-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
Realism Invictus
- Thread starter Walter Hawkwood
- Start date
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
I'd love to see the logs for these errors. I didn't run into any myself, but I'd definitely want to fix them if there is still stuff that doesn't work.
Is RV "Road to Victory"? If so, I don't see how it pertains to our mod.
Still working, yeah. Probably even will do a traditional Christmas release for 3.5, though don't hold me to my word for that. As for afterwards, we'll see how it goes. At this point, it's getting rather lonely working on RI, so I'm thinking that it might be the time to stop.
First, I'd like to say that I'm really excited about Revolutions component. RI is one of my favourite version of Civilization and revolutions/separatism was one of the important compotents I always felt was missing. Thanks for you work!
I don't remember if anyone mentioned it already, so I'll write about a strange thing I encountered in RI Europe scanario while playing version 5198 - on turn 2 all barbarians (except those on British Isles) unite into one giant empire. So, from the very beginning of the game there was a huge Austroneisan (during my first try) or Mayan (my second try) empire that covered almost half of the map, having numerous cities in Europe, Africa and Middle East.
I don't remember if anyone mentioned it already, so I'll write about a strange thing I encountered in RI Europe scanario while playing version 5198 - on turn 2 all barbarians (except those on British Isles) unite into one giant empire. So, from the very beginning of the game there was a huge Austroneisan (during my first try) or Mayan (my second try) empire that covered almost half of the map, having numerous cities in Europe, Africa and Middle East.
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
The new update should fix that for all the scenarios. Barbarians will no longer settle on those maps where there's a lot of preplaced barb cities.
CIV4CommerceInfo.xml
Sathar
Warlord
I've looked a few times in the past but I've never been able to find any logs. Does logging need to be turned on in the BUG menu? I've even looked there in the past but never found anything.
In 5199 I'm still getting some BUG OnFoundReligion (or something like that) errors, though some religions do seem to be getting purged.
Other than that, 5199 is working pretty well so far. I'm mid-medieval on my current World Map game. Nubia got the upper hand in Africa is being super-aggressive, but while new for me that's not out of line. I like the Revolution changes "better", though I wish the end-result was a little more elegant than "1 in 5 chance every turn your developed city flips to barbarian, loses all it's culture buildings, and has it's handful of under-powered melee "defenders" overrun by whoever has an army nearby". I am suddenly using (specialist) spies more often in order to keep my cities in check, which adds a little diversity. I'm also more inclined to settle a Great Spy for a permanent stability boost. I'm anticipating the micro-managing to ease up a bit when the later Espionage-related techs show up and I start putting in things like Jails and Security Bureaus.
Addendum: Another thought, since Spy units are limited to 3 per Civ, how about having them lower Separation a few points while stationed in a friendly city? I'd say no more than -5%, though that would give a little boost for a couple of problem cities as opposed to stationing more garrison troops.
Last edited:
Sathar
Warlord
Okay, I finally figured out how to work the Autolog (I didn't realize it has to be manually activated with Alt-L). Here's the turn where Islam is founded, it shows Christianity being removed from several cities (interestingly seems to only be my capital several games in a row). The BUG error isn't in the log, it only shows on the scrolling notification zone at the top of the game screen (it's not added to the in-game log screen either).
The "remove religions on founding religion" mechanic is incredibly frustrating and, in my experience, a net negative. A religion gets founded and suddenly 3-4 of my cities are unhappy. This is not satisfying gameplay.
A simpler and more balanced option would be to provide a set number of inquisitors on religion founding. Or better yet: Allow religions spread to add a 2nd (or even 3rd) religion to a city. The "religion can only spread to cities that lack religion" limit was always an artificial and hollow.
Edit: On a similar note, would be nice if religion spread didn't cancel in-progress construction of pagan buildings. The loss of hammers and time to circumstances beyond one's own control is very upsetting.
