Realism Invictus

[Noyyau]

what do you do from the middle ages onward?

Each game goes a bit different, generally I get long-ish peace intervals around late classical/early medieval and late medieval/early reneissance.
Usually both not boring, as there's plenty of tiles to be improved, units to be upgraded/replaced, borders to fortify...
My "expansion finished" timeline tends to be in the middle/late reneissance: on Monarch and giant-ish maps by this time I should have 15~25 cities , most of them near or at happy cap and up-to-date with buildings and improvements. Garrisons are in place, an army is available to respond to revolts or foreign invasions.
This is the time when the "meta" of the game definitively changes from "reactive" to "proactive": in the early game there's always a foreign invasion or a race to a wonder or something that forces me to adapt my actions/decisions around it. Now I'm the one deciding when and whom to invade, probably also tech leader or on par, and choosing my wonders and techs.
So what to do? Have a look at the map and at the diplomatic relations table: is a friendly civ about to be eliminated by an unfriendly bigger civ? Interfere! Not even necessarily by openly warring against someone , might just spam irregulars and gift them (and some money/resources) to the friendly civ to save them from destruction (later on , gifts might include obsolete (for me) units, defensive machineguns...)
Want a resource only unfriendly/overseas civs have, and they don't trade? Or want to aggressively spread your religion (Islam is perfect for this)?
Invasion!! But this time without long term occupation: conquer enough of their cities to force a capitulation, accept the vassal (if you have vassals active and if you really need those resources), or just their surrender (peace treaty), then "liberate" the conquered cities back to the original owner: liberation is a +1,5 diplo bonus, chances are a former enemy will become pleased and willing to trade.

Plenty to do at any time, just at some point it's you that need to decide for yourself what will happen.
And then, when you're so busy managing your first overseas invasion with line infantry and merchantmen, the game will surprise you with something unexpected.

 

[Major Tom]

I have a question to you all. When you play a game where you don't keep expanding (be it by colonisation or military conquest), what do you do from the middle ages onward? I find that I often have all buildings built, have all cities hammer out science or wealth (depending on what has the worse % buffs for commers), and basically spend my time clicking "end turn" to get through the tech tree. The peaceful victories of culture, space and time are a thousand turns away,

Culture is faster than it looks. Plenty of food available late game, so running lot of culture specialists no problem.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I'll be able to have a hands-off test with the same ones now, all the easier since noble perfectly matches an AI-only hands-off game.

Ran the test. On the current revision with those settings, the tech pace did sag a bit around the industrial era, but otherwise was more or less at pace. Note that the previous revision did a massive correction to the tech pacing if barb civs are on - I can easily believe the reported result if it was pre-5533.

 

[Joij21]

If you manage to find the revision number by trial and error, can you please share it here? I myself am not inclined to rinse and repeat until arriving at the right one.

Thanks; sad that you didn't take a note of the revision number (if you're using TortoiseSVN, right-clicking on the mod folder and choosing "show log" will have the active revision highlighted in bold). Depending on what it was, the pacing for those settings might have changed significantly already, but I also suspect that raging barbs (especially when joined by barb civs) is something I haven't yet corrected for and can introduce additional distortions. I'll be able to have a hands-off test with the same ones now, all the easier since noble perfectly matches an AI-only hands-off game.

Svn 5532

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Well, as I wrote, I'm not surprised then - 5533 bumped the tech progress speed up by a lot in cases like yours.

 

[Joij21]

Well, as I wrote, I'm not surprised then - 5533 bumped the tech progress speed up by a lot in cases like yours.

Now why would barb civs slowdown the tech rate though? Wouldn't more civs equal more trade routes, which equals more research?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I don't know, TBF, but that's a well-reproducible empirical result I got from lots of hands-off testing. Maybe because they arrive with lots of units, which forces other civs to build more of their own - an arms race.

