Realism Invictus

[Drakarska]

@ [Y]:

So you are proposing the following, did I understand correctly? :

1. There are no resources like sheep, pig etc. in the beginning of the game. There are only, grazing grounds. On those grazing grounds you can build pastures.

2. You somehow captivate wild mouflon, boar etc.

3. You bring it to a pasture, settle the wild animal there. You now have a pasture with sheep, pig etc.

4. Your pasture grows with time.

---

So, first of all, a side note: The point 3 is probably difficult to implement. Therefore I'd suggest that the captivated animal can sacrifice itself and a pasture appears on the tile (so, just like the work boat). I think it will be very easy to implement then.

I think you want to take advantage of the fact that animals are transportable and you want to be able to build a pasture, where-ever it pleases you, not only there where some wild sheep hangs around. Because of that, you want to simulate the animal domestication process in detail. Am I right? The thing is, that not only the animals but almost every resource has spread from somewhere to somewhere else during the whole history of mankind. Grains, lemons, banana, tobacco, cotton,... So in the real world, the resources are overall much more dynamic than in the Civilization IV. Even the minerals like iron or gold should be much more dynamic, because, the old mineral resources are exhausted, and new ones are discovered all the time. So making the animal domestication more dynamic is not more important than making the other resources more dynamic.

Just a little counter-point to your post if you don't mind.

In regards to #3. C2C and ROM AND2 already implement theses features. You use your "hunter" unit to capture said critter and use the appropriate tech to allow it to integrate into your empire. For example, at the animal domestication ( which ever one, we'll use bovine in this example) tech, your hunter has a percentage chance to capture said critter for your civ, and then once animal husbandry tech unlocks, you have a chance to allow a pasture to create the resource permanently.

As for grains, fruits, veggies, etc, I don't have a problem with the current set up. What I wouldn't mind seeing however, is maybe something along the lines of being able to grow your own resource once you gain access to it, I. E. via trade or whatever. Or even being able to make hybrid foods once you unlock a certain tech or three .

As to mineral resources, again, in various mods, there is a depletable resource option available, which makes trading and diplomacy a great deal more interesting.

On a personal note. I'm a huge mod player ( with RI in my top 3 favs) and haven't played vanilla BTS in years. I also enjoy playing various mods for their own particular uniqueness, so I'm certainly not advocating mix and matching from various other mods. However, occasionally, when I switch from finishing up one game in a different mod, then starting another new game from a totally different mod, I sometimes catch myself saying why the hell isn't this feature from so and so mod in the mod I'm currently playing?

Would I love to see a few new added features included into RI? of course I would. But I also respect the Dev's vision of where they want their mod to go, so I'm quite willing just to make a few observations, see what happens, and then once again enjoy their labor of love.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Babylonian spearmen and archers are OP.

Nope. Archers are their NU so they are kinda supposed to be, and militias (I guess you're talking about them, as their spearmen aren't anything special) are a copy of Egypt's. Also, Babylon is not a playable civ, just a scenario-only.

What is the new population metrics idea in SVN 4865? Sounds interesting.

A first part of slow and painful move towards RevMod.

Is there any chance of getting a Felipe Dos leader for Spain? just asking because he's my personal favorite monarch

You mean the guy who single-handedly managed to ruin the most powerful empire of the world?

Actually, he even was in RI for a while long, long ago (back in Warlords era, or maybe even before that), but we got rid of him in favor of Charles V. Truth be said, it is unlikely that he's making a comeback, as IMO he offers nothing new compared to some of existing leaders for Spain ("militaristic religious fanatic" archetype is well-executed by Isabella).

edit: also, the perfect mongoose script is not placing any floodplains at all. anyone having this issue? can I fix it? It makes playing egypt sad.

It kinda does, when there are rivers in deserts. Its problem is that there are too few rivers in deserts. We remedied it a bit in latest revisions, but I can still see that there are too few flood plains indeed. We'll be working further on that.