A simpler and more balanced option would be to provide a set number of inquisitors on religion founding. Or better yet: Allow religions spread to add a 2nd (or even 3rd) religion to a city. The "religion can only spread to cities that lack religion" limit was always an artificial and hollow.
Edit: On a similar note, would be nice if religion spread didn't cancel in-progress construction of pagan buildings. The loss of hammers and time to circumstances beyond one's own control is very upsetting.
Last edited:
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
I was actually meaning to revert them as they were before. Thanks for reminding me.
Sorry for not instructing you about it; there's a lot of stuff I take for granted after those years. This isn't the log I'm looking for; these logs are enabled in CivilizationIV.ini file and stored in My Games/Beyond the Sword/Logs folder. But I feel like I've fixed that particular bug in the last revision already anyway.
Do you also play with barbarians off because they are outside your control and exist only to harm your civ (and other civs)?
While I will be providing a game option to disable it, I do not feel it "incredibly" frustrating, merely a problem to solve, when it happens. In general, your post has actually made me think about another broader reason that Civ 4 (and RI as its extension) favors snowballing and staying on top once you reach the top. Come to think of it, there are very few "circumstances beyond one's own" in civ series in general. Everything is based on the basic premise of incremental development of any given civ, and the only real threat to this development is another civ that develops better.
There are very few exceptions to that rule - outside factors that are not rival civs. Barbarians are the only one I can think of off the top of my head. And even civs interact with each other in a limited number of ways. Hence the basic premise that once you reach the first place, this means that you are developing better than other civs, and since other than rival civs no risk factors for you exist in mid-late games (after barbarians are no longer a threat), you have already basically won and the rest is just a boring mop up. Come to think of it, this is true of almost all strategy games, unless they are played against a fundamentally asymmetric opponent (that is, where your enemies play by a different set of game rules than you, from Huns in TW:A to aliens in X-Com), which allows a late-game escalation that doesn't feel like an unfair and unwarranted advantage handed out to your opponents.
This is why my efforts are, at least in part, devoted to introducing factors that tend to disrupt the "status quo" of a given game. Religious shock is one of those ways of disrupting a status quo. It leads to bursts of separatism in cities left unhappy and shifts of allegiances between converting civs.
And I don't really feel that it totally takes agency from the receiving side - it doesn't spread anything to the affected cities, so with a missionary scramble, one can counter its effects.
I do not feel that your solution is in any way better. An AI civ founding a late-game religion will not switch to it, because its cities usually already have some earlier religion, either its own or someone else's, and hence these inquisitors will go to waste.
And as for lifting the restriction on religion spread, I actually feel the opposite way about it - Civ 4 already creates way too many multi-religious regions, which are rather rare in real history. Except for Judaism and some frontier territories (such as Balkans), up until very recently, most "cities" on Earth in Civ 4 terms were mono-religious.
Matsuda123
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 518
HannibalBarka
We are Free
hello,
after a year without civ, I am playing back again Realism Invictus (best mod ever
). I have been playing the last version, but I would love to try the SVN version. I changed PC and I couldn't find how to get it though. Help
after a year without civ, I am playing back again Realism Invictus (best mod ever
). I have been playing the last version, but I would love to try the SVN version. I changed PC and I couldn't find how to get it though. Help
Matsuda123
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 518
hello,
after a year without civ, I am playing back again Realism Invictus (best mod ever
This page will give you all the directions you need.
http://www.realism-invictus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=825
Sathar
Warlord
5202 Huge World map: I'm in mid-Medieval and the global revolution level is still at the starting tribal level, I suspect that all of the minor American civs that are trapped in the Ancient era are holding the world average down.
Update: Updated to 5203 mid-game and re-loaded, I'm now in "Client State" so this may be "fixed" (or not really a problem), though I didn't get any pop-ups about the change.
Update: Updated to 5203 mid-game and re-loaded, I'm now in "Client State" so this may be "fixed" (or not really a problem), though I didn't get any pop-ups about the change.
