Realism Invictus

[Walter Hawkwood]

Well, that is one of the core simplifications of Civilization game series as a whole, as well as many other global strategy games. Whatever government and economy type you are nominally running, your state always functions as a planned economy, with central government (you) directly dictating every city what to build and when. Almost everything is state-planned in Civ4 in all eras of human history.

I only saw it addressed in a remotely satisfying matter once - in Victoria game series by Paradox. Even other games from the same company suffer from that - in Hearts of Iron series, no matter if you are playing USSR, Nazi Germany or USA, your economy will be 100% planned.

So, bonuses for some civics in our mod basically try to account for "private sector" activities that happen independently from player's actions.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

At long last the BtS version has arrived. Time to try it out.

 

[Tabris]

This is the second best mod i've played for Civ4 so far (It only loses to FFH for me). It's really amazing, and it has so much room to grow i can only think about the potential. I like how that instead of just adding more content the team thought about balance and fun of game play first.

The only think i miss is that when using a random map (most people will use it because the World Map, while amazing, is very heavy) there are no minor civs. Would be really cool if it could generate minor civs in a normal map. Specially if there were options for bigger maps (and better map scripts for random maps)

 

[Narcio]

I used to play Total Realism for Warlords, but alas the MAF made any mod that didn't work in BTS a no go for me. Since then I've been mainly playing Rise of Mankind and Rise of Mankind - A New Dawn, but I think you guys have made a challenger to RoM-AND for me. I've been playing Realism Invictus for the last few days non-stop.

I have to say that I REALLY like all of the unit changes that this mod has done. This is the biggest thing that I missed from Total Realism. I like all of the bonuses from having a balanced army (heavy aid, ranged aid, recon aid, etc). My current game is only up to the renaissance roughly, so I haven't played with modern units yet though.

I also like all of the new buildings and tech tree stuff. The resources produced from certain buildings are a nice addition. I like that you can build your own stone resource, for example, using a brick factory once you get the tech. Victoria was mentioned above, and these resources that can be produced from buildings remind me a bit of the Victoria economy, which is a good thing. I hope that even more buildable resources can be introduced and tightly integrated with industrialization, economic progress, and military unit production, but maybe thats too much to hope for. (Overall, I think the weakest aspect of Civ in general is its oversimplification of the economy, so anything that spices things up in that regard is a good step forward.)

The slave revolts are also an amusing addition. The tech transfer mechanic is good. I also think the plague mechanic added to the game is lots of fun. Your cities don't monotonically increase now, like they used to. I personally would like to see even more mechanics which cause fluctuations in population and wealth of certain cities as time goes on. (And yes, I have some ideas for how to do this, but its not a simple modification. )

Everything also seems quite well polished and relatively complete.

So far I have had no crashes or problems with the game either, so lets hope everything keeps working well and I can get into the modern era... something I've had a lot of trouble doing in many other mods.

Thank you for this mod and keep up the good work!

 

[Tabris]

Something i noticed. I was playhing a random map and got ridiculous amount of barbarians in very early game. Like having about 3 appearing around my capital (and only city) every turn. Is this normal? Basically i coulding do anything but defend myself.

 

[primordial stew]

Something i noticed. I was playhing a random map and got ridiculous amount of barbarians in very early game. Like having about 3 appearing around my capital (and only city) every turn. Is this normal? Basically i coulding do anything but defend myself.

Welcome to the "raging barbarians" option

In my latest game Carthage lost it capitol to the barbs. I started on an edge (Mediterranean map) which makes it a bit easier. In the previous game I was in the middle somewhere and lost my first 2 cities. I *thought* things were ok, but then a SOD of 8 barbs showed up and razed my second city. By this time the Koreans had around 20 cities so there was no point in continuing. They were plowing though the techs and had founded all the religions too.