- somes units/building, which are "distinctive" for many nations, have more distinctive text than real stats text on them. Can be a bit confusing. Maybe hide the distinctive lines and keep them for the civpedia?

Distinctive unit category is specifically there to show all the units that civ has that are different from default. Of course not all of them will be starkly different (though I must say we're trying to do that). What would you have us do, remove that field altogether?

- since the change to the medical stuff in SVN, i sometime encounter plague that won't kill a citizen the first turn. I always tough plague add a 100% killrate if the city has more than 4 population. Was i really unlucky, did you change it to be less deadly, or is it unintended?

Never ran into it. Might be a bug, certainly not intentional, but doesn't really sound game-breaking.

- The second archer (with power 4) is available with archery tech, but require iron working. Seems a bit confusing. Wouldn't it be better that his icon is put in the iron working tech, and he require archery tech to be build?

Game engine decides which tech to use, somehow. The unit is just specified in XML as needing both techs, so I doubt I can do much to change Civ's mind about it.

- When you encounter a new civ, they automatically start a 1pt in value of espionnage. Not a problem in vanilla game, but in R:I game, with sometime 30+ game, it is tiresome to switch it to 0 everytime you encounter a new civ. Could it be make that a new civ start with 0 in espionnage value, so it won't mess with how your esp point are granted? Or, at least, make the " - all " button works in the world builder mode ?

I actually prefer it the way it works now; before I had to raise it to 1 manually for each new civ. I think this change might have come from BUG, and I wouldn't even know where to look to change it, sorry.

- still playing egypt on huge world map (someday, i will be able to finish a game, or at least see the medieval era xD ) and i still start with the berber already discover. I know it's very particular and not a priority at all, but i would love if you could switch them off ^^

All right.

- in huge world map, barbarian fort are way to powerful to be destroy in early game. I understand why. But the AI doesn't seems to, and i always see somes empire wasting their whole army on a fort (usually, carthage vs berber or ethiopia vs west african), rebuilding it, wasting it again... It tend to make them really weak, and the nation having no kingdom with fort near to them finish by eating them. Not sure if something could be done about that... maybe cancel war declaration against kingdom before gun powder tech ? Or give them a huge diplo bonus that is cancel when gun powder is discover?

We'll think of something. I'm beginning to feel that barbarian forts are no longer even really needed for proper functioning of the scenario.

Thanks for your time, and i'm looking forward to test the revoluton component

Don't hold your breath. We may still spend several years developing it.

I have messed around with the Perfect Mongoose map script and came up with a good compromise.

Thanks! Some of your changes inspired me to also fiddle with that script's settings a lot. I used some of your ideas, some of my own, and in general I think it should now work better.

Honestly, for me this is the Civ 5. And I wish it was really Civ 5. It's far far better than the game Sid Mier's developed for Civ 5.

Be glad then for your free copy of Civ 5!

1. How about the option of cultivating cotton just like corn, wheat etc.?

For now, cultivation only concerns food resources. I don't trust AI to decide between cultivating a food crop and a strategic crop.

2. Celtic UU Gaesatae doesn't upgrade to anything, but it probably should.

It upgrades to highland clansmen, with Arquebus. It intentionally stays unupgraded for a long while.

3. The Persian UU Immortal becomes available too early with archery, and enables a very early aggressive and dynamic play against your hopeless opponents. How about at least Archery+Woodworking or Archery+Bronze Working?

Yeah, that's been like that for a long, long while. I'd say Persia is probably the best civ for early rushes. Their NU is powerful for sure. Is it overpowered? At times I think so, but overall AI Persia doesn't tend to dominate everyone all the time. I think it is mostly powerful in hands of a focused player. But maybe Archery+BW it should be...

4. Those scrubs along the river banks are annoying. They are placed near the starting location as a part of starting position sweetening to cut of epidemics and unhealthiness, but I'd prefer to have flood plains anyway. So they actually destroy a cool starting location. These scrubs are aesthetically pleasing, but they don't have any effect on gameplay, so I would either consider removing them altogether, or at least wouldn't let them appear at the starting position. (Or you may boost the scrubs near the rivers)

Hm... Better scrubs along riversides are a definite possibility.