Last edited:
Thank you for your kind answers, the longer I play the more things I recognized, so I decided to write one last post, maybe it helps you improving the mod...
When a barbarian city develops to a new civilization it should be in war with all other civilizations at the moment it occurs. It's completely uncomprehensible that a barbarian city which is attacked by me or I wanted to attack automatically is in peace with all other civs and I have to declare war "again" to attack it. Also the development from a barbarian city to a new civ itself should have more complex requirements in my opinion, for example depending on population, city culture, maybe even having a specific building in the barbarian city and a minimum of laps the city is barbarian until it can develop to a new civ. The technological progress from the new civ should just depend on the progress of the surrounding or adjoining civs.
Also it's really curious that all barbarian units attacking my city dissappear each time a barbarian civ is generated, it would be nice if there's always a variable number of units the new civ gets from the barbars, depending on barbarian units in the surrounding area and a little random factor and that the attacking barbarian units stay barbarian.
I'm still 100% sure about the fact that the national improvement is the cause for overperforming civs like zulu, armenia, turkey, inka compared to all other civs. The difference of their NI carries no weight per tile but when a timar or a cattle trek in addition with pastoral nomadism produces so much food on almost each tile which leads to the fact that each city has 2 or 3 additional specialists over almost all eras (until modern era, because the mechanized farm obsoletes each other improvement) - on the contrary civs like germany, england, japan, aztecs... whose NI is really rare to build and if I have the luck to find one of these rare tiles it has just too low boni to even activate the tile in the concerned city.
If I'm allowed to make a proposal, my recommendation for solving these problems:
Maybe stop the problem with too much multi-religious cities by decreasing the chance of spreading the religion in cities with a religion? For example, a missionary's chance to spread a second religion in a city is 50%, the third religion 25%, and so on. In my view, religion should have even more impact on revolution and diplomacy. And changing religion to any other should not be as easy as changing a civic. I think the state religion has to be at least in the capital city before being able to convert to it. Also missionaries should have less chance to spread religion but instead increase the chance of spreading the religion after a random number of turns. It should be possible that religion spreads also in cities where an other religion exists already to randomize spreading a bit more. In history, when did ever spread a religion in a city in a few years just because of a missionary?
The fact that the boni religious wonders aren't affected by the number of cities with the religion in it makes spreading religion to other civs quite uninteresting. It really would be great if there was a bigger difference between the advantage a religion gives which is spread over the half continent and a religion which exists only in 2 or 3 cities...
What would be if civics (like Theocracy, Social Justice, Free Religion) do not enable infinite specialists, but instead 3-5 or even more specialists (and maybe a free specialist) in each city? Each building which allow specialists would not obsolete when the particular civic is introduced...
In modern era, a craftsman obsoletes mines and lumber mills (in short version). I really don't like the idea that there is no need for mines or lumber mills, because how could a craftsman work without gaining raw materials or ressources? Maybe give him just production boni with some strategic ressources (prime timber, copper, iron, ...) or even give him a small percentage bonus on production for each strategic ressource. You could adopt this to all other specialists, f. e. merchants and having luxury ressources. I know this is a really sensitive issue, this would have a big effect on balancing...
Is the increasing of unit costs for each unit depending to the world map size? I think it should, units just get unattainable when controlling 30 or more cities at the moment... By the way I don't understand why this was introduced at all. I know the reason was to benefit from training different units, but in my opinion I also get a malus for the lack of aids I would get otherwise. Another negative effect for having much units are the maintenance costs. Attacks with just one unit category are much more difficult to defend and brings a variety of strategies in offence and defence. (Yeah, I know there is a button to deactivate it...)