 

[Joij21]

I don't know, TBF, but that's a well-reproducible empirical result I got from lots of hands-off testing. Maybe because they arrive with lots of units, which forces other civs to build more of their own - an arms race.

The ai actually considers arms races? But that wouldn't explain why I was slowing down; I was keeping a much leaner military compared to the top 3 rivals.

Unless it has to do with great scientists, with more civs on the map more great scientists are spread out so great works of science can't build up in a few superpower civs which then slows down progress in the later eras. Did you make it so that civs NEED great works of science for late game progression?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

The ai actually considers arms races?

Of course. AI considers relative military strength compared to other civs. If another civ is more powerful, AI tries to keep up.

But that wouldn't explain why

Told you, I don't know the explanation. And I don't really care to have one, at least not enough to research the causes, as the solution I implemented works.

 

[Alekseyev_]

Here it is.

Thanks! I took a look (incidentally I'm on the same SVN still due to an ongoing SP game on my laptop) and I have to say, it doesn't look all that bad? It's October 1904 and I would say the world is only about two tech columns behind history, which doesn't seem like a problem at all to me, considering how at other times during a game of Civ the world might well be 5+ columns ahead. Your own tech rate isn't bad either, 12 turns is pretty fine for realistic speed during the industrial age, although your cities still have significant growth potential if you give them more food from tiles, which would probably speed up the rate a fair bit more. To me it looks like there was some sort of global slowdown at some point during the game and now the tech rates are alright again?

 

[Joij21]

Thanks! I took a look (incidentally I'm on the same SVN still due to an ongoing SP game on my laptop) and I have to say, it doesn't look all that bad? It's October 1904 and I would say the world is only about two tech columns behind history, which doesn't seem like a problem at all to me, considering how at other times during a game of Civ the world might well be 5+ columns ahead. Your own tech rate isn't bad either, 12 turns is pretty fine for realistic speed during the industrial age, although your cities still have significant growth potential if you give them more food from tiles, which would probably speed up the rate a fair bit more. To me it looks like there was some sort of global slowdown at some point during the game and now the tech rates are alright again?

I mean I have like Civil War tech now but have yet to upgrade my line infantry to riflemen. No railroads either. So I'd say it's a bit more than just two columns behind. 1904 should be like early WW1 tech but we're at Mexican American War tech.

The problem mainly is the fact I'm trying to go for a cultural victory but I'm struggling to get to the later art types fast enough to accelerate my three big coastal cities (my capital plus the two adjacent to it) to legendary fast enough before 2015. And yes, I know the meta of Realism Invictus favors Domination/Conquest over the more peaceful victories, but I was trying to challenge myself this time around.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I mean I have like Civil War tech now but have yet to upgrade my line infantry to riflemen. No railroads either. So I'd say it's a bit more than just two columns behind. 1904 should be like early WW1 tech but we're at Mexican American War tech.

The problem mainly is the fact I'm trying to go for a cultural victory but I'm struggling to get to the later art types fast enough to accelerate my three big coastal cities (my capital plus the two adjacent to it) to legendary fast enough before 2015. And yes, I know the meta of Realism Invictus favors Domination/Conquest over the more peaceful victories, but I was trying to challenge myself this time around.

Don't you want some variability in tech pace, though? I agree that it should be approximately tethered to the real timeline with some rubber banding, but if the calendar itself was the dominant factor of technological progress, then well-executed gameplay takes a back seat to that and something is lost for it. Some of my games are ahead of or behind the "real" technology level of the time, and I appreciate that, which makes me feel more like I'm experiencing a plausible alternate reality rather than chugging along a railroad where things are necessarily "supposed" to happen at such and such a time. Furthermore, the ambiguity of some of the technologies (and their own continued advancement as individual categories) leaves some breathing room for imagination as to what each specifically entails in real terms: for instance, hitting Computers in 1940 feels rather ahead of time, though obviously the vacuum tube computers of that day were state of the art and useful, despite the fact that computer technology has continued to advance explosively ever since and is now almost unrecognizably different. To me, that makes researching the technology later than their historical debut feel like "joining the club" later on, once mainframes and such became more advanced, even though the gameplay benefit that it confers in practical terms is the same.