5. Would you consider that some of these gives you the opportunity to turn one citizen into a priest: Stonehenge, Statue of Zeus, Oracle

Not Stonehenge for sure, as it already all but guarantees you'll get a Great Prophet, but maybe Oracle could get one. It would make it at least somewhat more useful beyond its instant effect.

6. Leader with legislator trait should maybe be able to build the patent office 50% faster.

It is primarily a research building, so I'd say no.

7. I would set Mathematics as required technology for Academy.

Why? Do you think it will have any meaningful impact on the game?

Some suggestions about the tech tree:

7. How about making storytelling a prerequisite of the philosophy? Kind of makes sense...

Makes sense.

8. What are your thoughts about integrating the religious techs better into the tech tree? I would propose polytheism as a prerequisite for literature (like in the vanilla civ), and maybe ritual might be a prerequisite for code of laws or dynasticism. I don't know...

I like them the way they are now, apart from the rest of the tree. Nobody should be forced to found a religion just because he needs to advance techs.

9. Taoism is most of the time the firstly discovered religion. But, actually it appears around 5. century BC and so. So maybe switch it to later tech?

Ritual now requires Priesthood. Should delay it a bit.

10. In previous versions, the science works went obsolete, now they are only discontinued. It is kind of dull, because you know which city produces the most , and very probably this city will stay as the main science city throughout the game. So it is a no-brainer to build all great scientific works in this single city. I'd either go back to the old system and strengthen the science works a bit, or I'd somehow limit the number of great works on a city by 1 great work/(era*city).

We're trying to think of something elegant to prevent hoarding. I have a couple of ideas, but they require quite a lot of effort to implement, not all of it mine.

11. Once again, I'd like to beg you to change the city advisor system, which makes poor decisions. It completely neglects city growth:

I tweaked AI preferences a bit since. Might need a few more work, though.

12. After the change in tech transfer from 50-25 to the 30-15 system, the pace of the game slowed down a lot. ... I have changed the iresearchpercent in the gamespeedinfo from 310 to 250, and I feel that the game is already running a bit too fast. So I feel that a slight adjustment should do the trick.

Makes sense, we will probably speed up overall research. Or just early research, we'll see.

Also there is this graphical glitch in economics advisor screen that blocks the exit button on it:

If you used recent SVNs, you could see that we replaced it with a different glitch.

We're getting there.

hi guys. I feel like the great scientist wonders are a little too good. maybe the multiplier bonus should be lowered a bit? to 20 or even 15?

And so it was done. Though I must share that I am unhappy with that solution, and we will likely do something cooler with them in future.

I'm going to selfishly re-propose an idea that I suggested a few years back...

I think it would be very fitting if religious buildings required the technology for a given religion before they could be built. So, say, any civilization could convert to Judaism and receive its basic benefits, but it won't be able to construct any Jewish temples or monasteries until it researches Monotheism. It's always bothered me that I can be a major Hindu or Zoroastrian civilization, equipped with that religion's great temples and world wonders, and without having ever touched Polytheism or Dualism.

Additionally, there's also the option of making religions spread more quickly throughout a civ if it researched the related technology. People would be more likely to adopt a religion if it fit a belief system with which they are already familiar.

Not a bad idea overall, but I am not sure its gameplay consequences are beneficial. It is already much better to found your own religion than to adopt someone else's (I don't remember if I ever did so as a player), and that makes it even less appealing.

I used to play this mod on my old laptop and I wanted to get it for my new laptop however I keep getting a NSIS Error when trying to launch the setup.
I have the steam version of Civ BtS on a portable hard drive.
The error says "Installer integrity check has failed. Common causes include incomplete download and damaged media. Contact the installer's author to obtain a new copy"
I have tried downloading it multiple times but I don't think it's a problem with downloading it because the setup.exe shows up. I also tried to just extract the files myself and put them into a folder and run it that way, but I kept getting data error for everything.