Increasing costs of settlers during the game is a very important thing in my opinion! I'm a little bit annoyed that I must explain this in detail and I don't believe that this is much effort for low effect. My Problem: At the beginning of each game a settler needs 30 to 50 turns (Speed: Legendary) to build. During the mediaval this number shrinks to 10 laps and so on until reaching industrial where one settler needs just 2 or 3 laps! The impact of this fact can be explained fast in the following example:
America was discovered in 1492. It took centuries until the whole continent was populated by many different nations all over the world. It was not because there were some Native American in North America, nor because there were some Incas in South America. In my estimation, in Realism Invictus r5203 this continent would be completely razed and easily repopulated by one civ within a few decades (the civ which first discovers navigation and naval engineering). (I ignore the fact that this would be the financial melt down for each civ, because that's not the point for me at the moment.)
The question for me is not why, but how should the cost for settlers be risen. Here the increasing of unit costs in each era in combination with increasing unit costs per unit and city (to prevent early spamming of settlers or cities) would function quite well, but this is just my idea. An other possibility would be to introduce new units like colonists, which give a new city 3 or 4 population from the beginning istead of 1...
In my opinion, a similar problem exists with workers...
Just some ideas for unit combat balancing:
In the end I just want to thank you for all your work on this project, everything i didn't mention until now works just absolutely fine for me. The devil is always in the details and because of this I think this mod is much better than civ5 and civ6 in each sense, I think this mod is like civ 4² (=16).
When a barbarian city develops to a new civilization it should be in war with all other civilizations at the moment it occurs. It's completely uncomprehensible that a barbarian city which is attacked by me or I wanted to attack automatically is in peace with all other civs and I have to declare war "again" to attack it. Also the development from a barbarian city to a new civ itself should have more complex requirements in my opinion, for example depending on population, city culture, maybe even having a specific building in the barbarian city and a minimum of laps the city is barbarian until it can develop to a new civ. The technological progress from the new civ should just depend on the progress of the surrounding or adjoining civs.
Also it's really curious that all barbarian units attacking my city dissappear each time a barbarian civ is generated, it would be nice if there's always a variable number of units the new civ gets from the barbars, depending on barbarian units in the surrounding area and a little random factor and that the attacking barbarian units stay barbarian.
I'm still 100% sure about the fact that the national improvement is the cause for overperforming civs like zulu, armenia, turkey, inka compared to all other civs. The difference of their NI carries no weight per tile but when a timar or a cattle trek in addition with pastoral nomadism produces so much food on almost each tile which leads to the fact that each city has 2 or 3 additional specialists over almost all eras (until modern era, because the mechanized farm obsoletes each other improvement) - on the contrary civs like germany, england, japan, aztecs... whose NI is really rare to build and if I have the luck to find one of these rare tiles it has just too low boni to even activate the tile in the concerned city.
If I'm allowed to make a proposal, my recommendation for solving these problems:
- cattle treks: either no food bonus at all, but doesn't cut down savanna - or just allowed to build on tiles with savanna, this would secondly require to generate savanna on grassland too.
- timar: either more like a farm, but with more commerce instead of food - or as an alternative for cottages and hamlets, with one or two food, also developing to a town after turns
- highland pasture: either just allowed on tiles with hill AND resource - or with much less food but instead a small chance of discovering horse, cow or sheep (one of them), in case of horse, this would secondly require to generate horse on hills, which I find is realistic anyway.
- anden: new name -> terrace farm: just allowed on tiles with hill and get additional food bonus from food ressources (rice, corn) on hills, this would secondly require to generate these food ressources on hills too
- thermalbad: small boost of healthiness in the next city and much more commerce through techs or buildings, which are enabled in era modern (tourism, ...)
- shipwreck: small boost of happiness in the next city and much more commerce through techs or buildings, which are enabled in era modern...
- chinampa: small boost of healthiness (to cancel the illness out, produced by a swamp) and a small chance of discovering potatoes to make it more likeable to use and more similar to a farm as it really was, now it has the same yields as desert with flood plain has and it does not really get better with time.
- fortified monastasery: why is this improvement enabled with technology meditation and fort bonus I is enabled with technology fortification? This improvement is unlocked really early, which is basically fine, but it has nearly no useful combat or other benefits until reaching some later technologies...
