests/jungles, then they can still have an advantage over semitic skirmishers without leaving the semitic civ with no forest defenses of their own. A promotion of Woodsman I would allow forest skirmishers to ignore forest bonus entirely, and would allow semitic/jungle skirmishes to attack into forests with less of a penalty.

Smaller bonuses on top of strength nerf would make skirmishers a non-entity.

2. Giving skirmishers +25% in forests/jungles, and reducing forests/jungles to +25% defense bonus. This change would allow forests to still offer defense bonuses, but of such an amount that can still let attackers trade in reasonable amounts (reasonable for a random tile that wasn't set up for defenses, like a fort or a walled city, that is). It also puts more emphasis on first strikes instead of straight up strength, which I think would make non-city combat more interesting. Forest skirmishers still have the ability to ignore the forest entirely, but the civs that can't mirror this advantage aren't as drastically helpless as they currently are. It also gives more cause to build forts, since no forest can match a fort's bonus (unlike now, where it's often the case).

This doesn't seem like a good solution to me either. The fewer bonuses there are to go around, the more the game becomes a contest of who can throw more units at the opponent.

That said, I also feel that in general the ability to camp in enemy territory with impunity is not good gameplay. One thing I'm currently considering for the recon line specifically is not being able to get defensive bonuses period (same as cavalry). These troops aren't meant to hold ground, after all.

I'm not really sure why forests offer a bigger bonus than hills anyway, and enough to equal defending in a walled city, too. Maybe someone with more military insight can expand on that for me, but forests in general seem like an environment that can be leveraged by both attacks and defenders, unlike hills, which by definition offer an uphill battle only to those assaulting the position.

Lower visibility = ambushes and/or an ability to cut losses and regroup, rough terrain = no easy charges, plenty of wood = barricades / temporary fortifications. The role of terrain in warfare is, of course, more nuanced than giving a "bonus" to one side. Forest historically were an extreme asset not to defenders specifically, but to whoever knew the lay of the land and could use them to their advantage. Even in a mainly unforested area, a patch of wood was quite often a decisive asset that allowed a good commander to keep a part of their troops out of sight (a well-known, if not well-documented, example is the battle of Kulikovo).

As for hills, a good real-life example of how higher ground actually hindered the defenders is the battle of Flodden - but again, with the nuance that it is not the terrain itself, but the (in)ability to use it properly.

Were it not associated with the need to keep AI competent (and thus a whole new AI block and likely a rebalance of everything else related to military AI), from purely realistic perspective I would tie the terrain bonuses to the cultural makeup of the territory - how "familiar" your side is with it (an obvious disclaimer to whoever is reading this for the sake of clarity is that I will not be doing anything like that, and there is no need to suggest me the ways to "improve" this idea; it is just a thought experiment that has no real place in Civ 4 combat system).

Militaristic/Conquering leaders really love rushing to Weapon Smithing and sending an army of Warbands on whoever they can, very early. I wonder if it would be good to add an additional prerequisite to WS so that they can't simply rush Bronze Working and then Weapon Smithing back to back, and having an immense power boost over any neighbor that hasn't prioritized military techs as fervently. Or maybe spreading out the military bonuses over more techs. Getting Barracks, Spearmen, Skirmishers, Axeman, Warbands, and Autocracy all across two techs is a big one-two punch setup. Would it make sense for skirmishers to be unlocked by Architecture instead, so that civs focusing spearman/axeman/warbands don't also pick up skirmishers along the way? Or for Barracks or Autocracy to be unlocked by something else, so that prioritizing melee units doesn't also give you more experience points and city happiness?

Yeah, I agree that Weapon Smithing currently has a very "while we're at it" vibe - it is almost 100% what you'll research immediately after Bronze Working. An additional prerequisite might be a good thing here.

I'm also curious about Shipbuilding requiring Weapon Smithing. Wouldn't Trade make more sense?

Well, it unlocks military ships specifically.

 

[[Y]]

Smaller bonuses on top of strength nerf would make skirmishers a non-entity.

I agree. Which is why it's bonkers that this is the reality for semitic and steppe civs. I hope you understand my frustration with the conversation when many of the responses above follow the structure of "You can't nerf the forest attack bonus, that's the whole point of skirmishers, its all balanced around that" "Okay so lets give the bonus to the steppe and semitic skirmishers" "no you can't that doesn't fit their flavor". If the bonus is essential, then it shouldn't be absent from any civs skirmishers. If it's flavor, then it shouldn't be essential. The flavor distribution might make sense for the world maps, but not random maps.

Lower visibility = ambushes and/or an ability to cut losses and regroup, rough terrain = no easy charges, plenty of wood = barricades / temporary fortifications. The role of terrain in warfare is, of course, more nuanced than giving a "bonus" to one side. Forest historically were an extreme asset not to defenders specifically, but to whoever knew the lay of the land and could use them to their advantage. Even in a mainly unforested area, a patch of wood was quite often a decisive asset that allowed a good commander to keep a part of their troops out of sight (a well-known, if not well-documented, example is the battle of Kulikovo).

