Realism Invictus

[Monaldinio]

What a pity! No Screenshots???

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

What a pity! No Screenshots???

If you want to look at the screenshots of our mod, you can find them here: http://www.moddb.com/mods/realism-invictus/images

 

[Monaldinio]

Thank you! Thats what im looking for...

 

[ainy]

Hi all. I just registered on this forum, but im reading it for long time already. I want to help the mod developers with some my thoughts.

First of all, some about me. I'm very experienced and hardcore player , played civilization since first version and tested many civ 4 mods . I dislike civ 5 because of casualisation and huge quality regress. I think your mod is big step into right direction, its how next civilization must be. Its currently best mod by my oppinion. Thank you for your great job.

I think it will help to explain my look on balance if i will say, what im playing only on Deity dificulty and only non reload games. Anything less is not enough challenge and bring not enough fun. I found World Map scenario is very balanced, realistic and fun even when i know evey cell on it. Its still wonderfull. I tryed like 5 civilizations, but managed to win only with 2 of them yet: Russian (huge area for expansion with very low enemy preassure in early ages) and Spain (best capital in the world in terms of resources and production combined with perfect strategic position on the map - comfortable conquest expansion).

So, my thoughts:

1. I think light cavalry is too powerfull and it deserves 2 movements instead of 3. Even with such nerf it will not less usable becouse light cavalry provides recon aid (which is very usefull) and in half historical time best available light cavalry unit is more stronger than best normal cavalry unit. I found most disbalanced time is time when Hussar appears. Looks like AI player understands it and it produce tons of hussars. Also 3 movements looks too fast in terms of realism.

2. Pagan temple can be constructed only in cities with zero religions and if religion appears during construction it interrupts process. In same time any state religion didnt disable pagan temples. I thing its strange begavior and i offer you change it. I thing it must work in such way: pagan temple can be constracted only with no state religion and independant of religion presentation in city. Also i thing its a little wrong when both pagan and religios temple works in same time (state religion and city religion do not stop pagan temple from working). Using it both can provide huge happines bonus in early age: build pagan temples before religion appeared, build Stonegenge (+1), use Slavery (+1), build Panteon when possible (+2), switch on state religion when it appeared (+1) and build temples (+1). Thats how i can to keep big cities on Deity mode in start of game. Do you think its correct way or maybe need to fix something?

3. Anti-clerical is not just providing -1 happines from temples, this drawback also disables basic temple +1 happpines bonus, so final change is -2 happiness. I found it when i played Peter I. May be its bug, may be not, but manual says only must be -1 happiness only. Also i think its wrong when obsoleted temple keeps producing unhappines for Anti-clerical leaders, but not producing any bonus from resources. So if i managed to neutralize unhappines by resoureces in middle ages i cant switch on Free Religion later because i will have negative bonus from it.

4. I think you already know bug with purple unit promotion disappearing when upgraded.

5. Is it intended when World Map have only one possible type of victory - time victory? Or its limitation of starting as scenario?

6. Taoism temple can provide 2+1+1=4 total happiness, while all other temples only 3. Is it ok?

7. I think archery units need some middle one with 5 power. Because its too huge distance from 3 to 7 (in power and reseach time terms). Missing middle archers makes city defence weaker than needed in start of Renesance age. Walls and castles provides time, but not defence, even AI knows how to destroy it.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

1. I think light cavalry is too powerfull and it deserves 2 movements instead of 3. Even with such nerf it will not less usable becouse light cavalry provides recon aid (which is very usefull) and in half historical time best available light cavalry unit is more stronger than best normal cavalry unit. I found most disbalanced time is time when Hussar appears. Looks like AI player understands it and it produce tons of hussars. Also 3 movements looks too fast in terms of realism.

Already dealt with this for 3.1, by lowering combat efficiency instead. It will still be quick as hell, but now it won't be nearly that powerful. No more hussar zerg rushes.

2. Pagan temple can be constructed only in cities with zero religions and if religion appears during construction it interrupts process. In same time any state religion didnt disable pagan temples. I thing its strange begavior and i offer you change it. I thing it must work in such way: pagan temple can be constracted only with no state religion and independant of religion presentation in city. Also i thing its a little wrong when both pagan and religios temple works in same time (state religion and city religion do not stop pagan temple from working). Using it both can provide huge happines bonus in early age: build pagan temples before religion appeared, build Stonegenge (+1), use Slavery (+1), build Panteon when possible (+2), switch on state religion when it appeared (+1) and build temples (+1). Thats how i can to keep big cities on Deity mode in start of game. Do you think its correct way or maybe need to fix something?

Well, you can enjoy the benefits of pagan temples only as long as you don't run any religious civics - which means that while you can have a state religion and pagan temples (which is perfectly realistic for representing syncretic religions), you can't really fully enjoy the benefits offered by your state religion via civics. I think that is a reasonable tradeoff - especially since what you describe requires two wonders and a very specific way of development. So I'd say it is WAD.

