Realism Invictus

[H4run]

I just install the new RI. When I read that now you can sell or buy fire arms and build your own gunpowder base unit without the technology, I am so happy, this is what I dream on civilization games. I cannot wait myself to help Bantu, Aborigine and Native American peoples by supplying them with fire arms and pull off the dirty invader I just hope now I can interact and open border with these beautiful civilizations and changes the course of history. I like the idea of me as a major civilization, defeating other major civilizations by making myself allies with other minor civilizations and empowering them, then later on overwhelming them together. Come on RI let me do it

If you want to use a particular leader in the World Map yourself, you can do a simple manual edit of the scenario file. Just look up the leader tag in CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml, and replace it in the scenario, opening it as a plain text file with pretty much anything (I prefer Notepad++).

Yes I really love to play as other leader. Like Sukarno or Khatun in huge map, very interesting leader and traits. I found the xml file that you mention however I cannot find the scenario file that I suppose to manually edit. Can you please guide me where to go? thank you so much Walter!

 

[H4run]

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.

Republic is fit for a small country, with all of its advantages. While despotism is fit for a large and horizontally growing country. If republic able to support huge country that will be over powering, I thought the republic here more refer to how the ancient Greek organize itself, divided into small poleis and it is pretty much not an empire like Roman. With an empire as big as that of Roman you cannot hold the territory using the Republic, that's why Roman Republic end during 27 BC during the time of Augustus, even though Roman Republic already failed and weaken since 133 BC because of economic problem and internal instability.

 

[sealedinterface]

I'm trying to get this mod working on a friend's PC. He uses the Steam version (complete edition), and the installation seemed to work fine (though I did need to manually locate the BtS EXE), but he can't seem to start a game. It just crashes as soon as he hits play. I've tried disabling the Steam overlay and that didn't help.

It also takes an additional 60 seconds or so before even the loading dialog shows up on screen when launching the mod directly via the shortcut. His PC has about the same specs as mine and I don't have either of these issues.

Any idea what could be the cause of this?

 

[plasmacannon]

Republic is fit for a small country, with all of its advantages. While despotism is fit for a large and horizontally growing country. If republic able to support huge country that will be over powering, I thought the republic here more refer to how the ancient Greek organize itself, divided into small poleis and it is pretty much not an empire like Roman. With an empire as big as that of Roman you cannot hold the territory using the Republic, that's why Roman Republic end during 27 BC during the time of Augustus, even though Roman Republic already failed and weaken since 133 BC because of economic problem and internal instability.

Oh, know the historical similarities and I get what you are saying.
As none of the Roman leaders have the Spiritual Trait, I usually don't switch civics often. Once I am in Despotism, I tend to stay in it for awhile. Republic's happiness caps out at 5 cities, and I rarely stay at just 5 cities. Seriously, who does? We are always expanding unless it's a One City Challenge, pausing perhaps to build more money buildings.
With the happiness from walls and Rome's Barracks, Republic's extra 1 happiness doesn't seem worth the cost.
I feel like the game sometimes makes some civics such poor choices, that they are ignored every game, no matter which empire I play. Which is sad, because I try to play the one's that were historically used by that empire first. Then I see one I rarely use and want to try it. When I do, I get hit with such a high cost that I end up switching back. For example, I know I'll be in Plutocracy every game.
Another example, though this was likely just bad random rolls.
As Rome, I switched to Slavery, like they historically used. The next turn, I get a random event that cost me 2 population. That ruined what I switched civics for. I decided to stick it out. 5 turns later the same random event happened again. This time I chose the -1 pop and -10 gold option, but was again low on population. I switched back immediately.
I like having events turned on, but there is a point where they occur too frequently where they ruin the fun. A delay on them repeating would be nice.

 

[H4run]

Oh, know the historical similarities and I get what you are saying.
As none of the Roman leaders have the Spiritual Trait, I usually don't switch civics often. Once I am in Despotism, I tend to stay in it for awhile. Republic's happiness caps out at 5 cities, and I rarely stay at just 5 cities. Seriously, who does? We are always expanding unless it's a One City Challenge, pausing perhaps to build more money buildings.
With the happiness from walls and Rome's Barracks, Republic's extra 1 happiness doesn't seem worth the cost.
I feel like the game sometimes makes some civics such poor choices, that they are ignored every game, no matter which empire I play. Which is sad, because I try to play the one's that were historically used by that empire first. Then I see one I rarely use and want to try it. When I do, I get hit with such a high cost that I end up switching back. For example, I know I'll be in Plutocracy every game.
Another example, though this was likely just bad random rolls.
As Rome, I switched to Slavery, like they historically used. The next turn, I get a random event that cost me 2 population. That ruined what I switched civics for. I decided to stick it out. 5 turns later the same random event happened again. This time I chose the -1 pop and -10 gold option, but was again low on population. I switched back immediately.
I like having events turned on, but there is a point where they occur too frequently where they ruin the fun. A delay on them repeating would be nice.

