Realism Invictus

[AspiringScholar]

I basically agree with everything you said. When I started playing Civ IV back in the day my main interest was in Ancient and Classical Eras, since they were the periods in History that interested me the most. Now, after having come back to the game and found this amazing mod, I have to say the Modern Era has won me over, especially in regards to war. I find the sheer complexity of it so intriguing and fascinating that now when I'm starting a new game I'm usually in a hurry to get to the modern era, whereas previously I'd usually lose interest mid-game. I think however that that binary aspect you mentioned in regards to line infantry can happen near the modern era when it comes to Air Superiority and how overwhelmingly decisive it can be when your opponents don't have it, at least in my recent experience.

Glad somebody actually had interest in discussing this.

While I agree with the contention concerning the awesome power of air superiority, it is interesting how multi-faceted the defense against it is, being a question not only of your own air force, but also of land and naval based defenses, with viable interception chances coming from primitive machine guns and blue water ships in the debut of fighters all the way to modern stealth destroyers basically trumping anything but stealth aircraft. My modern campaigns having to scout out, counter, and contend with this have been so much fun. The new SR-71 wonder unit is actually one of my favorites now for this reason, and I'm so glad that Walter included it!

 

[TheBirdMan]

Kinda offtopic, but I've noticed how much you enjoy tweaking and fine-tuning RI to your liking. You really should try a game called Rimworld, its very complex and multi-layered with lots of mechanics, and basically it has insane amount of small mods (thousands) that you can add together in any combination and afterwards tweak them in xml. (various stats parameters and balance stuff). Give it a go, maybe you'll find the experience refreshing.

My first thought was - naaeeee, I don't think that's a game for me - besides, right now my attention is focused on my mod-mod of RI only.

But I've bookmarked a Wikepedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RimWorld and read what's written about the game there. So maybe in a couple of months or 4 or 5... who knows?

 

[pi4t]

I'm not sure if this is a genuine bug, or just a problem with the civilopedia display. The Mongolian pagan temple (the Ovoo) gives +1 food to stables. But the Mongols don't build stables, they build their unique Gers. So does this mean they don't get the food bonus?

 

[doctoraristotelicus]

Glad somebody actually had interest in discussing this.

I think it's an interesting subject and the other day I was thinking about discussing it here myself but never came around to it. You're right that the situation is more complex than I had implied, it's just that recently I've been particularly impressed with the advantage a nice set of strategic bombers can yield against a civ that isn't prepared for them. Also, since the game is near its end when one reaches the modern era, I haven't been able to fully explore the tactical possibilities of many late units, such as helicopters, paratroopers, guided missiles, etc., and would like to hear from more experienced players about their main strategies for modern-era warfare. One thing I've been enjoying is surprise attacks by sea, with a fleet comprising ships with good bombardment capabilities, carriers and marines, when you can grab some cities in the first turn of the war -- I don't know why but it's been so much fun to plan and do it.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I'm not sure if this is a genuine bug, or just a problem with the civilopedia display. The Mongolian pagan temple (the Ovoo) gives +1 food to stables. But the Mongols don't build stables, they build their unique Gers. So does this mean they don't get the food bonus?

It's applied to a building class rather than a building itself, and Mongol gers do belong to the stables building class. Every such bonus is applied on a building class basis - and you can see why if you look at clock towers for instance, as otherwise there'd have to be a rather lengthy list of individual buildings it applies to.

 

[AspiringScholar]

And now for my small list of questions and feedback:

Spoiler :

- Though I don't recall this being the case, I assume that it is inapplicable, but want to ask and make sure anyway: does the "miraculous defense" against barbarians apply to non-combat units, particularly settlers and workers? If so, then you can bank on it to settle uncontrolled land far away with reasonable plausibility and no escort, which you seldom can get away with normally, and is usually not worth risking for that reason, considering how costly of an investment settlers and workers are in the opening phase of the game. Having this effect in play for them can significantly alter opening strategy.

- Cities with a net "0" epidemic chance are nevertheless displaying with the epidemic logo on the city bar, as though it is treating the value as positive rather than null.

- The popup solicitation advising you that you can switch to Representation references vanilla's trait behavior instead of RI's.

- Sub-10 values of separatism are showing up red instead of yellow in the Revolutions screen, even though they appear as yellow on the city bar.