Could you please help, I would really like to play this mod again.

This is definitely an incomplete download. Check the size of the downloaded file; try using a different mirror to download it.

Also, a more general comment: I think that Protectionism needs a buff. I don't know why you would ever choose it over Free Market. Welfare state is also pretty useless

And buffed it was.

is it intentional that there is no doctrine for skirmishers?

There is, Rite of Passage.

Whenever I open RI, I get to "Init XML (uncached)," and then Civ IV stops responding. I have RI installed in:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization IV Beyond the Sword\Beyond the Sword\Mods".
(I set the install directory to "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization IV Beyond the Sword\Beyond the Sword".
I did not touch the mod beyond installing it, but it ctds every time I start it up. How can I fix this problem? The mod looks really cool.

Nothing you wrote indicates anything wrong. Might it be you have something in your CustomAssets?

Hi, I found a big flaw in the tech tree: You can completely by-pass Enlightenment so that many wonders like Parthenon and Temple of Artemis don't go obsolete. I'd propose you to make Social Contract and Enlightenment prerequisites for Civil Liberties, so the problem does not occur.

Should be better now.

I may have find a little bug : when playing as industrious, a craftsman specialist should grant 3 production, right? 2 base + 1 from civ bonus?
Well, as i'm playing ramses, they only grant a +2 bonus when i look into the of the production bar. It does show a +3 bonus when pushing alt while hovering the specialist face, but it doesn't seem to be taken in account while calculating the current production.

It's a display bug. The bonus is there, it doesn't get displayed properly. Same with extra production from Wonders. Will be fixed.

Tiny thing - Last SVN - taoism needs priesthood to be inveted - arrow is overlaping monotheism and it looks strange.

Should be fixed.

I have encountered a serious bug in the last SVN: My city didn't grow beyond the size 1, even it collected all the food, and i was producing surplus food. I started another game, and no problem occurred. So I don't know, how often that bug would appear. (Edit: I did not encounter this bug again, maybe it was a coincidence.)

Never ran into anything like that. See if it recurs.

I have read that with the last SVN, you have updated that the AI now prioritize the food a bit more. It is a good change, because I realised in my last game, that somewhere around late middle ages/renaissance, i have 15-20 sized cities, and all my opponents have mediocre cities with size 8-10 or so. Except for the Korea, which had magnificent 20+ sized cities. As a matter of fact, I and the Korea were dominating the game. The thing is, Korea has this very nice Farms with extra so the AI automatically prioritize those improvements, and builds them all over the place, while the other civs think that normal farms are not good enough and build cottages (and don't work them afterwards :S).

...

So my problem is, actually AI starts well, but at some point messes things up, and I wonder, does the AI the same in your computers too?

Tweaking it is still very much a work in progress. Also, thank you very much for pointing out the issue (or rather, the opposite of issue) with Korea. I was going crazy trying to find what made them so powerful all the time.

Warning: Long post ahead.

...

Thanks, it was very well thought out! Unfortunately, such a system would be beyond the scope of our mod. We don't deal with neolithic era, where it would be absolutely in place. By 4000 BC, the start date of RI (and vanilla civ, and unlike C2C AFAIK), all major domestic animals that we know have been already domesticated, in some cases for many thousands of years.

Resources of animals placed on map shouldn't be treated as animals to be domesticated, but rather as small pre-existing communities of herdsmen that can fall under the influence of your civilization.

 

[Muninn]

Distinctive unit category is specifically there to show all the units that civ has that are different from default. Of course not all of them will be starkly different (though I must say we're trying to do that). What would you have us do, remove that field altogether?

I believe Ahnarras was referring to the "Special Abilities" window on the unit page itself, where the first thing listed is all of the civilizations that use that particular distinctive unit. Especially in some of the late-game units, there are several dozen civilizations who each get their own line and it pushes down all of the information about the unit itself.