Which brings me to my enhancement suggestion. In BUG there is a "limited religion" option which limits a civ to *founding* only 1 religion. Through conquest more can be controlled, but via discovery only 1 can be achieved. In Revolutions having > 1 founding causes a great deal of unrest to the point of a likely splitting off of some cities. It would be nice to see something along those lines here as a balance mechanism to put a check on such happenings. I know there is some consideration with -1 happy/non-state religion, but I think additional consideration would be better.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

The only think i miss is that when using a random map (most people will use it because the World Map, while amazing, is very heavy) there are no minor civs. Would be really cool if it could generate minor civs in a normal map. Specially if there were options for bigger maps (and better map scripts for random maps)

It might be possible if/when we merge RevDCM.

Thank you for this mod and keep up the good work!

Thank you for the kind words.

I started on an edge (Mediterranean map) which makes it a bit easier.

Let me once again warn you against using pre-made maps not specially tailored for the mod. Custom resources added by the mod will be missing, and some of them are quite critical for later gameplay (like sulfur).

Which brings me to my enhancement suggestion. In BUG there is a "limited religion" option which limits a civ to *founding* only 1 religion. Through conquest more can be controlled, but via discovery only 1 can be achieved. In Revolutions having > 1 founding causes a great deal of unrest to the point of a likely splitting off of some cities. It would be nice to see something along those lines here as a balance mechanism to put a check on such happenings. I know there is some consideration with -1 happy/non-state religion, but I think additional consideration would be better.

Well, isn't it consideration enough that any religion you found after the first one is AT BEST useless? You can't build non-state religion buildings, and non-state religions cause unrest with half of the religious civics. I don't think there is currently ANY reason for founding more than one (unless you heavily strategize on running Free Religion later).

 

[Hian the Frog]

Hi all,

Whatever is the map you're playing on, you should take care of the barbarians when using the "raging barb" option. It can be very devastating, particulary when the barbarians are allowed to build their mounted warrior. This unit ignores terrain cost and have strong bonus in attack. More, it's a pillager that loves crippling your improvements. In one word, a plague to early development.
One of the solution to avoid such problem is scouting the lands around your cities and using hills to remove the fog of war where the barbarians are spawning.


Among the other news, we are at that time polishing and finishing a scenario. We will need some tests and testers. I will ask for some of you to have a look at this when we will be able to release it.

Enjoy,

 

[Tabris]

Hi all,

Whatever is the map you're playing on, you should take care of the barbarians when using the "raging barb" option. It can be very devastating, particulary when the barbarians are allowed to build their mounted warrior. This unit ignores terrain cost and have strong bonus in attack. More, it's a pillager that loves crippling your improvements. In one word, a plague to early development.
One of the solution to avoid such problem is scouting the lands around your cities and using hills to remove the fog of war where the barbarians are spawning.


Among the other news, we are at that time polishing and finishing a scenario. We will need some tests and testers. I will ask for some of you to have a look at this when we will be able to release it.

Enjoy,

Thx for the help. Never played with raging barbs. My first game (unfinished, the load times were taking too much) was in the world map scenario, so almost no barbarians. I never played with raging barbarians before so i tought there was something wrong with the game.

 

[Vertico]

Hi some feedback about Realism:

1) ICBM bug
There is an error in ICBMs giving them air range of 1 tile - making them completely useless


2) Question about PZL 37 Łoś
Why this plane once is a tactical bomber (for Greece and Turkey) and once a bomber for Poland?


3) Gunpowder Light Cavalry (like Pistoliers and above) should not benefit "archery training" doctrine and Recon Aid should be lovered. It makes these units extremely overpowered against for example Fusiliers and Cavalry units - I didn't find any unit which would be able to stop them.

a) just with Recon Aid III, stack of Pistoliers have: 1 extra strike + 2 strike chances + 40% attack on hills (versus 25% hills defence). Comparing to Mobility Aid (15% withdrawal chance + 15% strength) Recon Aid is huge.

b) if we add marksman promotions I (2 strike chances + 10% strength) + II (2 first strikes + 15% strength), every Pistolier will have in total (including Recon): 3 first strikes + further 4 strike chances + 25% strength + 40% attack on hills + big chance of withdraval. Finally we can also add "recon tradition" and even more standard promotions...

