I meant more in the sense of what exactly would you like me to change. In my opinion there are a lot of inconsistencies in the city names, like the Arabs settling al-Iskandariyah and al-Quds while also settling Cairo instead of al-Qahirah, Aleppo instead of Halab, Damascus instead of Dimashq etc. Would you like me to be complete consequent and make all the greek names greek, or leave some as they are? If so, what would be the critieria?
Realism Invictus
- Thread starter Walter Hawkwood
- Start date
I meant more in the sense of what exactly would you like me to change. In my opinion there are a lot of inconsistencies in the city names, like the Arabs settling al-Iskandariyah and al-Quds while also settling Cairo instead of al-Qahirah, Aleppo instead of Halab, Damascus instead of Dimashq etc. Would you like me to be complete consequent and make all the greek names greek, or leave some as they are? If so, what would be the critieria?
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
Good questions all. This, in part, is why I wanted you to look into the file; you'd see that all the lists are not civ-specific, but rather leader-specific. You'd see that all Arab leaders have al-Qahirah for Cairo, for example (unlike Baibars, who was left with "latinized" instead of Arabic versions of city names to show off somewhat cosmopolitan nature of Mamluk Egypt and wasn't Arab anyway). For various Greek and otherwise Hellenistic (like Seleucus for Persia) leaders, I mostly have the commonly used "textbook" names for the cities (such as Antioch etc), except for cases where under actual Greek or Byzantine rule, the name of the city was substantially different. As I mentioned above, it was mostly done to save time when preparing various city lists, so I don't have anything against implementing properly hellenized toponyms elsewhere as well. I generally tried not to go overboard with renaming, so I only did name changes for places that were actually held by respective civs or at least where there was a strong claim to them. Since it all was done in somewhat of a hurry, I might have also left out some stuff - for example, I am almost sure I missed some cities for Mussolini, who shouldn't be following the Roman civ naming convention, and should instead be using modern city names when capturing stuff (even if it used to belong to Roman empire, as half of Europe did).
Should i modify a copy of the existing document, or just give you the changes in another document for you to examine first?
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
You can just make a plain text list. I will handle the actual changes to the .py file.
You've got mail!
I would also like to raise the question of perhaps changing a few leader names to be more authentic, as well as for clarity, as there are some inconsistencies (Carlos V, Charles III, Charles XIV John, Henri IV). In my opinion, changing some of these would add some more distinction to the leaders you can't tell which country they're from, and who might have other leaders who are namesakes (or close to it)
For me, the leaders that I personally would like to see changed are:
Charles III-> Carlos III
Charles XIV-> Karl XIV Johan
Alexander-> Alexander the Great
Basil II-> Basileios II
John II Komnenos-> Ioannes II Komnenos
John III Sobieski-> Jan III Sobieski
Josef Pilsudski-> Jozef Pilsudski
Louis I the Great-> Lajos I Nagy/the Great
Mehmed II-> Mehmed II el-Fatih
Napoleon I-> Napoleon I Bonaparte
Ptolemy I Soter-> Ptolemaios I Soter
Last edited:
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
I've generally overhauled the leader naming post-3.4 for consistency already, but in general they follow the "textbook names". I feel naming them in local languages would just serve to promote confusion; most of them are important enough to already have traditional names under which they are mentioned in historical literature. Even you didn't suggest renaming Alexander to Megas Alexandros, which demonstrates this effect quite well. What I did do was give everyone their nicknames back, so Alfonso X would become Alfonso X the Wise. The only exception to this was actually "the Great", as there would be tens of "the Greats" running around in that case. And the only exception to that was actually Alexander, who is now properly called Alexander III the Great, the only leader in RI to have kept "the Great".
Fair enough. I did, as you say, feel like some leaders are just too established to change, Alexander being a prime example. I'd still vote to turn the John's into Jan's, Johan's and Ioannes though (especially Sobieski, who I personally feel is more known as a Jan than a John (but then I am Swedish, where Jan is a common name)). And the biggest problem for me was distinction, as I realised years after the release of the Hungarians that Louis I is actually Hungarian and not French.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
I will concede a couple of points for the sake of consistency: Charles XIV will become Karl since we have Karl X for Sweden in a scenario, and Charles III will become Carlos III since we already have another Carlos for Spain (I/V). Also I guess I will turn Louis into Lajos, as psychologically it's a very French name (though this is exactly the point, as Louis I was from the house of Anjou, but since he was born in Hungary unlike his father, I guess the name change is both convenient and justified).
Routalempi
Chieftain
Just checked the SVN update log after a long break and almost couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this:
Good job Walter and the whole RI team, I know for a fact that this one is gonna make some long-time fans of this mod really happy!
Really interested to see how it all works out once I got some time to actually play again. It's such a major feature that it might take months to balance everything right and fix possible bugs of course.
Spoiler :
Good job Walter and the whole RI team, I know for a fact that this one is gonna make some long-time fans of this mod really happy!
Really interested to see how it all works out once I got some time to actually play again. It's such a major feature that it might take months to balance everything right and fix possible bugs of course.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
It is kinda barebones and likely bugged somewhat, but we're getting there. Hopefully I'll make it work properly. BTW, AbsintheRed, your look would be very appreciated.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Sure, I'm very interested in your changes!
It is kinda barebones and likely bugged somewhat, but we're getting there. Hopefully I'll make it work properly. BTW, AbsintheRed, your look would be very appreciated.
DanoWisdom
Chieftain
Why does RI not find my BtS install? It's a Steam version, but that shouldn't matter should it? I was just playing BtS a few minutes ago with a different mod, so I know it's working. Just need to know where to put my RI install.