Spoiler :

 

[ederl]

It could be that I'm not the first one who asks this question, but if I am:
Why crushes the game when I choose the RI planet generator map in LAN-Multiplayer and start the game?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I believe Ahnarras was referring to the "Special Abilities" window on the unit page itself, where the first thing listed is all of the civilizations that use that particular distinctive unit. Especially in some of the late-game units, there are several dozen civilizations who each get their own line and it pushes down all of the information about the unit itself.

Ah, I see. In this case, that's staying, because I find this information quite useful for myself when I work at the unit trees for various civs.

It could be that I'm not the first one who asks this question, but if I am:
Why crushes the game when I choose the RI planet generator map in LAN-Multiplayer and start the game?

Basically, map scripts are third-party components that we slightly edited for use in our mod. So, I can't exactly give you an answer why; but I think if you use pitboss for your LAN game, you should be fine.

 

[Ahnarras]

Muninn is right, that's what i was speacking about. Sorry if i was unclear.
And i understand the reason. Thanks for all the answer, Walter

 

[burebeesta]

Guys, I cant update my SVN anymore, I keep getting error messages "unable to connect to a repository at URL"...I tried pretty much everything I know, I even made a new folder, but is still doesnt work. Any ideas?

 

[JeremyHussell]

Guys, I cant update my SVN anymore, I keep getting error messages "unable to connect to a repository at URL"...I tried pretty much everything I know, I even made a new folder, but is still doesnt work. Any ideas?

Sourceforge, where Realism Invictus is hosted, is partially down right now. See https://twitter.com/sfnet_ops for updates. For now, there's nothing you can do but wait until they fix the problem.

 

[burebeesta]

Tnx alot for the tip...I was ready to re-install everything, so you pretty much saved me from hell...

 

[Hian the Frog]

Sourceforge, where Realism Invictus is hosted, is partially down right now. See https://twitter.com/sfnet_ops for updates. For now, there's nothing you can do but wait until they fix the problem.

We can't update or commit new stuff too. Something is bugging with Sourceforge.

A pity. You will have to wait to test the large amount of new leaders and the new trait.

 

[burebeesta]

Since i cant update, i have to play the old version, right? And i was just browsing through the comments, many of them interesting suggestions, and i feel like making my own contribution (yet again! . I find the idea of shortening the eras and that of faster research wrong. And the most important reason is that we have loads of units for every era and we dont have enough time to enjoy them. Even now i skip lots of units, simply because in 20-25 turns i can get a better one. So why all this effort to make new and interesting units if you cant use them in combat? In my opinion there is one fundamental problem with this game. Its very complex (and i love that) and takes a lot to get to the last eras. But by the time you get there, if you dont have a GIANT map, you have either destroyed all civs, or have been destroyed (which is more likely on immortal diff and above). And because I really love playing this game, more than any other game i can think of, i beg of you not to shorten the research time. Because if you really want to just have a taste of each era, you can chose a higher speed than the recommended one..

 

[Drakarska]

Since i cant update, i have to play the old version, right? And i was just browsing through the comments, many of them interesting suggestions, and i feel like making my own contribution (yet again! . I find the idea of shortening the eras and that of faster research wrong. And the most important reason is that we have loads of units for every era and we dont have enough time to enjoy them. Even now i skip lots of units, simply because in 20-25 turns i can get a better one. So why all this effort to make new and interesting units if you cant use them in combat? In my opinion there is one fundamental problem with this game. Its very complex (and i love that) and takes a lot to get to the last eras. But by the time you get there, if you dont have a GIANT map, you have either destroyed all civs, or have been destroyed (which is more likely on immortal diff and above). And because I really love playing this game, more than any other game i can think of, i beg of you not to shorten the research time. Because if you really want to just have a taste of each era, you can chose a higher speed than the recommended one..

Ermm , 20-25 turns? You do realize that there is a "Realistic" speed setting in order to allow you to fully enjoy all aspects of this mod, right? additionally, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "taste" of each era. Granted, I don't play immortal or above, but on MON and EMP, I fully enjoy each era. Would you please explain?