I get what you mean, and as I never play with leader with spiritual traits in RI I also experience what you are experience. There are lots of juicy things in Republic, and I usually stay Republic and keep my country small, use pacifism, then serfdom and keep away from conflict, and stay on top because of my technology and wonder advantages. But whenever I need to defend myself, and start to extent my country reluctantly, because once you start the war, it will be rarely over until you eliminate your adversary, I switch myself to despotism and suffer anarchy for 2-3 turn, but hey that's okay, I'm bigger now and I got more taxes to whip.

If you really really don't want to suffer any anarchy, plan well with your golden age, you can save some great artist or build a wonder and changes your civic during that time, and the late game there is even this wonder which give you no anarchy feature, and I always made that wonder for myself. I even change my civic two time during golden ages, first to switch toward a policy that made me able to build knight and to produce and hold more military unit to defend myself during enemy invasion, and second time is to turn everything back as default as soon as the war is over. I think this balances the aspect of the game that force us to think, adapt, switch, try to build some strategy. You should be dynamic not static.

Serfdom is no less annoying compare to slavery, but hey, random bad things happened, the x factor in history is very determining if not Mongol conquered Japan already, as annoying as it is for me it do what it suppose to do.

I always play as small nation in the beginning, and win mostly by domination in Prince level. I do that by keeping my country small, advance and wondrous in the beginning, and expanding in the end of the game, changing my policy to Planned Economy to support larger nation.

 

[Shuikkanen]

On Monarch, if I find that I can mostly stay out of wars in the early game either because I'm isolated, or my territory is easily defended by a choke point, or I have good relations with neighbors that happen to be trustworthy, or that the AI is busy fighting amongst themselves, I definitely go with Republic. Just as Haroon pointed out, I stay on top because of my tech and wonders. I maximize my GP output, which in turn leads to a great economy. Getting great spies or even great artists can be a bit annoying but absolutely everyone else boosts my food/production/gold/science output, and ultimately all of those are sort of interchangeable. I also tend to settle Great Engineers more often than not. Unless it's a crucially important wonder, the fact that I'm ahead in tech and probably already producing more in my capital (exactly because of all those settled GEs) means I can still finish the wonder in time, and the accumulated production and science output makes this system a positive feedback loop.

I tend to stay at the 5 cities, but eventually I expand a bit. Typically because I need to increase my city numbers to be able to construct some special Wonders that require a certain number of buildings (courthouses, temples, universities) before you can build them. Or because a crucial resource just lies too far outside my borders (coal, sulphur). Sometimes this means war and I will then adopt another strategy and switch to Despotism/Monarchy. I push my territories and once Renaissance rolls around I have more advanced peace- time civics available (Democracy and Federalism) so I abandon Republic for good.

Of course, this is not how every game goes. Some things have to line up for it to be an optimal strategy, or even viable. But I wouldn't scoff Republic.

In any case, now that the game has the revolutions component, and a whole new metric to track (Republic seems to increase separatism quite a lot atm), all this strategy might be obsolete already.

 

[schargiel]

I lost a very small city (2) in early stage because of revolt to an AI. I had about 9 very strong units in the city and they all disapeared. Why is that? It is absolutely unrealistic.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

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?

Oh, I hope we do in future. With lots of colorful dynamic flags I'd make...

Hello. Your Mod looks awesome. I have one problem. I don´t like to play huge or big maps. It´s too much work to control so many cities in the mid and late game. Do you also offer a standard or small szenario map?

I would recommend you to play smaller-sized random maps. The mod is designed and balanced to work well on random maps. There are also some scenarios, such as Crusades, that have smaller maps than the others.

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.

Now that we're getting Rev comp and its separatism metric, I'd say it looks good to be added to certain traits. But nothing is set in stone yet.

Also, all of the traits have inherently different values at different difficulties because of very different game variables one has to deal with. That's quite normal and not an issue I'd be trying to fix.

Oh, and AI attacking you regardless of the relations is not difficulty-tied. It is tied to leader personalities. Some of them do it, some don't. Most leaders don't have a relations level that would disqualify them from treating you as a potential war target.