Maybe stop the problem with too much multi-religious cities by decreasing the chance of spreading the religion in cities with a religion? For example, a missionary's chance to spread a second religion in a city is 50%, the third religion 25%, and so on. In my view, religion should have even more impact on revolution and diplomacy. And changing religion to any other should not be as easy as changing a civic. I think the state religion has to be at least in the capital city before being able to convert to it. Also missionaries should have less chance to spread religion but instead increase the chance of spreading the religion after a random number of turns. It should be possible that religion spreads also in cities where an other religion exists already to randomize spreading a bit more. In history, when did ever spread a religion in a city in a few years just because of a missionary?
The fact that the boni religious wonders aren't affected by the number of cities with the religion in it makes spreading religion to other civs quite uninteresting. It really would be great if there was a bigger difference between the advantage a religion gives which is spread over the half continent and a religion which exists only in 2 or 3 cities...
What would be if civics (like Theocracy, Social Justice, Free Religion) do not enable infinite specialists, but instead 3-5 or even more specialists (and maybe a free specialist) in each city? Each building which allow specialists would not obsolete when the particular civic is introduced...
In modern era, a craftsman obsoletes mines and lumber mills (in short version). I really don't like the idea that there is no need for mines or lumber mills, because how could a craftsman work without gaining raw materials or ressources? Maybe give him just production boni with some strategic ressources (prime timber, copper, iron, ...) or even give him a small percentage bonus on production for each strategic ressource. You could adopt this to all other specialists, f. e. merchants and having luxury ressources. I know this is a really sensitive issue, this would have a big effect on balancing...
Is the increasing of unit costs for each unit depending to the world map size? I think it should, units just get unattainable when controlling 30 or more cities at the moment... By the way I don't understand why this was introduced at all. I know the reason was to benefit from training different units, but in my opinion I also get a malus for the lack of aids I would get otherwise. Another negative effect for having much units are the maintenance costs. Attacks with just one unit category are much more difficult to defend and brings a variety of strategies in offence and defence. (Yeah, I know there is a button to deactivate it...)
Increasing costs of settlers during the game is a very important thing in my opinion! I'm a little bit annoyed that I must explain this in detail and I don't believe that this is much effort for low effect. My Problem: At the beginning of each game a settler needs 30 to 50 turns (Speed: Legendary) to build. During the mediaval this number shrinks to 10 laps and so on until reaching industrial where one settler needs just 2 or 3 laps! The impact of this fact can be explained fast in the following example:
America was discovered in 1492. It took centuries until the whole continent was populated by many different nations all over the world. It was not because there were some Native American in North America, nor because there were some Incas in South America. In my estimation, in Realism Invictus r5203 this continent would be completely razed and easily repopulated by one civ within a few decades (the civ which first discovers navigation and naval engineering). (I ignore the fact that this would be the financial melt down for each civ, because that's not the point for me at the moment.)
The question for me is not why, but how should the cost for settlers be risen. Here the increasing of unit costs in each era in combination with increasing unit costs per unit and city (to prevent early spamming of settlers or cities) would function quite well, but this is just my idea. An other possibility would be to introduce new units like colonists, which give a new city 3 or 4 population from the beginning istead of 1...
In my opinion, a similar problem exists with workers...
Just some ideas for unit combat balancing:
- In my opinion, in ancient gameplay, peltasts (recon unit) are a little bit outperforming compared to chariots (charge mounted unit), which has horse as a requirement, a peltast doesn't have any resource requirements, they also have same strength against melee units...
- Stealth corvettes are pretty useless, maybe it would be more interesting if they are invisible for most units. I also think submarines are visible for too much units, their invisibility is nearly useless and and because of this fact destroyer ships are underperforming too...