As for hills, a good real-life example of how higher ground actually hindered the defenders is the battle of Flodden - but again, with the nuance that it is not the terrain itself, but the (in)ability to use it properly.

Were it not associated with the need to keep AI competent (and thus a whole new AI block and likely a rebalance of everything else related to military AI), from purely realistic perspective I would tie the terrain bonuses to the cultural makeup of the territory - how "familiar" your side is with it (an obvious disclaimer to whoever is reading this for the sake of clarity is that I will not be doing anything like that, and there is no need to suggest me the ways to "improve" this idea; it is just a thought experiment that has no real place in Civ 4 combat system).

Thanks, that's a good breakdown. Though I think the cultural ties aspect might be overthinking it. Could forests give +25% defense, and an additional +25% defense within cultural borders? That way they can continue to be a defensive bulwark for the defending civ, but not for the aggressing civ. The aggressor will still get some defensive bonus, but won't be as invulnerable as they currently are. And the functionality for that is already available, if I remember right (though I don't know if it's easy to attach to a terrain feature). It's not a perfect representation, but feels more apt than the status quo.

I wonder if another possible approach is a tile improvement gives nearby cities the appropriate promotion for recon units. As in, a forest and jungle improvement that provides nearby cities a free Woodsman I promotion to recon units, a desert improvement that provides Desert Combat I, and a hill improvement that provides Guerilla I. This way it isn't baked into the civ's identity but instead reprsentative of the terrain familiar to the city building the unit.

Well, it unlocks military ships specifically.

I guess that shows how we all concentrate on different things. For me Shipbuilding is more about Lighthouses and The Great Lighthouse, so I've always categorized it as an economy tech.

---

I've been really liking pigs as a camp resource. It reduces the food dependency on Agriculture and Animal Husbandry quite a lot, which has been appreciated. I've started building Hunter's Cabins pretty regularly now, which previously was a very rare thing for me to do. But worth mentioning that pigs spawn en masse now. I don't know if that's problematic or not, but it's pretty typical for my starting location to have 2-4 pig resources.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I agree. Which is why it's bonkers that this is the reality for semitic and steppe civs. I hope you understand my frustration with the conversation when many of the responses above follow the structure of "You can't nerf the forest attack bonus, that's the whole point of skirmishers, its all balanced around that" "Okay so lets give the bonus to the steppe and semitic skirmishers" "no you can't that doesn't fit their flavor". If the bonus is essential, then it shouldn't be absent from any civs skirmishers. If it's flavor, then it shouldn't be essential. The flavor distribution might make sense for the world maps, but not random maps.

Well, we're basically running back into essentialist nature of Civ 4 civilizations, especially as embodied by RI. We all know that Civ bonuses only vaguely make sense in real world context, so on random maps they should theoretically get completely different ones (inland Austronesians, or tundra Mayans...).

One additional gameplay consideration about forests is that they are easily removable, with one of the first in-game techs, unlike almost everything else terrain-related. So having or not having a forest next to your city is a tactical choice (whereas, a desert, for instance, goes nowhere the whole game). That doesn't invalidate what I said above about hiking indefinitely in enemy territory but clearing forests in the immediate city radius is always an option (and likely the reason for such a high defensive bonus in the first place).

Thanks, that's a good breakdown. Though I think the cultural ties aspect might be overthinking it. Could forests give +25% defense, and an additional +25% defense within cultural borders? That way they can continue to be a defensive bulwark for the defending civ, but not for the aggressing civ. The aggressor will still get some defensive bonus, but won't be as invulnerable as they currently are. And the functionality for that is already available, if I remember right (though I don't know if it's easy to attach to a terrain feature). It's not a perfect representation, but feels more apt than the status quo.

That would still need to create basically the same AI framework to process - currently, there is no assumption at all made by AI that terrain/features can provide different protection depending on ownership.

I wonder if another possible approach is a tile improvement gives nearby cities the appropriate promotion for recon units. As in, a forest and jungle improvement that provides nearby cities a free Woodsman I promotion to recon units, a desert improvement that provides Desert Combat I, and a hill improvement that provides Guerilla I. This way it isn't baked into the civ's identity but instead reprsentative of the terrain familiar to the city building the unit.

That is an interesting avenue of thought; probably not so directly, but that feels like a nudge in the right direction.

I guess that shows how we all concentrate on different things. For me Shipbuilding is more about Lighthouses and The Great Lighthouse, so I've always categorized it as an economy tech.

Yeah, for me it's just a throwback to the early design process of the tech tree - "where do we put triremes?"; the more all-encompassing nature of the tech probably warrants Weapon Smithing to be a prerequisite to Trireme unit class specifically rather than the tech itself. Looks like the early tech tree is due for another minor shakeup.

But worth mentioning that pigs spawn en masse now. I don't know if that's problematic or not, but it's pretty typical for my starting location to have 2-4 pig resources.

I feel it's a statistical artefact in your case, as I didn't notice anything like that.

 

[TheBirdMan]

Looks like the early tech tree is due for another minor shakeup.

I totally agree with that.