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.

As others very rightly pointed out, Republic is a very good civic for tall playstyle, especially if one concentrates on GPs. Despotism/Monarchy, in contrast, are better for a wide playstyle.

I just install the new RI. When I read that now you can sell or buy fire arms and build your own gunpowder base unit without the technology, I am so happy, this is what I dream on civilization games. I cannot wait myself to help Bantu, Aborigine and Native American peoples by supplying them with fire arms and pull off the dirty invader I just hope now I can interact and open border with these beautiful civilizations and changes the course of history. I like the idea of me as a major civilization, defeating other major civilizations by making myself allies with other minor civilizations and empowering them, then later on overwhelming them together. Come on RI let me do it

As it is now, you can certainly provide weapons to natives, but they are programmed to really avoid associating with anyone (open borders, stuff like that). They mainly just want to be left alone. So you can arm them, but it is very unlikely they will become your friends and allies as the result.

Yes I really love to play as other leader. Like Sukarno or Khatun in huge map, very interesting leader and traits. I found the xml file that you mention however I cannot find the scenario file that I suppose to manually edit. Can you please guide me where to go? thank you so much Walter!

Mods/Realism/PrivateMaps

I'm trying to get this mod working on a friend's PC. He uses the Steam version (complete edition), and the installation seemed to work fine (though I did need to manually locate the BtS EXE), but he can't seem to start a game. It just crashes as soon as he hits play. I've tried disabling the Steam overlay and that didn't help.

It also takes an additional 60 seconds or so before even the loading dialog shows up on screen when launching the mod directly via the shortcut. His PC has about the same specs as mine and I don't have either of these issues.

Any idea what could be the cause of this?

That's a known and mysterious bug. What you need to do is start one game with "Custom Game" instead of "Play Now!", and after that the CTD will be gone, and "Play Now!" will work from then on.

I lost a very small city (2) in early stage because of revolt to an AI. I had about 9 very strong units in the city and they all disapeared. Why is that? It is absolutely unrealistic.

Are you playing SVN? If you are, unfortunately with recent introduction of Rev comp and other stuff, some very weird behaviour is expected for a while, until we find the balanced values for that.

 

[plasmacannon]

Walter, is there a way to delay random events from repeating? At least, if an event occurs, remove it temporarily from the list of what could occur as the next random event.

 

[H4run]

As it is now, you can certainly provide weapons to natives, but they are programmed to really avoid associating with anyone (open borders, stuff like that). They mainly just want to be left alone. So you can arm them, but it is very unlikely they will become your friends and allies as the result.

I really confuse with this one, why it must be like that? What kind of imbalance can it actually did? Actually the design and detail of the minor civilizations are quite beautiful, and they already have too many disadvantages, they have technological cap, no unique building, no unique unit, the only things that made them somewhat better than the major civilization is that they start quite large and they have tribal fort. I think you should make open border with minor civilization possible after we hit the relationship cap to friendly. You can add their role a little more than just a nation to either conquer or leave, actually the local people are quite open to trade with foreigner.

Can I change this by myself?

 

[H4run]

Just tried the non SVN new version, I notice something really weird, I play as Austronesia, and my starting point is not the usual West Java, which is known to be one of the oldest city in Indonesia and was known as Sunda Kelapa which was founded in the years of 300, and serve as both the main port and capital, that city is now known as Jakarta, and even today that place is still hold as Indonesian modern capital. But instead that part is occupied by Barbarian, I mean that's so strange, while I start in East Java instead, and when I settle my capital it name itself as "Medan", which is a city in North Sumatera, and the establishment is far more recent than that of Sunda Kelapa, and Medan was just serve as a Kampung (Village) back then, that's why it was known to be "Kampung Medan" or "Medan Village" it is a part of Kingdom of Aru in Sumatera.

This changes is not affect the immersiveness, but also it end up punishing Austronesian player by unable to focus more on fishing early because there are no fish spot for work boat to work, except near Bali there is one calm or pearl I forget, the rest are spices and sugar which I cannot even cultivated with my worker if I want to go agrarian.

While why I should go agrarian playing Austronesian? Austronesian was known to be maritime Kingdom, I mean they are living among the 17000 islands. The more proper, more Austronesian starting point is occupied by Barbarian city.

While in other hand my partner play as Mongol, the starting point is more logical, it directly give cattle and horse nearby the capital, which is fit with your technological plan as Mongol, which is go to the wheel, and jump directly to animal husbandry.

