I meant removing religions from the cities I've conquered. This hugely pisses off everyone following that religion simply because there is a lot of cities, which would make sense if it didn't persist for so long and wasn't so drastic. As it is right now, imo it's not worth it at all, it ruins relationships for the rest of the game, more than anything else you could do.
That does seem harsh. While the radical penalty is appropriate for the era, it shouldn't be particularly sticky. I'll try tweaking the memory duration.
It'd make sense if it was some sort of advanced civilization that got conquered, but if it is barbarians or some primitive tribe, realistically, I think they should get assimilated quickly. Or at the very least we could pretend that they got integrated into the culture and accepted the 'civilized' way of living. But it seems there's no easy way around it.
Again, I am talking about an issue I've encountered on pre-made maps, where there's a lot of pre-placed barbarians.
Look at the Welsh for example
. Generally speaking I feel this is okay as it is right now - nothing will ever be 100% as good for a civ as its heartlands. I actually like the fact that there is now always a tiny (or not-so-tiny) subversive element everywhere you conquer.
i5-10600K
32gb ram
amd radeon rx 6700 xt
nvme ssd
and windows 10
I have been only playing on the europe custom scenario. As England and Poland. With both it started at around 200-300 turns in which I had to reload game and then it would crash every 50 or so turns.
The specs seem normal. Can you try playing some smaller map (say, random large map) if you're not too put off by that idea, and see if the crashing is there too?
Not sure if that's it, but I've noticed previously that before a barb civ settles, barbs seem to stop appearing for quite a while and then reappear once the new civ is settled (if there are still viable spots). Think you changed something about that already?
That's actually a vanilla mechanic. Barbarians don't spawn at the tiles within someone's line of sight,
barbarians themselves included. So the more barbarians there are, the fewer barbarians spawn.
I know I questioned this at some point or another. If somebody makes a strategic decision based on that info, can it really be said not to affect gameplay?
The cynical retort to that is that it doesn't affect mine.
And while it is obviously not my motto, and I try to cater to the user base, one has to remember that it has some truth to it - I will always prioritise stuff that is more readily affecting my own playing style. Hence the de facto balance of RI revolving around random maps, however popular the scenarios are with others - I simply don't play them, and as such feel less moved to tweak stuff there. So yes, as I wrote before, I will see if I can fix that easily, but if not, it's not something I'll be compelled to spend hours figuring out how to fix.
My beef with this is that it's not obvious that not connecting/having a resource becomes the better play over the course of the game. Sure, in the ancient and classical having the extra food is worth it. In the middle ages, maybe, but those extra 3 or 4 food now cost you 0.5% or 1% epidemics chance in all cities. Once you approach the stage where city growth is limited by your national epidemics reduction wonders in the renaissance, these resources become a hindrance.
In a bit of an evil turn to play around this, I'm gifting animals to my opponents. The AI doesn't seem to take epidemics into account.
I actually feel it's rather obvious - the UI suggests you do that, and the AI does that. I myself found that out observing the AI - while it can be pretty obtuse in other areas, when it comes to terrain development, it's actually smarter than most players. There were some cases AI has shown me exploits or min-maxing combos that players haven't figured out when it comes to improvements.
Did that once. It's because you relegated the inflation display to a tooltip and it's not a seperate entry like in vanilla.
I wanted to ask "was it ever there?" and then figured out I could launch vanilla and see for myself
. Apparently, a separate inflation display was taken out in K-Mod 1.45, and we merged that. While it provides no additional useful info (as the inflated costs are already rolled into other items), I can bring it back simply for the avoidance of confusion.
Oh, I also forgot to mention that hills do not have a listing in the Pedia, and desert doesn't show its combat malus there, only in the combat tooltip.
Hills are technically not a terrain type, nor a feature. Including them in the pedia would require a majorly new item that I'm not prepared to work on. As for the desert, it has no inherent combat malus - perhaps you were fighting against a unit with a desert combat bonus (such as lots of Berber and Arab units).
You literally can not go peaceful option until you destroy your neighbor(Monarch diff). I thought that it might be due to a balance of power, but even 1:0 ratio is not making you safer.
It does definitely make you
safer, but it doesn't make you
safe. Certain leaders can attack (somewhat suicidally) even at 1:1 power ratio; dogpile wars (when the victim is already engaged in another war) have a far lower barrier for AIs to enter, and there is always a possibility of a powerful AI simply bribing/bullying someone into a war with you. In my recent game, I was in a war against Incas (who were world-leading in both score and power), and they roped civs with power ratios as low as 2.6 into war with me.
