Realism Invictus
- Thread starter Walter Hawkwood
- Start date
changelog is pretty impressive. I am going to spend atleast 2 hours in civilopedia alone before starting new epic campaignHey guys, glad to see, that this thread is still active. I've got a question concerning the Realism Invictus Civ4 mod:
Is it normal, that the whole world is lagging behind really heavily in the tech race? I'm playing my first game of RI ever as Persia, on the large world map, with realistic speed at the monarchy difficulty level. I'm doing pretty well, and in 900 AD, with Babylon, Arabia and India conquered (except the Barb cities with those tribal forts protecting them), I am the leading civilization as far as points. Nevertheless I'm still in the Classical period (researching commerce code right now) and the rivaling Civs leading in technology aren't really that far ahead (France researching glassblowing and porcelean right now). I can hardly ever affort to invest more than 30% into science. Many civilizations are even a lot further behind. Is this normal/intended? It seems a little odd...
Is it normal, that the whole world is lagging behind really heavily in the tech race? I'm playing my first game of RI ever as Persia, on the large world map, with realistic speed at the monarchy difficulty level. I'm doing pretty well, and in 900 AD, with Babylon, Arabia and India conquered (except the Barb cities with those tribal forts protecting them), I am the leading civilization as far as points. Nevertheless I'm still in the Classical period (researching commerce code right now) and the rivaling Civs leading in technology aren't really that far ahead (France researching glassblowing and porcelean right now). I can hardly ever affort to invest more than 30% into science. Many civilizations are even a lot further behind. Is this normal/intended? It seems a little odd...
Hi everybody,
A happy new yaer to all of you ! !
I just upgraded to the last 3.4 version on svn (5108) and play on a huge map as Genseric. I have found a town seperated by sea from a horses resource plot long time ago and already found horse riding and stirrup. Surprisingly I still cannont build cavalery units even though I have built a road and a pasture on the horses plot. I thought I should have acces to horses now if I understand the new city network across water mechanics well. Is this a bug or am I wrong?
Here's the screen shot :
A happy new yaer to all of you ! !
I just upgraded to the last 3.4 version on svn (5108) and play on a huge map as Genseric. I have found a town seperated by sea from a horses resource plot long time ago and already found horse riding and stirrup. Surprisingly I still cannont build cavalery units even though I have built a road and a pasture on the horses plot. I thought I should have acces to horses now if I understand the new city network across water mechanics well. Is this a bug or am I wrong?
Here's the screen shot :
So by now my game has normalized as far as the tech speed over the course of the middle ages. Probably the intense fighting in the antiquity just held everybody back initially. In the meantime I managed to reach the Renaissance period in 1478 AD and fielded my first Safavid Musketman in 1482 - seems realistic. Also it turned out, that I hadn't found the tech leader yet when previously posting: Elisabeth I. wonderwhoring on her island. Really nice mod I have to say!
@ Goetz - I'm not sure, but I believe at least in the vanilla game, the ressource would only be connected if you build a city on the other island...
@ Goetz - I'm not sure, but I believe at least in the vanilla game, the ressource would only be connected if you build a city on the other island...
AbsintheRed
Deity
You only get those resources automatically from small islands (3 or less tiles).
It's a workaround to the vanilla issue, which is because of the way Firaxis implemented trade between areas.
Some more info on this: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/realism-invictus.411799/page-310#post-14774847
Ok. Thanks a lot AbsintheRed for the explanation. The island is too big though and I'll have to build a city to get the horses ....
I'll keep on playing your excellent mod ! Hang on guys, and thank you for your this best balanced mod of Civ4 ever !
sungchiahao
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48
Try connecting the horse to a Fort improvement on the island.
Or build the Fort directly on top of the horse.
Zooasaurus
Warlord
So when will the installer be done?
The Francis
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
- Messages
- 20
Me too. Come on now comrade
The Francis
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
- Messages
- 20
where is the installer!??!?!
I loaded the save file, ended the turn and successfully started a new one. The problem seems to be on your side.
Idk, it still doesn't crash on my computer even after several turns.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
When it's ready. I'm not the person doing it, so I don't have any ETA on this. And posting about it every day certainly won't speed it up. It's not like we'll make it and then keep it secret.
As already asked, does AI play to win? Because without it checked, it is my experience lately that AI is actually rather peaceful save for a few maniacal leaders.
I don't think it would. I also gave it some thought as a potential solution, but ultimately decided against it.
Not really. AI war declaration logic doesn't really revolve around particular cities at all - it only compares relative military strength and checks against relations. Decision on where to attack, though, is a whole different thing.
I am considering this.
Funny enough, having good relations with AI seems to have much less actual effect on war declarations than personal experience would tell, if one looks at the code. It should probably impact that more...