- Frigates and Ships of the Line lack the Sextant technology as a hard prerequisite, which feels unintuitive to have climatic Age of Sail units lacking an instrument which was (I think, and I'd love to learn something new if I'm wrong) normative by the time of their being common. I'd suggest making that tech a prerequisite for High Seas Warfare.

- When building something that requires a resource as a prerequisite and then having that resource cut-off, all invested is lost; even if remedying that is as simple as trading for the same resource from someone else a turn later. Is there any way to amend this such that you don't lose everything all at once? In my case, it was a rather costly Steel Mill which was almost done and then had to be completely restarted when I in fact did simply trade for iron from someone else a turn later, which was rather frustrating.

Bumping the above, just in case this was missed.

After a very brief early game test in the latest SVN (5470), a few further remarks:

- First of all, there is a bug which is almost certainly caused by the scaling cost for national units, where the final iteration cannot be produced, presumably because the engine is trying to apply the scaling cost to the margin above the limit, and then fails.

- In this map I ran, there seemed to be palpably more barb intensity than in previous versions. That's personally more to my liking, but I'm wondering if any changes were made in this regard. (I don't recall reading of any.)

- The AI seems to overbuild archers in its capital right from the get go, and not found second cities at the normal time. I believe this has to do with the new AI preference for constructing defensive units mentioned in the changelog. In the case of both the Inca and the Nguni in the save provided, they have upwards of 8 or so archers just camped in the capital, not even moving around or exploring, which seems incorrect.

 

[TheBirdMan]

Even though many years have passed since I was a soldier myself - I still remember what was most important in the service.

See for yourself and read what a barracks should be able to offer:

Spoiler Todays menu - special offer from your barrack :

 

[nudden]

Hej. Is Orthodoxy deactivated in some kind of way? It's always grayed out.

 

[TheBirdMan]

Hej. Is Orthodoxy deactivated in some kind of way? It's always grayed out.

Yes it is. It's only part of some of the scenarios.

If you want it active, you have to do it yourself. I have written how to do it in an earlier post (just seek for Orthodoxy and TheBirdMan).

 

[Ahnarras]

- The AI seems to overbuild archers in its capital right from the get go, and not found second cities at the normal time. I believe this has to do with the new AI preference for constructing defensive units mentioned in the changelog. In the case of both the Inca and the Nguni in the save provided, they have upwards of 8 or so archers just camped in the capital, not even moving around or exploring, which seems incorrect.

Weird, I have the exact opposite experience : since the latest SVN changes, AI tends to be more settling-happy and I found that they build their first 2 settlers faster than before.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Though I don't recall this being the case, I assume that it is inapplicable, but want to ask and make sure anyway: does the "miraculous defense" against barbarians apply to non-combat units, particularly settlers and workers? If so, then you can bank on it to settle uncontrolled land far away with reasonable plausibility and no escort, which you seldom can get away with normally, and is usually not worth risking for that reason, considering how costly of an investment settlers and workers are in the opening phase of the game. Having this effect in play for them can significantly alter opening strategy.

No, this is only for when actual combat occurs.

Cities with a net "0" epidemic chance are nevertheless displaying with the epidemic logo on the city bar, as though it is treating the value as positive rather than null.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

The popup solicitation advising you that you can switch to Representation references vanilla's trait behavior instead of RI's.

The nasty thing about all of these popups is that they aren't automatic, but have to be actually written - so it's easy to miss stuff like that. Thanks for reporting.

Sub-10 values of separatism are showing up red instead of yellow in the Revolutions screen, even though they appear as yellow on the city bar.

Well, I only really implemented them for city bars, but I can see how it can be used in the screen too for consistency.

Frigates and Ships of the Line lack the Sextant technology as a hard prerequisite, which feels unintuitive to have climatic Age of Sail units lacking an instrument which was (I think, and I'd love to learn something new if I'm wrong) normative by the time of their being common. I'd suggest making that tech a prerequisite for High Seas Warfare.

That was on purpose; I felt naval-centric techs should be optional as their usefulness is very situational. But gating another naval-centric tech behind it might be reasonable.