Neonprime
Chieftain
Since there are already the Dynamic Cities Naming and now we pleased got the Revolutions component, it will be Dynamic Civs Names a further step?
AbuHab
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Messages
- 200
I'm a bit confused about how Aid works (e.g., Assault Aid). I just created my first unit that provides Assault Aid (Polybian Legionary). I see that it has a promotion called Assault Aid I, and the tool-tip indicates that promotion grants "+3% Strength." I have a few questions:
1. Does that mean that all units stacked with my Polybian Legionary have their Strength increased by 3%?
2. Is that 3% Strength increase only for limited purposes (e.g., only attacking, or only attacking cities) or does it count for all purposes (e.g., attacking and defending under all circumstances)?
3. Does the 3% Strength bonus stack with bonuses from other Assault Aid units? For example, if I have two Polybian Legionaries in the stack, does the stack now get +6% Strength instead of +3%?
4. Can I upgrade this unit from Assault Aid I to Assault Aid II? If so, how? That promotion doesn't seem to be available even though the unit has XP to spend.
1. Does that mean that all units stacked with my Polybian Legionary have their Strength increased by 3%?
2. Is that 3% Strength increase only for limited purposes (e.g., only attacking, or only attacking cities) or does it count for all purposes (e.g., attacking and defending under all circumstances)?
3. Does the 3% Strength bonus stack with bonuses from other Assault Aid units? For example, if I have two Polybian Legionaries in the stack, does the stack now get +6% Strength instead of +3%?
4. Can I upgrade this unit from Assault Aid I to Assault Aid II? If so, how? That promotion doesn't seem to be available even though the unit has XP to spend.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Indeed. Actually it's in the works for a while now.
I had some difficulties because of the scenarios, but I definitely want to have a complete version of it for the next release.
Shuikkanen
Warlord
(Short answers: (1): No, only those with equal or lesser strength. (2): All purposes. (3): Yes. (4): No.)
I'll try to explain the aid system for you in a nutshell. The aid "promotion" is a temporary promotion units grant to other units in their square. Spending XP has no bearing on it. Different types of units grant different types of aid. Melee units grant assault aid, which is just a flat strength increase which works both attacking and defending. Archery units grant first strikes and city defense, siege units grant city assault bonus, etc...
Each aid has three types, "I", "II" and "III", progressively stronger. A unit can receive only one of these types and which it gets depends on its relative strength versus the total strength of all the units granting that particular aid in its square. The aid gets upgraded to type II if the strength of the unit(s) granting the aid is at least twice that of the receiving unit (*), and to III if it is at least three times that. I'll illustrate with some examples. (EDIT: I explained this in a very confusing way earlier by having 'type' refer to two different things. Sorry about that. Edited to be more clear.)
Say you have an archer unit of STR 4 in a square with a bunch of polybian legionaries, also STR 4.
If you have unit of each, the archer receives Assault Aid I and the legionary receives Ranged Aid I.
If you have one archer, and two legionaries, the archer receives Assault Aid II and both the legionaries receive Ranged Aid I, and Assault Aid I from the other legionary.
If you have one archer and three legionaries, the archer receives Assault Aid III and all legionaries receive Ranged Aid I, and Assault Aid II from the other two legionaries.
If you have one archer and four (or more) legionaries, the archer receives Assault Aid III, and all legionaries receive Ranged Aid I, and Assault Aid III.
Adding more legionaries does not change the situation beyond this point.
Hope this helps.
(*) I'm actually not sure how the rounding of the relative strengths works in determining the aid. Must the total strength of the aiding units be at least twice so the aid upgrades from I to II (always round down) or is it enough that it is at least 1.5 (rounding normally), or is it enough if it exceeds it even by a little bit (always round up)? I also am not sure does it count the maximum strength, or does being wounded affect it.
Last edited:
PaperPaulo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2017
- Messages
- 56
Other day when i was playing as Mongolia i've got a warrior with two of that snow/tundra promo, sad was noticing that warrior didn't moving in double at tundra/snow as warrior with woodsman 2 would move in double at forest/jungle tiles. Can you test this and see if you can fix it? I've deleted that save, kinda of my habit of removing old saves from computer.
Another thing is about this question: should the +2 to Diplomatic Relations that Politicians get be kept on next version OR should it be replaced by 50% Faster Spy Unit Production with 50% Faster Security Bureau Building Production?
It looks like the diplo bonus isn't useful when on harder games when AI will declare war when you're weak anyway and their bonuses towards espionage could be more thematic on it.
Another thing is about this question: should the +2 to Diplomatic Relations that Politicians get be kept on next version OR should it be replaced by 50% Faster Spy Unit Production with 50% Faster Security Bureau Building Production?
It looks like the diplo bonus isn't useful when on harder games when AI will declare war when you're weak anyway and their bonuses towards espionage could be more thematic on it.
Last edited:
plasmacannon
Emperor
Despotism civic reduces our maintenance cost from number of cities by 25%.
The Republic civic increases our maintenance cost from number of cities by 25%.
So, when we switch, we increase our maintenance cost from number of cities by 50%.
Republic allows up to build The Senate, but it doesn't reduce this maintenance cost.
Any chance, we can see a maintenance cost reduction from number of cities by 25% included in the Senate building?
I'm playing Rome and want to change to Republic, but feel it just isn't worth the extra cost to switch.
The Republic civic increases our maintenance cost from number of cities by 25%.
So, when we switch, we increase our maintenance cost from number of cities by 50%.
Republic allows up to build The Senate, but it doesn't reduce this maintenance cost.
Any chance, we can see a maintenance cost reduction from number of cities by 25% included in the Senate building?
I'm playing Rome and want to change to Republic, but feel it just isn't worth the extra cost to switch.