- I would lower the strength of all Artilleries that can range bombard, I can't find any reason, why these units have nearly the same strength as other gunpowder units in their era, I think in real they always needed some protection units like infantry in war, in game they don't really need them, they fight by themselves...
- I can't see any combat chances when i attack a ship with a helicopter...
- I really like the concept of emplaced artilleries and heavy batteries, it just would be nice if they get much more importance until the end, such as a last upgrade, they have much more strength and boni against air units and a nice bonus for city defence, it would be thrilling if the maximum per city is one unit, but instead it can be built in each city (it needs the building fortification and each fortification requires 2 Arsenals)
- Yields on neutral territorium seem not to be updated when ressources are revealed through technologies until I reload the game...
- I once played japan and had a small inland sea with islands on one tile. I was not able to build an improvement on it because there was no resource in this sea, so i wasn't able to build a working boat to improve it...
- I don't like the fact that crystal palace provides 2 steel, it's anyway too easy to get this resource, because iron and coal aren't rare at all.
- I would find it great if wonders require some resources (in the city plot) instead of just giving the city a production boost
- I also would find it great if a great prophet is required to found a religion (and get a free spot for a priest by a pagan temple to be able to get early prophets)
- Wouldn't it be nice if units get their promotion a little bit randomly, depending on the fights it had? F. e. a scout winning a few fights on tundra or ice could give him the arctic combat I promotion when getting enough experience or when attacking animals he gets combat I or land tactic...
- (diplomacy really needs an upgrade!)
In the end I just want to thank you for all your work on this project, everything i didn't mention until now works just absolutely fine for me. The devil is always in the details and because of this I think this mod is much better than civ5 and civ6 in each sense, I think this mod is like civ 4² (=16).
Walter Hawkwood
RI Curator
All right everybody, I've given releasing a new version of RI at Christmas time, as per our tradition. I decided that the new version will be coming out, but I am really not satisfied yet with the state of the new features, especially Revolutions. They will be left in the release, but turned off by default, suggesting they are not yet at the desired quality level. I am also fully conscious that my coding skills, though quite improved during the last year (as basically any improvement is quite a big one when compared to zero it was previouisly 
), may not be enough to ever give it enough polish by myself - so unless I get substantial help from a really competent coder, it may stay this way for good.
Thanks! I never even considered this as a potential issue when I set the average era to be the trigger. It may not be easy to fix, as average era is calculated by the dll, but I will definitely give thought to fixing it.
Thanks! Those are excellent suggestions! I will keep those in mind when improving the barbarian civ component. While I don't think they should start at war with all civs, as that might be harmful for those civs themselves (as AI might take these new wars seriously and abandon the actual productive stuff it was doing in favor of a new war across the whole world), they should probably start at war with their immediate neighbors.
But the alternative on those tiles would be farms that produce even more food and allow for even more specialists! In fact, the most constantly overpeforming civ in my experience is Korea - a civ whose NI is a farm with NO food bonus over regular ones; but since they are more enthusiastic in building those farms, they get more population and more specialists. So basically I tend to agree with you that these civs may overperform, this is IMO not due to their NI being overpowered per se, but rather because they are willing to build more of those earlier - resulting in net more food.
I will consider those, but as I wrote above, I don't consider their stats to be a problem themselves.
I think the resources mostly spawn in the same was as in vanilla Civ 4; as for savannas and other custom terrain features, not adding resources to them was a deliberate decision for compatibility with custom map scripts - if they don't add new features, nothing will be fundamentally broken.
I think the missionaries already work that way. They have escalating chance of failing the more religions are already present in a city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_the_Illuminator or tons of other similar stories from basically any missionary religion. When there's no direct opposition from those in power (not to mention when there's a direct political will towards it), mass conversions can happen very quickly.
Yeah, I plan on revisiting that. It will definitely be dynamic again.
I don't think there are any buildings the main purpose of which would be specialist slots (except for craftsmen, but you don't get a civic for that).