When building something that requires a resource as a prerequisite and then having that resource cut-off, all invested is lost; even if remedying that is as simple as trading for the same resource from someone else a turn later. Is there any way to amend this such that you don't lose everything all at once? In my case, it was a rather costly Steel Mill which was almost done and then had to be completely restarted when I in fact did simply trade for iron from someone else a turn later, which was rather frustrating.

I will take a look to see if it can be done easily.

First of all, there is a bug which is almost certainly caused by the scaling cost for national units, where the final iteration cannot be produced, presumably because the engine is trying to apply the scaling cost to the margin above the limit, and then fails.

Pushed out a hotfix, should be savegame-compatible.

In this map I ran, there seemed to be palpably more barb intensity than in previous versions. That's personally more to my liking, but I'm wondering if any changes were made in this regard. (I don't recall reading of any.)

No specific changes, but may be related to the one you report below - fewer AI units wandering around means more chances for barbarians to spawn.

The AI seems to overbuild archers in its capital right from the get go, and not found second cities at the normal time. I believe this has to do with the new AI preference for constructing defensive units mentioned in the changelog. In the case of both the Inca and the Nguni in the save provided, they have upwards of 8 or so archers just camped in the capital, not even moving around or exploring, which seems incorrect.

Seems to be specifically revolutions-related, though in the starting capital there should be no such behaviour, as when you have an only city you can't have separatism there anyway. Seems like this needs more tuning.

Weird, I have the exact opposite experience : since the latest SVN changes, AI tends to be more settling-happy and I found that they build their first 2 settlers faster than before.

And you are likely playing with revolutions off, so you get the intended AI behaviour.

 

[Ahnarras]

And you are likely playing with revolutions off, so you get the intended AI behaviour.

Quite the opposite ! I'm trying to test the new changes on Revolutions, so I have check them ON for my few last games. And IA tends to be more enclined to settle more / earlier than previously, where I was indeed playing with Revolution OFF.

Could obviously be only a matter of "small sample problem" as I only had maybe 2 or 3 games with the new settings.

 

[tebriz]

Quite the opposite ! I'm trying to test the new changes on Revolutions, so I have check them ON for my few last games. And IA tends to be more enclined to settle more / earlier than previously, where I was indeed playing with Revolution OFF.

Could obviously be only a matter of "small sample problem" as I only had maybe 2 or 3 games with the new settings.

I can also confirm this

 

[AspiringScholar]

Admittedly, in my case, it was only one quick trial game; so while that behavior was weird, it's still only "n=1" for me too, with that reporting.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Well, I think this is still a problem...

Also, the hotfix seems to have broken the limit on national units and you can now build them indefinitely. EDIT: Quick follow-up, I think it's only broken in the initial queue, because I decided to cap myself anyway for my own self-imposed balance, and then found that it was "0 left" after I tried to go back and see if I could train more.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Apologies for the triple post, but I thought that this should be a standalone message. 890 BC and nobody has founded a second city. Not sure how the others are playing the SVN with revolutions on and experiencing something else.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Can you post the exact settings you're playing at? I ran a quick test and while the majority of civs expanded normally, I did see a couple that followed a pattern you reported. I am now trying to isolate the cause.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Sure.

Game Options (Monarch difficulty, all victories enabled):
*Only what is specified is checked, and all unstated options are off*
- Influence Driven War
- Protect Valuable Units
- Military Alliances
- No Technology Trading

Map Settings:
- RI Totestra:
- Standard
- Temperate
- Medium
- Ancient
- Realistic (Recommended)
- Keep New World Empty
- Break Pangaeas
- Cylindrical
- Some (continents; I doubt it's responsible, but this is not the default setting)
- Somewhat
- 3:2
- Like Perfect World
- None (Player Equal to AI)
- Fix continent split
- Yes
- Random

If you need more information, let me know and I am happy to help troubleshoot. I wonder if "AI plays to win" being off is somehow relevant...

EDIT: Oh, and I've attached the save, in case it's helpful.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

What will also be helpful is if you have the initial autosave from that game (4000BC one).

 

[AspiringScholar]

What will also be helpful is if you have the initial autosave from that game (4000BC one).

Unfortunately, I started a new game in the official release afterwards, but since they share the same save folder with Beyond the Sword, I think that wiped the autosave that I could have hypothetically retrieved from the SVN game separately. My understanding is correct, right?