Where are the bug options ini's located because when I load the game I get 6 messages saying the bug ini required to play haven't been read . Also I can't find them when searching my civ 4 bts file on steam
Mods/Total Realism (or simply "Realism" if using SVN)/UserSettings. If there is no such folder, maybe the game can't create it due to lacking system permissions.
my game throw me to the desktop, no idea why. anyone can help?
reading saves before nothing change, game crash always in this turn
https://www.sendspace.com/file/t5y7b8
edit: austria civ make game crash, i remove it using worldbuilder and all works fine, problem solved
Glad you figured it out. That's basically the extent to which I'd have helped you too.
Some civs really like their cav, the Romans had like 20 9
Cav-units stationed in one city, but I couldn't really find some kind of infantry stack for taking cities. And they kept producing cav. When invading France I killed about 60 9
French knights, 40 of their unique paladins and 50 of their 5
horseman, but only about each 20 of their archers/crossbowman, swordsman and man-at-arms.
Interesting. I'll try looking into it, though it's not something I've seen myself.
Russian terrain to expand seems pretty op, considering it's vast pristine grassland with forests and some rivers. Now one can understand how the Soviet Union could muster such manpower in the WWII
True. I've been steadily nerfing their NI to the point I'm not sure if further nerfs will just render it useless, but the benefit of a vast territory to expand into is something that Russia enjoyed both historically and in the scenario, with no obvious way to nerf
that. Maybe I'll plop a Volga Bulgaria there somewhere.
Egypt always steamrolls the early game until they don't and slow down after getting Persia and "die" to research costs.
That one I'm kinda unwilling to get rid of. Both for historical reasons, and due to the fact that it's the first civ and thus usually what I run my hands-off games with. And I don't like my hands-off civ to get killed.
New World is a bit meh, especially as Europe is usually full of luxuries and ressources. The southern most New World bit with Potatoes, Gold and Silver is not too impressive considering how much gold there is, the middle one with sugar and corn is okay and the top one also not too important considering the abundance of fur (though tobacco is nice for trading post bonus). Getting +1
and
for "establishing colonies" and transatlantic action is not very worth it. I understand the difficulty to implement America in the scenario (or even intention to not implement it). Still, how about trying to put America to where the Sahara is now? Make a Ocean path by demolishing a bit of Marokko? Or make they Island a bit bigger with more ressources so you can sell some Sugar, Potatoes or Corn atleast.
It isn't supposed to be a major bonus, just a bit of an incentive to develop at least some ships. It
is a Europe-centered scenario after all. Can probably add a few more resources to each though...
Ships are too slow in the scenario. I understand the water tiles in Civ 4 random maps to be compressed, as to not waste space for a real life Pacific or counterpart thereof. But in the scenario this is mostly not the case, but still ships have their 3-4 movement points. But with pretty much any kind of paved street, land units move as fast or way faster than the ships. So you would let them march the entire way from Spain to Denmark and would be faster than taking the sea route
Cav units can blitz through Europe while ships take a long ass time to go anywhere outside the ancient era (which also really hampers the AI, who like to naval invade someone/barbs across the map and then go back) May I suggest an inherent +1
for all ships in the Europe Scenario? (Is this even feasible?)
It would be a hassle, yes. But even more generally speaking, I don't see this as a major issue. The time scale of Civ 4 generally doesn't translate well to anything speed-related. +1 turn or not, that's still 100 years to cross the Mediteranean from, say, Tunisia to France early on...
Civil Service still needs a buff in the time it is unlocked
If not reliant on Happiness or Health one would probably always choose Plutocracy over it. The 10% Building-Hammers are really pricy for medium upkeep and no happines or health. I still think a +worker speed is a good idea, as it fits the theme of civil service (aka canal building in China), doesnt overpower it in the later game (who cares about worker speed after medieval?) and is often needed, as you have potentially slavery making your workers veery slow and the classical era unlocks many improvements at once (esp. plantations and irrigation chains). Alternatively maybe a slight GPP buff representing merit based offices? That would enable some new strategies, allowing going for GP more when pacifism is out of the question and repulic just too expensive.
I agree; I also tended to just overlook it lately. Will think about it.
It's not really the case. I get no open borders from +11 civs and then I get open borders from +1 civs (or even +0 if I recall correctly) without any effort. Also,I'm usually supposed to pay them something for it as well.
Leaders are very different when it comes to certain preferences. You can actually check pedia for a summary on a particular leader's AI. Both of the ones you've used as examples indeed dislike open borders. Though, to be fair to them, the open border logic in the latest release is rather broken, and will be fix to be much more consistent for the next one.
Considering how complex a setup there is made for each leader, I don't think any can understand - at least not in full - how a given leader will react under certain circumstances.
Can you please spoiler-tag this long bit? It's making navigating this page difficult.
As you can see, not even 10 arrogant demands could make him declare on me.
At 1.9 with you, I can only applaud his common sense.
Why workshops are removed? And is the official forum gone? ( I cant find it )
Snowygerry above seems to have answered both of your questions perfectly. I need to wipe all mentions of the forum from the next installer...
by first producing excess food and then running craftsmen, from the industrial age onward they become very productive.