That was more or less the deliberate concept - gradual movement of productive forces from countryside to cities, as represented by craftsmen gradually becoming better than (or at least on par with) mines and other terrain improvements, in terms of raw production output.
Yes, they are dependent on map size, with larger sizes getting much less increase. I feel people complaining about units being unattainable think in vanilla logic. Most cities by that time should really be garrisoned by irregulars, a unit which has the least cost increase.
I really don't understand why this is being an issue. Yes, building settlers becomes easier when time goes on. I don't see why it shouldn't be. And as for the example you give, in RI World Maps I usually see the very opposite - Americas staying populated by native tribes up to modern age.
A good remark, highlighting the issue I was looking to address for a long time already - I will definitely do something about chariots so that they are more useful.
As they are in real life
Submarines and their invisibility are a more pressing issue though, something I may look into in future.
Well, infantry charging an artillery position head on is a recipe for disaster IRL. Artillery has a hard counter in form of cavalry though.
Interesting. Will look into that.
Again, that was a deliberate decision, forcing players to designate strategic strong points.
Hm... I guess that one is a Civ 4 engine issue, beyond my expertise.
Was it a sea or a fresh water lake? As in, were the water tiles "Coast" or "Fresh water"?
Well, neither do I, but that and Synthetic Oil Plant are an opportunity for high-tech players who are left without appropriate resource at that point to get it. Steel and fuel are so fundamental to the gameplay that I felt alternative means of getting them was needed just in case.
I didn't understand that one.
I am thinking about it. Not sure if AI would be able to adequately deal with this, deliberately generating GPs to found a religion.
An interesting idea. I will think about it.
), may not be enough to ever give it enough polish by myself - so unless I get substantial help from a really competent coder, it may stay this way for good.Thanks! I never even considered this as a potential issue when I set the average era to be the trigger. It may not be easy to fix, as average era is calculated by the dll, but I will definitely give thought to fixing it.
Thanks! Those are excellent suggestions! I will keep those in mind when improving the barbarian civ component. While I don't think they should start at war with all civs, as that might be harmful for those civs themselves (as AI might take these new wars seriously and abandon the actual productive stuff it was doing in favor of a new war across the whole world), they should probably start at war with their immediate neighbors.
But the alternative on those tiles would be farms that produce even more food and allow for even more specialists! In fact, the most constantly overpeforming civ in my experience is Korea - a civ whose NI is a farm with NO food bonus over regular ones; but since they are more enthusiastic in building those farms, they get more population and more specialists. So basically I tend to agree with you that these civs may overperform, this is IMO not due to their NI being overpowered per se, but rather because they are willing to build more of those earlier - resulting in net more food.
I will consider those, but as I wrote above, I don't consider their stats to be a problem themselves.
I think the resources mostly spawn in the same was as in vanilla Civ 4; as for savannas and other custom terrain features, not adding resources to them was a deliberate decision for compatibility with custom map scripts - if they don't add new features, nothing will be fundamentally broken.
I think the missionaries already work that way. They have escalating chance of failing the more religions are already present in a city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_the_Illuminator or tons of other similar stories from basically any missionary religion. When there's no direct opposition from those in power (not to mention when there's a direct political will towards it), mass conversions can happen very quickly.
Yeah, I plan on revisiting that. It will definitely be dynamic again.
I don't think there are any buildings the main purpose of which would be specialist slots (except for craftsmen, but you don't get a civic for that).
That was more or less the deliberate concept - gradual movement of productive forces from countryside to cities, as represented by craftsmen gradually becoming better than (or at least on par with) mines and other terrain improvements, in terms of raw production output.
Yes, they are dependent on map size, with larger sizes getting much less increase. I feel people complaining about units being unattainable think in vanilla logic. Most cities by that time should really be garrisoned by irregulars, a unit which has the least cost increase.
I really don't understand why this is being an issue. Yes, building settlers becomes easier when time goes on. I don't see why it shouldn't be. And as for the example you give, in RI World Maps I usually see the very opposite - Americas staying populated by native tribes up to modern age.