3. Anti-clerical is not just providing -1 happines from temples, this drawback also disables basic temple +1 happpines bonus, so final change is -2 happiness. I found it when i played Peter I. May be its bug, may be not, but manual says only must be -1 happiness only. Also i think its wrong when obsoleted temple keeps producing unhappines for Anti-clerical leaders, but not producing any bonus from resources. So if i managed to neutralize unhappines by resoureces in middle ages i cant switch on Free Religion later because i will have negative bonus from it.

Will check it. It is supposed to result in 0 happiness temple (-1+1). If it is not working that way, then it will be corrected. Likewise, obsolete temples should not cause unhappiness...

4. I think you already know bug with purple unit promotion disappearing when upgraded.

Fixed for 3.1

5. Is it intended when World Map have only one possible type of victory - time victory? Or its limitation of starting as scenario?

Well, it is kinda intentional in that we are aware of it, although maybe it wasn't right of us to restrict it in this manner.

6. Taoism temple can provide 2+1+1=4 total happiness, while all other temples only 3. Is it ok?

Yep. Taoism hardly has any other bonuses and advantages, so instead this religion is the best when it comes to net happiness. Also, it disables happiness from 3 luxuries, and if you have access to all them, its net happiness is actually worse than for most other religions!

7. I think archery units need some middle one with 5 power. Because its too huge distance from 3 to 7 (in power and reseach time terms). Missing middle archers makes city defence weaker than needed in start of Renesance age. Walls and castles provides time, but not defence, even AI knows how to destroy it.

Well, it is more or less an intentional design decision - to defend cities one also needs a mixed stack; archery units should not be treated as the one-stop solution for city defense. In late classical and early medieval era, archers should only play support roles (as IRL, where for a long time archers were only an auxilliary force on the battlefield). We will probably carry the concept even further, when we invent some elegant way to represent arrow volleys with stuff other than direct combat.

 

[Palaiologos2]

We will probably carry the concept even further, when we invent some elegant way to represent arrow volleys with stuff other than direct combat.

I hope its not bombardment for archers. Archers are fine as they are IMO. What was the range of a composite bow those times? IIRC Sultan Mehmet held the record with 1600something meters. Is each tile supposed to be only a mile?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I hope its not bombardment for archers. Archers are fine as they are IMO. What was the range of a composite bow those times? IIRC Sultan Mehmet held the record with 1600something meters. Is each tile supposed to be only a mile?

It definitely won't be standard ranged bombardment. What it could be, for instance, is a zero-range bombardment, when archers would take a shot at any unit attacking the square they are on. But that is obviously a post-3.1 task.

 

[Palaiologos2]

It definitely won't be standard ranged bombardment. What it could be, for instance, is a zero-range bombardment, when archers would take a shot at any unit attacking the square they are on. But that is obviously a post-3.1 task.

If you can do this in civ4 then do you realize the potential? Artillery support fire etc.
It will sort of make the aid bonuses obsolete.

 

[SanderJK]

I've been playing this, and enjoying it a lot (3.01 version). I am wondering though, my latest game on Monarch had a lot of space, and the AI seemed to just happily expand and expand without paying the price. Right now, Rome is at 15 cities in the ancient era, 2x my army, about 8-9 techs ahead, where I am struggling to stay at 50% research with 5 cities, with most +gold/+trade buildings built. (And a holy city generating income with the wonder). I abandoned an earlier game where I expanded to 8 cities because I was falling further and further behind because I couldn't get my research above 10%.

Am I missing some core mechanic, or does the AI get big advantages?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

If you can do this in civ4 then do you realize the potential? Artillery support fire etc.
It will sort of make the aid bonuses obsolete.

Yep. I remember using this mechanic to a great effect in Civ 3 mods; it remains to be seen if it can be done in Civ 4, but I think it is possible.

I've been playing this, and enjoying it a lot (3.01 version). I am wondering though, my latest game on Monarch had a lot of space, and the AI seemed to just happily expand and expand without paying the price. Right now, Rome is at 15 cities in the ancient era, 2x my army, about 8-9 techs ahead, where I am struggling to stay at 50% research with 5 cities, with most +gold/+trade buildings built. (And a holy city generating income with the wonder). I abandoned an earlier game where I expanded to 8 cities because I was falling further and further behind because I couldn't get my research above 10%.

Am I missing some core mechanic, or does the AI get big advantages?

On all difficulty levels above Noble (IIRC) AI gets progressively increasing advantages. Likewise, below Noble AI is penalized. How else do you think difficulty levels could be handled?

 

[SanderJK]

I made the comment because of the size of the bonus though. It could be that it's the same bonus as in vanilla and that the AI is wildly more optimized or that the bonuses has been modified, but the end result really was that I felt that I was playing against the bonuses because it was so blatantly doing things I couldn't even consider.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I made the comment because of the size of the bonus though. It could be that it's the same bonus as in vanilla and that the AI is wildly more optimized or that the bonuses has been modified, but the end result really was that I felt that I was playing against the bonuses because it was so blatantly doing things I couldn't even consider.

We didn't really touch these bonuses per se, but since, at least early on, RI can be harder than vanilla, these bonuses can be percieved as bigger. The fact that we used BetterAI, and so AI does play better than in vanilla also helps that.