 

[Alekseyev_]

Don't you want some variability in tech pace, though? I agree that it should be approximately tethered to the real timeline with some rubber banding, but if the calendar itself was the dominant factor of technological progress, then well-executed gameplay takes a back seat to that and something is lost for it. Some of my games are ahead of or behind the "real" technology level of the time, and I appreciate that, which makes me feel more like I'm experiencing a plausible alternate reality rather than chugging along a railroad where things are necessarily "supposed" to happen at such and such a time.

Agree 100%!

And unrelated, you could even argue that much of the world wasn't anywhere near WW1 tech in 1918.

 

[Noyyau]

[...]So while I can understand the "should require production" approach, I'd say in real-life terms, the same level of background production needs to be happening for mechanical units whether they are being upgraded or not (it basically comes with the concept of units as entities that serve indefinitely), so not much additional production can be assumed to be needed. It's the same logical consistency that allows for a resource to be used in an unlimited number of different production chains simultaneously - while it sounds weird at first, it comes organically from the vanilla concept of a single unit of any resource covering all your civ's needs - and sure, it could be implemented differently, but since it's the original design decision and we're not overhauling that, there's no shame in being consistent to it.

I pondered some more and have reached a conclusion for myself: all units may be upgraded, but only after at least one unit of the new type has been "production built". So, first a "proof of concept" must be completed, then upgrades can be made across the empire. This will give at least a minimal delay between tech discovery and "instant" proliferation of new units (I know we could argue that the tech discovery already somewhat implies not just the idea/discovery but also it's diffusion, but it feels still kinda too sudden for me).
Thanks for the insight.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

That's how it worked in Alpha Centauri! You'd have to build the prototype first.

 

[Joij21]

Don't you want some variability in tech pace, though? I agree that it should be approximately tethered to the real timeline with some rubber banding, but if the calendar itself was the dominant factor of technological progress, then well-executed gameplay takes a back seat to that and something is lost for it. Some of my games are ahead of or behind the "real" technology level of the time, and I appreciate that, which makes me feel more like I'm experiencing a plausible alternate reality rather than chugging along a railroad where things are necessarily "supposed" to happen at such and such a time. Furthermore, the ambiguity of some of the technologies (and their own continued advancement as individual categories) leaves some breathing room for imagination as to what each specifically entails in real terms: for instance, hitting Computers in 1940 feels rather ahead of time, though obviously the vacuum tube computers of that day were state of the art and useful, despite the fact that computer technology has continued to advance explosively ever since and is now almost unrecognizably different. To me, that makes researching the technology later than their historical debut feel like "joining the club" later on, once mainframes and such became more advanced, even though the gameplay benefit that it confers in practical terms is the same.

Agree 100%!

And unrelated, you could even argue that much of the world wasn't anywhere near WW1 tech in 1918.

Well no, that's not quite what I'm getting at. More like it's frustrating that the time victory is at 2015 rather than 2050 like vanilla, which means when the tech slows down it makes it just that harder to actually pull off a victory. Even with the time victory turned off, even if I win past the date, because the end score takes into account the speed/time it took you to win you end up getting the Dan Quayle rank.

Like last time I went for the more straightforward domination victory with time off but it took me all the way till the 2130s to win! And because the game then considers me too slow it basically says I'm Dan Quayle! See the thing is even with domination there's no cuirassier type rush in the Renaissance like in vanilla, so on larger game maps you're invading stacks are too slow and things really don't speed up till WW2 tech. But WW2 tech sometimes takes too long in time before the game Dan Quayle's me. Preferably I'd prefer to win in the 18th or 19th centuries, since that was about the reasonably expected victory time when you'd win vanilla especially with the cuirassier rush.

