Thanks for the clarification. I'm assuming there's some sort of scaled down version of this after the first spawn? I've seen as many as three in a row while taking a big capital city.
The exact same formula applies; since it's almost never 100% even in the first instance, and subtracts culture that is used to calculate the probability each iteration, it scales down naturally. In theory a very lucky city can spawn more, just as a very lucky unit can win many combats in a row.
Is there any way to reduce/remove the bonus that barb-turned-civs get after uniting? If I remember what I saw in the world builder correctly (and understood it properly), they get a 150 turn bonus or so of +50 military unit production. Is that right? It's been a while since I investigated, but it's been a thorn in my side for a while.
From a play experience, that bonus is very negative. On emperor it's hard enough to afford a decent military, and having a neighbor pop up that's technologically advanced and pumping out units non-stop is not enjoyable. And worse, it usually happens after investing a lot into building an invasion force meant/designed to take on barb cities, but as soon as you're ready they unite. If you choose to invade anyway, you're facing an endless tide of skirmishers keeping your army on "wait to heal". The AI isn't good at defeating your army, but it's suicidal and "we can build more" tactics are sure to prevent you from getting anything done. And if you change your mind on invading, then all the hammers and gold spent on training up your army were a waste, and you're now stuck paying the upkeep costs (or deleting the units).
I like the revolutions component, and barbarians uniting is a great feature. But they're getting way too many bonuses. I think they should be weaker and vulnerable, both from a realism perspective and a game design perspective. If I wanted more capable and sturdy civs in the game, I'd turn off revolutions and add more starting civs. United barbarians should pose more of a threat than just barbarians, for sure, but they shouldn't be as formidable as they are, and maybe not formidable at all.
Sorry, but I don't feel that way. If you'd like to see them simply as fodder for being conquered, then turning off the feature would give you exactly what you want - the barbarians in the game already are. What I wanted from this component are actual civs that can claim a decent place under the sun and not just fodder for others. Even with a bonus, I rarely see barbarian-derived civs rise to one of the top positions, which I'd like to see happen at least from time to time.
The fundamental problem of why they need the bonus to stay at least competitive is actually a rather fundamental one - it's in the way a typical Civ 4 game is set up. Before starting on any given (random, not talking about pre-built scenarios here) map, the map generator finds
all the
best city founding spots on the map, and sweetens many of them some more - those become the starting locations of the initial civs, and they are the best ones that particular game has to offer. This means, by definition, any barbarian civ will have an inferior starting territory - and in a world where not only all the best places are already taken from the start, but those civs already had time to pick out the
second-best spots around them too. Contrast that to barbarian cities basically spawning wherever nobody is looking, if that would be a legal city spot. In gameplay terms, that means that those civs start basically at least a couple of difficulty levels above the rest.
Edit: Just noticed that the game has Pacal II The Sheild (603-683), though wikipedia attributes those years and titles to
Pacal I with Pacal II being a later ruler in the 8th century.
It's complicated. To quote Wiki:
In modern sources his name is also sometimes appended with a
regnal number,
[N 5] to distinguish him from other rulers with this name, that either preceded or followed him in the dynastic lineage of Palenque. Confusingly, he has at times been referred to as
either "Pakal I" or "Pakal II". Reference to him as Pakal II alludes to his maternal grandfather (who died c.612) also being named
Janahb Pakal. However, although his grandfather was a personage of
ajaw ranking, he does not himself appear to have been a king. When instead the name Pakal I is used, this serves to distinguish him from two later known successors to the Palenque rulership,
Kʼinich Janaab Pakal II (ruled c. 742) and
Janaab Pakal III, the last-known Palenque ruler (ruled c. 799).
That said, Pakal I does seem like the less confusing option.
Pacification is great on a few skirmishers or chariots to deal with barbarian incursions or slave revolts. But I agree, your shock troops need city raider and your defensive troops need combat or city defense. No reason to have a large "anti-barbarian task force".
This. Pacification retains its usefulness in situations where the main combat you intended to see for a while is against rebels (slavery/serfdom), and that's actually the main use of the promo IMO, not the map-wandering barbarians. A warmonger planning on lots of external wars has much less need of it.
Hi, can somebody please tell me what file do I need to edit so I can build cities right next to each other?
Answered elsewhere:
http://www.realism-invictus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2098