Even though the art now look much better, however the Austronesian starting point in this version is not correct unlike in the previous version, also the capital naming is somewhat erred. Also Soekarno both in the past and current is written with "Oe" instead of "U", it is never written and known as Sukarno but as Soekarno, the same goes for Soeharto, not Suharto.

 

[Aisale]

Hi, in the mid and late period of game, sometimes I can't trade AI with gold, clicking the gold item in diplometic screen is responseless.
Has anyone else met this problem?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Walter, is there a way to delay random events from repeating? At least, if an event occurs, remove it temporarily from the list of what could occur as the next random event.

None that I'd know of. But then again, I'm bad at coding.

I really confuse with this one, why it must be like that? What kind of imbalance can it actually did? Actually the design and detail of the minor civilizations are quite beautiful, and they already have too many disadvantages, they have technological cap, no unique building, no unique unit, the only things that made them somewhat better than the major civilization is that they start quite large and they have tribal fort. I think you should make open border with minor civilization possible after we hit the relationship cap to friendly. You can add their role a little more than just a nation to either conquer or leave, actually the local people are quite open to trade with foreigner.

Can I change this by myself?

Well, the minor civs exist in those scenarios with the specific purpose for being eventually conquered. I didn't want them to end up as anyone's vassals, since there is no way to "modernize" them, and a regular civ having a tribal vassal just seems odd. After all these years, you're probably the first person who expressed a wish to do something other than conquest with them.

I will see what could be done to make them more interactive without breaking the scenario flow.

Just tried the non SVN new version, I notice something really weird, I play as Austronesia, and my starting point is not the usual West Java, which is known to be one of the oldest city in Indonesia and was known as Sunda Kelapa which was founded in the years of 300, and serve as both the main port and capital, that city is now known as Jakarta, and even today that place is still hold as Indonesian modern capital. But instead that part is occupied by Barbarian, I mean that's so strange, while I start in East Java instead, and when I settle my capital it name itself as "Medan", which is a city in North Sumatera, and the establishment is far more recent than that of Sunda Kelapa, and Medan was just serve as a Kampung (Village) back then, that's why it was known to be "Kampung Medan" or "Medan Village" it is a part of Kingdom of Aru in Sumatera.

This changes is not affect the immersiveness, but also it end up punishing Austronesian player by unable to focus more on fishing early because there are no fish spot for work boat to work, except near Bali there is one calm or pearl I forget, the rest are spices and sugar which I cannot even cultivated with my worker if I want to go agrarian.

Ah, this is an interesting one. If you played the previous versions, you might have noticed that Austronesians just end up sitting on their starting island doing nothing. I tried A LOT of different things to "wake them up" and make them actually expand to other islands and/or mainland, including changing starting resources, spots, leaders etc. Placing a barbarian city at the same island with them is the only thing that finally worked. Yeah, it might make things a bit more distracting for the human player, but in the end it makes AI Austronesia perform MUCH better. It's black magic, but it works. If there was a way to do it without that, believe me, I'd be all for it. As for the leader, providing them with a seafaring leader just makes them absolutely OP on the Earth map.

Hi, in the mid and late period of game, sometimes I can't trade AI with gold, clicking the gold item in diplometic screen is responseless.
Has anyone else met this problem?

No, I can't say I have. And even if I were to reproduce it, the actual diplomacy interface is hardcoded in the exe file AFAIK, and thus can't be edited at all.

 

[H4run]

Well, the minor civs exist in those scenarios with the specific purpose for being eventually conquered. I didn't want them to end up as anyone's vassals, since there is no way to "modernize" them, and a regular civ having a tribal vassal just seems odd. After all these years, you're probably the first person who expressed a wish to do something other than conquest with them.

Man they are awesome people without gun, just give them guns, so they can be awesome people with guns on their hand. Years ago you suggest me to turn off the vassal state, since then I always turn off the vassal state option. I have much more better games. I think you should make them bit stubborn and fearless like unable to be capitalized, and will not run toward a much stronger nation, or simply unable to turn into vassal. Nevertheless, I strongly believes that it is such a waste to reduce their role to only to either "take it or leave it", they should do more as a background, take a little bit larger role, and you will surprise what magic can they offer you in return, the game will be more dynamic, and each gameplay will be surprising and different.

I will see what could be done to make them more interactive without breaking the scenario flow.

You are so kind. We should have an option to change history in this game. Colonialism makes those brave, dignity and beautiful peoples into thieves and brigand. You cannot help to feel that they are more sincere civilizations than the major nation, even though it is silly because they are pretty much an AI, but you cannot help not to assume that they are very sincere.