A good remark, highlighting the issue I was looking to address for a long time already - I will definitely do something about chariots so that they are more useful.
As they are in real life
Submarines and their invisibility are a more pressing issue though, something I may look into in future.
Well, infantry charging an artillery position head on is a recipe for disaster IRL. Artillery has a hard counter in form of cavalry though.
Interesting. Will look into that.
Again, that was a deliberate decision, forcing players to designate strategic strong points.
Hm... I guess that one is a Civ 4 engine issue, beyond my expertise.
Was it a sea or a fresh water lake? As in, were the water tiles "Coast" or "Fresh water"?
Well, neither do I, but that and Synthetic Oil Plant are an opportunity for high-tech players who are left without appropriate resource at that point to get it. Steel and fuel are so fundamental to the gameplay that I felt alternative means of getting them was needed just in case.
I didn't understand that one.
I am thinking about it. Not sure if AI would be able to adequately deal with this, deliberately generating GPs to found a religion.
An interesting idea. I will think about it.
Last edited:
Well, no, but barbarian invasions are predictable and something I can respond to. Religious shock, not so much. It's immediate with no opportunity for impact, and I'm not guaranteed to have the resources necessary to re-spread that religion.
If it's to stay, though, could Rabbi's be moved to an earlier tech? As it is they come very late relative to the religion, and their tech founding Christianity makes rushing for Rabbis a religion self-sabotage.
Since you made it optional and we can both play to our preferences, not much reason for a debate the matter... Except for a few comments below, that I want to add.
I think that's a great idea, but could I suggest shifting where this happens? I don't think any religion ever began by immediately uprooting anything around it. Usually new religions/cults are minimal and stigmatized before they become popular. It's not until someone makes it a big deal that it becomes an issue.
So I suggest making Religious shock not happen with founding of religions, but instead happen with religious changes. Changing from religion A to religion B impacts religion in that civ. Probably not all that strong or problematic in its own right, but reflects a lot of actual history, and adds a much strong power level to changing another civ's religion via espionage, which I think is key. Religious shock is no longer a "wrong place, wrong time" situation, but instead a tool used to disrupt other civs, which sounds perfectly in line with what you wanted.
Additionally, perhaps spiritual leaders should be exempt from religious shock.
True, but that was usually a matter of force. The Roman empire eliminating pagan beliefs/traditions, the Arabian conquests eroding Zoroastrianism, persecution of Buddhism, Native Americans being wiped out, etc. Less to do with natural spread and more to do with the policies of the powers-that-be.
Now that I think about it, I think allowing religion to spread to religious cities is actually a great solution, if multiple religions increases separatism. Removing religion will become a much stronger aspect of the game, and lend more credence to "No non-state religion spread" civics. New religions will have an easier time spreading so they aren't extinct-on-founding.
Maybe it's possible for it to function as "average era of met civilizations"?
Could it vary by leader?
I think barbarians uniting into a civ should be seen as a momentous occasion in that new civ, and the assigned leader can reflect the nature of that occasion. Some might be like Genghis Khan uniting various tribes with the intent to conquer, but most, I imagine, would reflect the barbarian civilization maturing and stabilizing to the point of not needing to raid, etc.
By the way, Walter, I am a programmer. Some experience with Python and none with C, but let me know if I can be of any help. I actually have time off from now until January 2nd, so PM me it you want to try and coordinate a time.
2popbulb
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2018
- Messages
- 80
Maybe it would be best if religions are founded randomly,like a special in-game event without influence of players. Only thing that stays the same every time is that Judaism and Christianity are founded in the same city.
And religious wonders should be possible to build only if religion is present in that city. How can you build Notre Dame or Sistine Chapel without Christianity in your empire?
And religious wonders should be possible to build only if religion is present in that city. How can you build Notre Dame or Sistine Chapel without Christianity in your empire?