Really these units are invincible and I mostly have 99% ods using them against anything...


4) Atomic bomb planes
If it is Realism, why atomic weapons come so lately? Only with "warhead delivery" and rockets. What about Enola Gay? Maybe this thread can help you?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225334&highlight=atom&page=3


5) Agressive AI
AI creates dozens of units in this mod and going only for confrontation. Any peace periods are only temporary to produce even more units. It also seems to weight only total strength of the opposing Civ - not taking into consideration technological development of unit, which ends in mass suicides, when hordes of weaker units attack less but more advanced. Overproduction of units also lead to economic collapse of Civs. On large random maps with 7-9 Civs, it's pretty in common to end time victory with opposing Civs still being in renaissance even on Prince, which already gives handicap to AI. I'm bit afraid of playing the higher levels, because then AI would produce even more.

I'm cool with some leaders being aggressive - but all?
Some leaders should consider different types of victory than domination or conquest.

 

[Darkphoenix]

My epically super powerful Pentium Dual Core (one of those early "fake" ones to stem AMDs grab on their market share), with 2GB of memory and a Radeon x1300 256mb graphics card seem to have some minor crashing issues unrelated to MAF throughout, but are unreproducible. Using 32 bit Windows XP. Yes, I know even a cheap $400 LAPTOP is light years better than this one, but lack of isk makes it a problem.

But the one reproducible one is that I *cannot* start a world map.
I load it up, choose country, starts to bring up loading screen aaaaand... crash.

I take it the new World Map is SO huge that it takes up a massive amount of memory straight off the bat?

 

[xyzxyz]

HI Walter!

First i want to congraz u for nices mod in while.

In my bad fortune i have to tell that this good game is ruined becouse of crashing.
Can u tell me why it crashes? (its not win 32)

Task manager says that civ uses 1 500 000 kb memory while in game..so its guite big usage, but my 8gig should handle that.

any suggestions?

I also needed reminding recently that your 8GB of RAM don't mean much. Civ IV BtS is still just a native 32-bit application, so the best it can do is make use of 4GB of your RAM, even if your comp has 8GB or more in it. The difference between running the mod on a 64-bit vs a 32-bit OS computer then is that bit (not meant literally) of memory that the OS itself takes up (which under a 64-bit system it can allocate to the 4GB (out of your 8GB) that 32-bit Civ IV BtS is NOT using). I suspect you're not helping yourself, btw, by running a lot of other application or subroutines 'behind' the game. I even disable my wireless internet and any other process that runs in the background before I start up a Civ IV BtS mod on a map larger than large. That way, you can play on Huge maps (low graphs settings, but highest 1920x1200 resolution - at least I managed to). Since the Earth map appears to be much larger than huge (from what I read), I think the MAFs should get you right around the Renaissance. Sobering. But inevitable. Try low graph settings, a very low resolution, and NOTHING else running on your comp, and you might make it to the end of the game w/ a 64-bit system and a lot of luck. I will try when I have some time.

 

[darkedone02]

One thing that I wish that this mod as is that I wish there was a bit more organization among the unit building tree, as in keep the caverly units right next to the other caverly units, the siege weapons right next to the other siege weapons, and so on and so forth on most of the units that I be able to build instead of disorganized. I don't see the gollowglass units right next to my other melee units, and the huntsman right next to the explorer or caverly.

 

[Cruel]

Didn't really understand the part about Incas.

Sorry my bad English. While playing I noticed that some graphs of inca units are similar to Greek skin. I do not remember which only the worker's sure now.

The modification of the minor civilizations was good. The increase in the number of turns in the final game was good too. I liked the decreased strength of the fort.

Playing in the new giant world map felt that the maritime units need more number of moves. As a railroad need also increased the number of movements. Or create a new railroad in the future more faster. If your civilization is big it seems that she is 'locked' to take a long time that units arrive at their destination.

Also felt a lack of resources in European nations (especially England, France and Germany) that although they occupy little space has always played a strong role in the world.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Hi some feedback about Realism:

1) ICBM bug
There is an error in ICBMs giving them air range of 1 tile - making them completely useless

Fixed this one, thanks.