Ah, this is an interesting one. If you played the previous versions, you might have noticed that Austronesians just end up sitting on their starting island doing nothing. I tried A LOT of different things to "wake them up" and make them actually expand to other islands and/or mainland, including changing starting resources, spots, leaders etc. Placing a barbarian city at the same island with them is the only thing that finally worked. Yeah, it might make things a bit more distracting for the human player, but in the end it makes AI Austronesia perform MUCH better. It's black magic, but it works. If there was a way to do it without that, believe me, I'd be all for it. As for the leader, providing them with a seafaring leader just makes them absolutely OP on the Earth map.

I always found different experience in my game, most of the time the coach potatoes is dravidan, but in my last game, they expand until Irian, conquered Khemr, and becomes my strongest adversary, for the first time in my game play I can see what kind of AI they are when they grow horn on their head. Just amazing. The only things that repeated so much is that Armenian becomes one of the super power with immense strong army, usually in the old civ 4 18 civic scenario that will be Qin Shi Huang. While Indonesia in my last game expand to Australia and Malaysia, they bullied the aborigine, and becomes relatively rich and advance compare to other countries.

You know I just don't know what to plan playing as the current Austronesian. I mean look, settling in East Java, surround by Spices, Sugar and one cattle, no sea resources, and near me there is a barbarian. So should I go for animal husbandry? then Rush toward calendar? should I build army and conquer Jakarta? But there are no enough production nearby my cities and as far as I know the closest iron I can get is in the dessert around Australia. In the capital it is very important to have at least 3 resources that can be process early on, while out of the 3 resources available only one the one that I can process early on. My easy suggestion to fix this is that, why don't you put Indonesia starting point in Jakarta aka West Java? while the barbarian can settle on the east? the second solution is that, just delete the sugar and spices, and changes it with water resources and rice field. Java is not so rich with spices, Sumatran is more known for that. While Kalimantan is known for the rich oil and coal, that's why huge transnational company like Total and Mobile Oil settle there. And Irian known for its gold, this is the reason a small company like freeport grow huge, because the gold in Irian is so much that the local said it is as huge as a mountain.

 

[Shuikkanen]

I kind of agree with Haroon here. After all these years I think this game could do with a bit more dynamic minor nations especially in Africa and the Americas.

As for the Austronesia, Haroon: I think it really needs re-emphasizing that previously Austronesia was not a couch potato. They were worse. They plain never settled new cities. Never. Not one. It was really weird and due to some strange, deep AI behaviour that was difficult to pin down. Something about the proximity of the Khmers made the AI always decide that it was not worth settling until the Khmer were gone, and it either tried to attack them (which was futile as they didn't have the production capabilities to mount a succesful assault anyway) and sometimes they even realized that and kept on building wonders instead (ironically making them the biggest enemy of a builder-type player such as myself).

In my own games, I got so frustrated about that and tried to mess with the map at the start of games with WorldBuilder to come up with some solution. Making the other side of their island SUPER attractive as a city location. Nope. Changing the leaders to see if it was tied to their personality. Nope. Nothing seemed to work. In fact, I think I gave them a free extra settler. It just sat in the capital. Forever. Nothing worked until the dev team came up with the current solution of the barb city, which is historically weird, but at least it makes the AI do *something*.

BTW: The Austronesia not having much in the way of production seems to be the one thing that keeps the human player in check when they play it. My strategy was always: Settle Australia for that iron. I haven't gotten around to playing as Austronesia in the current configuration, but I would have said that previously they were -- for the human player -- the strongest, safest civ to pick by a good margin. They have the south Pacific as their own personal playground. No-one ever attacks them. Just don't step foot on the mainland or mess with Japan and you were fine to encroach on the Aborigines and eventually, with infinite patience and perseverance, you took over the whole of Australia, and after that... well... It's like in the classic board game of Risk: You control Australia, you control the whole world.

 

[H4run]

As for the Austronesia, Haroon: I think it really needs re-emphasizing that previously Austronesia was not a couch potato. They were worse. They plain never settled new cities. Never. Not one. It was really weird and due to some strange, deep AI behaviour that was difficult to pin down.

It's strange I never really experience anything like this, perhaps this is a year back svn version, because I never try or use SVN, nevertheless I believe this issue exist and need solution, however putting Austronesia in east Java, surrounded with 3 land resources which two of them need calendar, and no sea resources at all to cultivated, this is a kill for the Austronesian player. AI might survive, by spawning units I think and invade Jakarta in West Java, but player?