 

[Hian the Frog]

Since i cant update, i have to play the old version, right? And i was just browsing through the comments, many of them interesting suggestions, and i feel like making my own contribution (yet again! . I find the idea of shortening the eras and that of faster research wrong. And the most important reason is that we have loads of units for every era and we dont have enough time to enjoy them. Even now i skip lots of units, simply because in 20-25 turns i can get a better one. So why all this effort to make new and interesting units if you cant use them in combat? In my opinion there is one fundamental problem with this game. Its very complex (and i love that) and takes a lot to get to the last eras. But by the time you get there, if you dont have a GIANT map, you have either destroyed all civs, or have been destroyed (which is more likely on immortal diff and above). And because I really love playing this game, more than any other game i can think of, i beg of you not to shorten the research time. Because if you really want to just have a taste of each era, you can chose a higher speed than the recommended one..

Hello,

RI gives you the possibility to choice between five different game speeds. I think it's enough.
On my side, I never met the problem you speaking about - particularly in the first half of the game. Later, game speeds up (a bit) and your army may quickly change.

In all case, it depends on the speed you're prefer. My choice is Realism.

Good day,

 

[xondrax]

hey, I am not able to update to last SVN
it wrote this:
Checksum mismatch for 'D:\çívka\Beyond the Sword\Mods\realism\Assets\XML\Text\Strategy3.xml':
expected: a6891ed00adf7925299b80b6fb516265
recorded: a0f1b569b9dbd86ecb75e10b63c0def1
Try a 'Cleanup'. If that doesn't work you need to do a fresh checkout.

I tried cleanup and checkout, nothin worked.
Any ideas?

/update of tortoise didnt help

 

[flitz]

Why not just remove/rename the file and have SVN check it out again ?

If it happens again for other files in the same directory, remove/rename the whole subdirectory, i.e. the Text/ dir, before trying the svn update again.

 

[xondrax]

tried didnt work :/

 

[flitz]

You mean the error message stays the same ?

I am no svn expert, but I thought that those checksums are stored inside those .svn directories that are contained in each subdirectory of a checkout.
So by removing a subdirectory (or its parent directory) this should have been just as good as making a new complete checkout.

For instance, if you rename the directory
D:\çívka\Beyond the Sword\Mods\realism\Assets\XML
into XML__ or something and try an svn update, what is the exact error message then ?

 

[cfeyyaz]

I've seen the new trait you've added, and the other changes that you have undertaken. Unfortunately, I am not really impressed with the changes, and I think you would also not be fully satisfied either. Since you have the ambition to rework the traits a bit, I'd like to share my thoughts about the traits. But my thoughts are bit too unorganized, I'll just go through my thinking process with you.

Introduction: I mainly have a problem with the Expansive trait, and it should definitely be reworked. The problem is for instance; a Legislator+Charismatic leader will be expand quite effectively and would benefit much from expanding, however a leader with Expansionist+Imperialistic wouldn't benefit from expansion at all.

Ok, so what kind of benefits could the Expansionist leader have?
a) Easier to acquire unclaimed territory: Faster Settler production - this is already the case.
b) Easy to explore new territory: Faster production of Scouts; fast moving and more durable scouts: Therefore the scouts might start with Woodsman I, Guerilla I, better Visibility and/or Speed.

By the way, I'd tweak the unit upgrade tree so that: Scout -> (Early Explorer) -> Explorer and Skirmisher -> Light Infantry, so that there is a clear distinction between scouts and fighting units.

c) Expansionist leader should benefit from having many small cities, overseas territories and colonies - whether this expansion is peaceful or not. Therefore, the maintenance costs from Distance to Palace and/or Number of Cities could be reduced, or the cities might provide initial resources which (something better than +1 )

Ok, now let's have a look at other traits, which influence the expansion/military policies:

Imperialistic:

Impreialistic trait seems to be modeled after the Roman Empire's expansion policies. Shiny armies, magnificent monuments, glorious (military) leaders... And the current Imperialistic trait reflects those features well. I think the imperialistic trait is good enough but the new wonder production bonus is also fine, since it encourages you to build magnificent wonders in your magnificent empire. The problem with this trait is, that it does not really encourage you to go and invade new lands. I personally build those barracks, sit back and enjoy the early +1 happiness. I don't bother going and invading new territory and accept battles on my own lands to get the maximum out of the Great General bonus. Therefore, I have a few proposals:
a) +100% GG emergence outside cultural borders. This can be done by comibinig +100% GG emergence with -100% GG emergence in own territory.
b) Romans liked to enslave the people they defeated. Therefore, either higher chance of enslaving upon victory, or 2 Slaves are created instead of one. If you decide implement this, I would suggest you to deactivate +10% wonder production.
c) Units start with pacification. It resembles high motivation of fighting the barbarians (as Romans did) or colonizing the native people (as Europeans did in the Age of Exploration)

Seafaring:

This is exactly how the expansionist trait look like! Normally, I don't want to build too many cities from early on, but if I am seafaring, I don't mind building many coastal cities, since those cities immediately start to pay for themselves. This trait is good enough, it encourages you to build fleets, boosts the maritime trade, I don't have any suggestions.

Militaristic:

There can be two possible interpretations of militaristic:
a) People under this leader simply enjoy waging battles, fight courageously and spiritedly.
b) This leader puts emphasis on building large, well-equipped and/or well trained armies, and he uses them.

Point a) seems very close to the case of a charismatic leader, because in both cases the soldiers fight motivated. So, I assume that b) is the case for a militaristic leader. I further assume that the militaristic leader will simply build the most solid army possible and wouldn't be that interested in asymmetric warfare or hit and run tactics. Therefore, the charge mounted, melee, gunpowder and armored units should get the experience bonus, and not the recon and ranged mounted units. (it was already the case, right?).

Charismatic:

In my opinion charismatic is actually better than militaristic, because after level 4 or so the the charismatic units are better, and the XP-bonus of charismatic applies to all types of units. But it is difficult to find a balance between charismatic and militaristic. For now, I'd let it stay as it is.

Protective:

This is also good as it is.

---

Ok, and where does the Conqueror fits?

First of all, Conqueror can not be considered as a real trait. A leader becomes a conqueror, only if he conquers somewhere. Being a conqueror is a possible result of following expansive/imperialistic and militaristic policy. So I already dislike the idea to be honest.
Also, boosting the cavalry units won't help you much when conquering cities. If you insist on Conqueror as a trait, then I'd propose you giving City Raider to melee and gunpowder units, and leave the Charge Mounted unit bonuses to the Militaristic trait. Conqueror should also give siege units a bonus.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Guys, I cant update my SVN anymore, I keep getting error messages "unable to connect to a repository at URL"...I tried pretty much everything I know, I even made a new folder, but is still doesnt work. Any ideas?

Just FYI everyone, SVN is back online and you all can update again.

Since i cant update, i have to play the old version, right? And i was just browsing through the comments, many of them interesting suggestions, and i feel like making my own contribution (yet again! . I find the idea of shortening the eras and that of faster research wrong. And the most important reason is that we have loads of units for every era and we dont have enough time to enjoy them. Even now i skip lots of units, simply because in 20-25 turns i can get a better one. So why all this effort to make new and interesting units if you cant use them in combat? In my opinion there is one fundamental problem with this game. Its very complex (and i love that) and takes a lot to get to the last eras. But by the time you get there, if you dont have a GIANT map, you have either destroyed all civs, or have been destroyed (which is more likely on immortal diff and above). And because I really love playing this game, more than any other game i can think of, i beg of you not to shorten the research time. Because if you really want to just have a taste of each era, you can chose a higher speed than the recommended one..

True that, we ultimately decided against lowering tech costs. OTOH, you could also choose a lower speed if you feel you don't get enough of each era.