You might also be making some economy-destroying mistake, of course. For example, some people try running Pacifism no matter what, not realizing that it can absolutely ruin ones economy.

 

[SanderJK]

It could be that they had contact with every civ in existance somehow (I could only find 3 on my continent, and found a boat full of germans) boosting their research. But I certainly was focusing on generating money, Trying to get cities to grow to use plots that generated income, managing each cities use for those few extra coins, very aware of my civ usage. Granted, I wasn't doing a 'cottage economy' (I got the tech late, and had already developed my cities with farms/mines and all the resources).

Edit: Found a table, 50% unit supply cost which is pretty big, only a 0.9 modifier on the upkeep though, I really don't see how he's not been at 0% research for eternity. What happens when you are at 0% research and still negative, do you start losing units?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

It could be that they had contact with every civ in existance somehow (I could only find 3 on my continent, and found a boat full of germans) boosting their research. But I certainly was focusing on generating money, Trying to get cities to grow to use plots that generated income, managing each cities use for those few extra coins, very aware of my civ usage. Granted, I wasn't doing a 'cottage economy' (I got the tech late, and had already developed my cities with farms/mines and all the resources).

Edit: Found a table, 50% unit supply cost which is pretty big, only a 0.9 modifier on the upkeep though, I really don't see how he's not been at 0% research for eternity. What happens when you are at 0% research and still negative, do you start losing units?

Yep.

And yes, contacts and open borders with lots of civs are very important, as trade incomes can be much greater in RI than in vanilla.

 

[Monaldinio]

It should also sounds logical. Perhaps it would be a good idea to encourage more trade? +2 Gold for every trade from total of 6 ... .. or something like that ...

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

It should also sounds logical. Perhaps it would be a good idea to encourage more trade? +2 Gold for every trade from total of 6 ... .. or something like that ...

As I said, trade is already more profitable than in vanilla. The upper limit for the number of trade routes per city is higher, and there are more buildings that raise trade income. Therefore, while it starts low, trade in RI has much more growth potential. By Renaissance it can be your main income source.

 

[travathian]

It definitely won't be standard ranged bombardment. What it could be, for instance, is a zero-range bombardment, when archers would take a shot at any unit attacking the square they are on. But that is obviously a post-3.1 task.

The Fall from Heaven mod has defensive strikes which may be something like what you are thinking of. Very interesting mechanic to enhance ranged units.

 

[SanderJK]

After playing another game, except where everyone hated each other for some reason, I'm fairly sure it was the trade that made the AI rocket. In this second game, there was too much space all around (I used the Tectonics / Meditterean map on Huge, which turns out is fricken enormous). Basicly, with too much space around and no friends to boost trades (Of the 9 civs alive, only 2 have 3 open border agreements, the rest has less), the AI all expanded themselves to death. All of them sitting on 15-20 cities, and taking 20-30 turns / ancient era tech in the year 1000 AD.

 

[Hian the Frog]

After playing another game, except where everyone hated each other for some reason, I'm fairly sure it was the trade that made the AI rocket. In this second game, there was too much space all around (I used the Tectonics / Meditterean map on Huge, which turns out is fricken enormous). Basicly, with too much space around and no friends to boost trades (Of the 9 civs alive, only 2 have 3 open border agreements, the rest has less), the AI all expanded themselves to death. All of them sitting on 15-20 cities, and taking 20-30 turns / ancient era tech in the year 1000 AD.

As Walter already said, trade is the key. In RI you can quickly build a strong economy with thanks to a few open borders, one or two chosen buildings (Caravan House, Toll House for example).
When reaching Renaissance, most of your income should logically come from trade.
An IRL example: XVIII century France lost "the race for the first place" against England only because the King and its fleet were unable to protect the trade routes from Canada, India, etc. At the end of the Seven Years War, France lost all its colonies...which would become one century later the Jewels of Great Britain. These colonies were Canada and India.

Trade is one the keys to win a game or at least try to. Beeing self sufficient is very difficult (but not impossible) in RI, particulary in early ages.

 

[primordial stew]

In this second game, there was too much space all around (I used the Tectonics / Meditterean map on Huge, which turns out is fricken enormous). Basicly, with too much space around

There is another danger here with any map that doesn't wrap. With raging barbarians set (on by default), the civs along the edges will have it much easier than those in the middle. That is, unless you run a custom game and really blow up the number of civs. I like to play Perfect World (start in new+old world!) on a huge map with 21 civs. With that many you will fight actual civs much more than barbarians. The default is 11 civs, which leaves lots of surrounding space, so lots of barbs.


As for AI difficulty, they get advantages in everything, even combat! In my current games as the Christian Germans fighting the Islamic Turks, they (noble) get 83% odds with 8.4 vs my 8.2, where I (monarch) only get 90% at 12 vs 8.2. With these sort of chances my Crusaders are no match at all for the Mujahedin. It is a grand fight, and while I'd like to wait till the Germans get some stronger units (their longbowman only gets +25% vs light cavalry), the Turks nearly annihilated the Christian French, and are in the process of wiping out the Christian Americans. All on a random map!