I suggest the win and win solution will be, give West Java back as Austronesian capital, and give the East Java for the barbarian. Or else, the barbarian can keep in West Java but give a clear early strategical plan for early state building by putting at least 2 more early resources to work for player.

 

[Alexej]

is there a way to deactivate Revolutions in played game?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

You know I just don't know what to plan playing as the current Austronesian. I mean look, settling in East Java, surround by Spices, Sugar and one cattle, no sea resources, and near me there is a barbarian. So should I go for animal husbandry? then Rush toward calendar? should I build army and conquer Jakarta? But there are no enough production nearby my cities and as far as I know the closest iron I can get is in the dessert around Australia. In the capital it is very important to have at least 3 resources that can be process early on, while out of the 3 resources available only one the one that I can process early on. My easy suggestion to fix this is that, why don't you put Indonesia starting point in Jakarta aka West Java? while the barbarian can settle on the east? the second solution is that, just delete the sugar and spices, and changes it with water resources and rice field. Java is not so rich with spices, Sumatran is more known for that. While Kalimantan is known for the rich oil and coal, that's why huge transnational company like Total and Mobile Oil settle there. And Irian known for its gold, this is the reason a small company like freeport grow huge, because the gold in Irian is so much that the local said it is as huge as a mountain.

You definitely should just conquer that barb city ASAP. It really isn't that hard to do. It doesn't have any of the tribal forts or fancy units. It literally sits there waiting to be conquered. As far as resources concerned, I will consider, but I loathe to add anything that will make life for Austronesians easier. They are already one of the easiest civs on World Maps.

And the starting point is the focal point of most regional empires - Srivijaya, Mataram, Majapahit etc. It would feel wrong to move it from that spot.

I kind of agree with Haroon here. After all these years I think this game could do with a bit more dynamic minor nations especially in Africa and the Americas.

Maybe. That wasn't the initial concept, but I see the logic in that. One thing I don't want to give them though is the ability to sign open borders, as that would defeat their "roadblock" purpose, as well as significantly accelerate the tech speed, especially in the Americas.

In my own games, I got so frustrated about that and tried to mess with the map at the start of games with WorldBuilder to come up with some solution. Making the other side of their island SUPER attractive as a city location. Nope. Changing the leaders to see if it was tied to their personality. Nope. Nothing seemed to work. In fact, I think I gave them a free extra settler. It just sat in the capital. Forever. Nothing worked until the dev team came up with the current solution of the barb city, which is historically weird, but at least it makes the AI do *something*.

Indeed, you are almost literally retelling what I did as well (and many other things, like moving the starting position to different islands etc. I had almost given up on them doing anything meaningful, so you can imagine my happiness when this one finally worked.

It's strange I never really experience anything like this, perhaps this is a year back svn version, because I never try or use SVN, nevertheless I believe this issue exist and need solution, however putting Austronesia in east Java, surrounded with 3 land resources which two of them need calendar, and no sea resources at all to cultivated, this is a kill for the Austronesian player. AI might survive, by spawning units I think and invade Jakarta in West Java, but player?

I feel you're being overly dramatic. You're literally one barbarian city away from being in the same position. Capturing one barbarian city is not such a big deal. Also, I don't get your point about "spawning units". AI in RI doesn't do anything players can't do. And AI generally deals with this city fine very early on.

is there a way to deactivate Revolutions in played game?

No easy way, but generally speaking, you can edit Revolutions.py to make it practically irrelevant. For instance, you can edit

        self.iSafeZone        = 250    ## No Revolution Below This Level
        self.iDangerZone        = 750    ## Can Start Uprising

to sky-high values so that they are almost never reached.

But all in all, I'd much rather have player input on how it should be tweaked for them to not want to turn it off...

 

[Alexej]

I liked concept of Revolutions in other mods where it was used, but somehow I am getting every third or fourth turn message about aztecs destroyed but there is also main Aztec who is surviving. Now it feels like complete mess and it also means I am getting more "Come join my war or I will like you less" messages. Allmost all factions I am getting twice one of them minor and that one is bullied, destroyed and respawned I think...

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

That has more to do with BarbarianCiv component, I think. Some barbarians "settle" to become new Aztecs, then revolt to become barbarians again. To remove this, you are probably better off editing a different file, BarbCiv.py
Find the line "iChance = iPopulation * iCities" and change it to "iChance = 0". I think we'll disable this component for the World Maps anyway.