BTW, military tech tree is in many places specifically designed in such a way to be able to beeline or postpone certain military advances. With that in mind, skipping certain units is almost guaranteed if your playstyle involves that. I know mine does, I prefer to get my military tech up-to-date in "bursts", unless I have a big conflict on my hands that keeps me trying to have best mil tech all the time.

hey, I am not able to update to last SVN
it wrote this:
Checksum mismatch for 'D:\çívka\Beyond the Sword\Mods\realism\Assets\XML\Text\Strategy3.xml':
expected: a6891ed00adf7925299b80b6fb516265
recorded: a0f1b569b9dbd86ecb75e10b63c0def1
Try a 'Cleanup'. If that doesn't work you need to do a fresh checkout.

I tried cleanup and checkout, nothin worked.
Any ideas?

/update of tortoise didnt help

Did it work before? If it did, try deleting the XML/Text folder and updating again. If this is your firest time trying to do an SVN check out, I don't really know how well SVN behaves with non-standard symbols in the file path.

I've seen the new trait you've added, and the other changes that you have undertaken. Unfortunately, I am not really impressed with the changes, and I think you would also not be fully satisfied either. Since you have the ambition to rework the traits a bit, I'd like to share my thoughts about the traits. But my thoughts are bit too unorganized, I'll just go through my thinking process with you.

---

Ok, and where does the Conqueror fits?

First of all, Conqueror can not be considered as a real trait. A leader becomes a conqueror, only if he conquers somewhere. Being a conqueror is a possible result of following expansive/imperialistic and militaristic policy. So I already dislike the idea to be honest.
Also, boosting the cavalry units won't help you much when conquering cities. If you insist on Conqueror as a trait, then I'd propose you giving City Raider to melee and gunpowder units, and leave the Charge Mounted unit bonuses to the Militaristic trait. Conqueror should also give siege units a bonus.

Neither is a leader born expansionist. Leader traits are assigned as a result of "lifetime achievement" assessment. Anyway, here is our spin on what various traits represent:

- Militaristic: a military reformer, or a guy who relies on the military to stay in power. May or may not conquer stuff outside his borders. Often such leaders, despite winning wars, didn't actually pursue expansionist agendas. Also, almost invariably, such reforms and such armies involved first and foremost drilled and professional infantry as the key element. Some good examples: Frederick the Great, Gustav II Adolf.

- Imperialistic: a leader that is chiefly concerned at placing his country among the great powers of the age, through military, cultural or other means. Once again, may or may not involve actual territorial expansion, and even if involves, these territories are more needed for prestige back home than for their inherent value. Good examples: Catherine the Great, again Gustav II Adolf.

- Expansionist: a leader who is concerned with expanding the territory, mainly through colonization and founding new cities. Large wars might not be a part of the plan, but extermination of natives or subjugation of significantly weaker neighbors might. These leaders are rarely known for great military victories, because they ideally fight only when odds are stacked for them already. Good examples: US president J. Polk, Charles V (and generally Spanish Habsburgs of the era).

- Conqueror: conquest of new territories seems to be the main driving force for these leaders. Often they are portrayed by historians as wishing to be remembered as great conquerors as their main motive. Interestingly, more often than not, they are known for fielding effective cavalry forces and/or making good use of combined arms. Great examples: Alexander the Great (note that while his phalanx was key to his victories, employing effective heavy cavalry with it was the real innovation that allowed him to dominate), Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror (currently not a leader in RI, but a good example nonetheless).

Hopefully, that clears things up a bit. And yes, some of your suggestions, like giving Conq leaders some kind of city attack advantage, sounds good to me. We will consider your suggestions.

 

[HannibalBarka]

We can't update or commit new stuff too. Something is bugging with Sourceforge.

A pity. You will have to wait to test the large amount of new leaders and the new trait.

I must have missed some thing. what is the new trait? and who are the new leaders for example, unless you're talking about graphic changes?

Edit: nevermind, I found the new trait. I almost never play "agressive" leaders as in high levels i just can't keep any city I'll conquer because of maintenance costs. I rarely wage any war outside my land before the MA