2) Question about PZL 37 Łoś
Why this plane once is a tactical bomber (for Greece and Turkey) and once a bomber for Poland?

Likely some confusion when we introduced new plane types. Will check.

3) Gunpowder Light Cavalry (like Pistoliers and above) should not benefit "archery training" doctrine and Recon Aid should be lovered. It makes these units extremely overpowered against for example Fusiliers and Cavalry units - I didn't find any unit which would be able to stop them.

a) just with Recon Aid III, stack of Pistoliers have: 1 extra strike + 2 strike chances + 40% attack on hills (versus 25% hills defence). Comparing to Mobility Aid (15% withdrawal chance + 15% strength) Recon Aid is huge.

b) if we add marksman promotions I (2 strike chances + 10% strength) + II (2 first strikes + 15% strength), every Pistolier will have in total (including Recon): 3 first strikes + further 4 strike chances + 25% strength + 40% attack on hills + big chance of withdraval. Finally we can also add "recon tradition" and even more standard promotions...

Really these units are invincible and I mostly have 99% ods using them against anything...

Point on archery training taken. Will see what we can do otherwise.

4) Atomic bomb planes
If it is Realism, why atomic weapons come so lately? Only with "warhead delivery" and rockets. What about Enola Gay? Maybe this thread can help you?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225334&highlight=atom&page=3

Already saw and discussed that one. The unit still has animation glitches; it would be nice to have, but only if it works properly.

5) Agressive AI
AI creates dozens of units in this mod and going only for confrontation. Any peace periods are only temporary to produce even more units. It also seems to weight only total strength of the opposing Civ - not taking into consideration technological development of unit, which ends in mass suicides, when hordes of weaker units attack less but more advanced. Overproduction of units also lead to economic collapse of Civs. On large random maps with 7-9 Civs, it's pretty in common to end time victory with opposing Civs still being in renaissance even on Prince, which already gives handicap to AI. I'm bit afraid of playing the higher levels, because then AI would produce even more.

I'm cool with some leaders being aggressive - but all?
Some leaders should consider different types of victory than domination or conquest.

Are you playing with Aggressive AI on or off?

My epically super powerful Pentium Dual Core (one of those early "fake" ones to stem AMDs grab on their market share), with 2GB of memory and a Radeon x1300 256mb graphics card seem to have some minor crashing issues unrelated to MAF throughout, but are unreproducible. Using 32 bit Windows XP. Yes, I know even a cheap $400 LAPTOP is light years better than this one, but lack of isk makes it a problem.

But the one reproducible one is that I *cannot* start a world map.
I load it up, choose country, starts to bring up loading screen aaaaand... crash.

I take it the new World Map is SO huge that it takes up a massive amount of memory straight off the bat?

The usuall cutoff save size threshold where MAFs start is about 1 Mb. If you save World Map on the first turn, the save will be more than 2 Mb.

One thing that I wish that this mod as is that I wish there was a bit more organization among the unit building tree, as in keep the caverly units right next to the other caverly units, the siege weapons right next to the other siege weapons, and so on and so forth on most of the units that I be able to build instead of disorganized. I don't see the gollowglass units right next to my other melee units, and the huntsman right next to the explorer or caverly.

This is an interesting issue to look into. You see, they are all very well-ordered in Worldbuilder (and in XML). I currently have no clue as to why they behave otherwise in cities.

Sorry my bad English. While playing I noticed that some graphs of inca units are similar to Greek skin. I do not remember which only the worker's sure now.

Will check.

The modification of the minor civilizations was good. The increase in the number of turns in the final game was good too. I liked the decreased strength of the fort.

Hey, you're talking about post-3.0 changes. Don't give people spoilers!

Playing in the new giant world map felt that the maritime units need more number of moves. As a railroad need also increased the number of movements. Or create a new railroad in the future more faster. If your civilization is big it seems that she is 'locked' to take a long time that units arrive at their destination.