Why do you feel it's "lagging behind"? What would you expect from a 900 AD world? What you're describing is that the tech leaders are in early Medeival era, which is exactly what was happening in the world at that time.
As correctly pointed out before me, the islands should be really small for that. But again, as correctly pointed out, you could place a fort at the neighboring tile and connect your horse to it. Forts act as cities for trade network purposes.
Elizabeth is infamous for that on world map in 3.3. Should see much less of that in 3.4 (and much less of one civ over-teching in general).
Here are the saves next turn and 10 turns after. Couldn't get it to crash.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Strangely enough I can't even load those save files.
Latest SVN, as in 5109?
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
At least I used 5109 and it loaded fine
Aquila SPQR
Prince
Hi everybody, I'd like to ask for your opinion.
Let me explain the situation - there are three of us and we're arguing about Sejong Taewang. There's one player who always chooses him because of his traits (financial and progressive). He likes to focus on economy and doesn't engage in aggressive wars very often. He says that Sejong's traits fit perfectly his playing style. It's also very important to him to have a good starting location - actually he was changing it so often we finally introduced a "only one change of map per human player allowed" rule (and still he almost always denies to play on the first map generated because "it's not good enough"). For example - if there's no river or he sees tundra somewhere on the horizon - he demands to start again on a new map. When playing A New Dawn he was always choosing Mansa Musa also because of his financial traits - considered by some Civ players as overpowered and banned from multiplayer.
Then there's another player who is stubborn and always plays Egyptians just because he "loves ancient history and that civilization". He doesn't actually care about UUs or UBs and choose leader with acceptable traits (they doesn't have to be perfect and actually he said he could play with any leader as long as he's Egyptian). He also prefers peaceful gameplay with focusing more on the economy, but he is not picky and can play on almost any starting location.
And they are arguing about the first player's playing style. The second one accuses the first one of choosing "the easiest to play" leader (considering the prirorities and style of his gameplay, so he doesn't for example consider militaristic traits as being the easiest because that player does not focus on conquest) and "the easiest terrain to play" and considers it as being "quite lame" and "choosing the easiest possible way to victory". He doesn't forbid the first player from playing Sejong, but thinks that achieving the good score with such leader and with such economy-focused gamestyle is just easier and thus presents less real challenge. First one doesn't think he's choosing "the easiest leader" and "the easiest location possible" and thinks that those Sejong's traits do not impact the gameplay that much. Of course it's all friendly and they always cooperate in game. When the first player asked to change one setting he disliked, the other one demanded that he switch to another leader in return - but the first one decided he would rather play with the option he disliked than choose another leader.
And there's me - listening to all of this (and getting slightly tired) and trying to ask for your opinion. Is Sejong Taewang really "the easiest" leader to play for someone focusing on economy and technology?
Let me explain the situation - there are three of us and we're arguing about Sejong Taewang. There's one player who always chooses him because of his traits (financial and progressive). He likes to focus on economy and doesn't engage in aggressive wars very often. He says that Sejong's traits fit perfectly his playing style. It's also very important to him to have a good starting location - actually he was changing it so often we finally introduced a "only one change of map per human player allowed" rule (and still he almost always denies to play on the first map generated because "it's not good enough"). For example - if there's no river or he sees tundra somewhere on the horizon - he demands to start again on a new map. When playing A New Dawn he was always choosing Mansa Musa also because of his financial traits - considered by some Civ players as overpowered and banned from multiplayer.
Then there's another player who is stubborn and always plays Egyptians just because he "loves ancient history and that civilization". He doesn't actually care about UUs or UBs and choose leader with acceptable traits (they doesn't have to be perfect and actually he said he could play with any leader as long as he's Egyptian). He also prefers peaceful gameplay with focusing more on the economy, but he is not picky and can play on almost any starting location.
And they are arguing about the first player's playing style. The second one accuses the first one of choosing "the easiest to play" leader (considering the prirorities and style of his gameplay, so he doesn't for example consider militaristic traits as being the easiest because that player does not focus on conquest) and "the easiest terrain to play" and considers it as being "quite lame" and "choosing the easiest possible way to victory". He doesn't forbid the first player from playing Sejong, but thinks that achieving the good score with such leader and with such economy-focused gamestyle is just easier and thus presents less real challenge. First one doesn't think he's choosing "the easiest leader" and "the easiest location possible" and thinks that those Sejong's traits do not impact the gameplay that much. Of course it's all friendly and they always cooperate in game. When the first player asked to change one setting he disliked, the other one demanded that he switch to another leader in return - but the first one decided he would rather play with the option he disliked than choose another leader.
And there's me - listening to all of this (and getting slightly tired) and trying to ask for your opinion. Is Sejong Taewang really "the easiest" leader to play for someone focusing on economy and technology?