Honestly we need movement two light cannons and some kind of cavalry unit that receives no penalty attacking cities while taking full advantage of it's withdrawal chance.

 

[JDCP]

But WW2 tech sometimes takes too long in time before the game Dan Quayle's me. Preferably I'd prefer to win in the 18th or 19th centuries, since that was about the reasonably expected victory time when you'd win vanilla especially with the cuirassier rush.

Frankly speaking this sounds very wrong to me, and we shouldn't compare RI to vanilla either no matter how alike they might seem, I've done that mistake many times in the past just to get the game shoveling **** to my face, and I must admit sometimes I still do. RI requires a different strategy, to open your mind for a whole new world of opportunities. Most things still work, at the end of the day RI is no more than a massive development over the base that BTS (and actually Warlords, if I recall) was, but many things require learning new appliances to pull stunts the size of what you could do back in vanilla.

I wouldn't like to end at such a date, you can if you push enough (I've done domination victory in noble with US right before entering industrial) and while it's cool, this is a more of a reward for great (and let's be honest, unnecesary too) effort not a standard to follow.

The fact domination took you so long to get with is probably more of a fault on your game settings than anything, have you tried a slower speed? perhaps lower the difficulty? I also don't agree domination should be so easy to achieve, both it and conquest are in my opinion victories achieved through pushing the same idea over and over until it works, regardless of how many times it fails.

At the end of domination, nothing beside remains, so how could we call that a victory? We could argue that all victories are domination to a certain extent, but my point is that Domination is just brute force, and it takes long to achieve success down that path.

Honestly we need movement two light cannons and some kind of cavalry unit that receives no penalty attacking cities while taking full advantage of it's withdrawal chance.

Eeeh I've had my own ideas about this, but I really think the system already works. What I do get excited for is light revisions to certain units or nations like Walter did with the British Medium Cavalry, replacing them with Light Cavalry, which was an amazing change to do.

I don't know, the mod works well as it is in my opinion, more additions are either things like that or something that isn't entirely groundbreaking like the noble houses, just a little more charm, nothing drastic that severely changes the way we play. Not that I wouldn't look forward to it, just that I don't see the need for it.

 

[zoob]

IMO Schemer with -40% Great General points generation is one of the "weakest" negative leader traits. How about -50%?

And IIRC there's another trait that give -20% espionage points. -25% would be more fitting to initial 4 points from the capital.

 

[genealogyxie]

why'd y'all nerf the potency of the infrastructure and building improvements like libaries, universities, granaries, forges, etc.? It's at the point where it seems that it's almost unreasonable to ever build any libaries, forges, etc. because you could make more money on your investment just by building armies and invading your neighbors just for the people

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Honestly we need movement two light cannons

"We have movement two light cannons at home", or more specifically, you can technically have movement two cannons at earlier stages if you invest into Engineering Corps doctrine. Hefty XP-wise, but artillery usually has spare XP.

I don't know, the mod works well as it is in my opinion, more additions are either things like that or something that isn't entirely groundbreaking like the noble houses, just a little more charm, nothing drastic that severely changes the way we play. Not that I wouldn't look forward to it, just that I don't see the need for it.

That's generally the way I treat it at this point.

IMO Schemer with -40% Great General points generation is one of the "weakest" negative leader traits. How about -50%?

Rounding! -50% would turn all 1 point gain instances to 0.

And IIRC there's another trait that give -20% espionage points. -25% would be more fitting to initial 4 points from the capital.

-20% is capital + tavern. Kicks in a bit later. But yes, reasonable.

why'd y'all nerf the potency of the infrastructure and building improvements like libaries, universities, granaries, forges, etc.? It's at the point where it seems that it's almost unreasonable to ever build any libaries, forges, etc. because you could make more money on your investment just by building armies and invading your neighbors just for the people

I suggest you try following your own advice and circle back to us with where it took you.