As a stark example of how that worked IRL, take Russo-Japanese war. Russia had a fully functional trans-Siberian railroad by the time the war started, and still getting troops - and ships - to where the actual fighting took place was its biggest challenge, and eventually the cause of its loss.

Also felt a lack of resources in European nations (especially England, France and Germany) that although they occupy little space has always played a strong role in the world.

This is also something we will look into. While the balance feels mostly right, maybe a bit more resources in Europe won't hurt.

 

[primordial stew]

Well, isn't it consideration enough that any religion you found after the first one is AT BEST useless? You can't build non-state religion buildings, and non-state religions cause unrest with half of the religious civics. I don't think there is currently ANY reason for founding more than one (unless you heavily strategize on running Free Religion later).

The issue is that the lead civ will found most of the religions. While this won't help them, it will keep others from getting any religion. This keeps most cities at 3-4 pop due to unhappiness, whereas cities with a religion can get another 2-3 pop before becoming unhappy, thus perpetuating their early lead.

My first game wasn't like this (Techtonics -> Earthlike), but both games on the Techtonics -> Mediterranean map were. Probably because this map doesn't wrap it gives a large advantage if "raging barbs" is active to civs along the edges. In the first one they all seemed to be founded by different civs. The game was very interesting till the point where England had made vassals of all the other civs. It took a while, but eventually they started attacking my coastal cities with 9 colonial/light cavalry, and there was nothing more to do. So the next games were much more land based, where I can at least see them coming before they reach my cities!

Don't get me wrong, this mod is fantastic "stack aid" is the best combat enhancement, and I wonder why it isn't in all the mods. I just seem to have hit a corner case here that interferes with the natural order of things. The fix I'm pretty sure can all be in python using canFound(?). Keep a list of which civs have already founded, and another with which religions are still available. I haven't play RI much yet (it takes considerable time on realistic speed!), but have played ROM+AND quite a bit and frequently saw the need to the special handing there.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Hm, yeah, I think we didn't really play much on non-wrapping maps and those otherwise safe from barbarians. One might say that constant barbarian pressure is an integral part of mod's balance.

 

[Vertico]

5) Agressive AI
AI creates dozens of units in this mod and going only for confrontation. Any peace periods are only temporary to produce even more units. It also seems to weight only total strength of the opposing Civ - not taking into consideration technological development of unit, which ends in mass suicides, when hordes of weaker units attack less but more advanced. Overproduction of units also lead to economic collapse of Civs. On large random maps with 7-9 Civs, it's pretty in common to end time victory with opposing Civs still being in renaissance even on Prince, which already gives handicap to AI. I'm bit afraid of playing the higher levels, because then AI would produce even more.

I'm cool with some leaders being aggressive - but all?
Some leaders should consider different types of victory than domination or conquest.


Are you playing with Aggressive AI on or off?

OFF. On large random maps, 7-9 Civs usually, all victory types switched on, level Noble/Prince (to be honest I got back to Noble, because of that )

Scenario is always the same: to build few cities until there is space - when there is no space all Civs attack their neighbours, waging wars (especially when their powers are equal) for centuries. Civs who won, attack then another Civs, who won elsewhere - for me clear domination strategy for all. And they declare war already with 1:1 global power ratio, disregarding completely the tech level of units.
But to be fair - attacks itself are quite smart - short-term they can be surprising.
So this is rather the problem of grand strategies, not tactics, because focusing on war only - Civs have no chance to develop


and one more I forgot:

6. Apostolic Palace
Did you change something in code of this wonder? It doesn't work as usually and to be honest, I couldn't find how it works now:

a) being the pope, I'm not able to propose any resolutions (no matter what civic I run - it doesn't work even on theocracy), often I cannot even start elections to become the pope if I'm the owner

b) not being owner or the pope - very rarely any elections are made, are if are made, often no resolutions are proposed afterwards.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Tech levels of units affect power ratio - different units impact power of a civ differently, and it is mostly proportional to their strength (so, basically, techlevel).

And as for the Apostolic Palace, I also felt something fishy was going on with it. Will investigate.

 

[QuantumProjects]

Is this mod still in active development?