Realism Invictus

[AspiringScholar]

I think I have to give up on this mod. I really don't understand it's combat mechanics. Doomstacks are quite useless. Those support promos also barely do a thing. I don't think I can outrace AI. Not because it's good, but because I don't know how. Bet there's nothing on Civilopedia either about all that nonsense logistics system. Too bad there's no game option to switch to vanilla combat. Feeling stupid having wasted all this time on this mod.

Did you even read the "quick tips" file which would take 3 minutes and came with the installer? This is a complete overhaul of the entire Civ4 engine and comes with a 50+ page manual. I doubt someone, even assuming that an abundance of complexity is their cup of tea to begin with, could really appreciate this mod or what it aims to do without at least reading that.

Ironically, if anything, a huge stack of doom is only bolstered by the numerous aid bonuses afforded by a diverse variety of units, which often overpowers even the maximal raw strength malus which comes with the worst overstacking penalty.

 

[Silica_Pathways]

Did you even read the "quick tips" file which would take 3 minutes and came with the installer?

No, once I saw that those are random tips instead of something with index for finding exact information that I need time to time. Like the info about building materials, for example.

Currently went offing AI underdogs... it will work for time being, but covering post/inter war city distance costs will be utter nightmare. Should at least get a lead on at least one victory type, then could go for maintaining the hold and that would be it. Definitely harder than vanilla.

 

[Morimorrison]

Hi, I have been playing the RI for quite a while (since version 3.4). However, there are a few "imbalances" that have been bugging me:

1. For Line Infantry and Light Infantry, the 100% vs Melee seems a bit excessive. In the Renaissance, Melee Infantry still has a role in defending against cavalry and assaulting cities (Arquebusiers only has a +50% attack vs Melee, but not defense). This means racing to Flintlock Musket gives an overly massive military advantage. Maybe the bonus should be scaled instead (i.e. Line Infantry +25% vs Melee, Rifleman +50% vs Melee, Trench Infantry +100% vs Melee)? Also, Longbowman in cities tends to perform very well even against Rifleman. Maybe there should be some bonus against archers?

2. For the "Heavy Cavalry" line, would it be better if the +25% vs Melee is changed to +25% attack vs Melee (or +10% vs Melee & +15% attack vs Melee)? I often find that enemy Cataphracts and Knights in cities will beat my veteran Man-at-Arms because the combat odds skew in their favor. Also, I find that Spearman/Pikeman often significantly underperforms against heavy cavalry because of this bonus. While I get that they are not supposed to beat cavalry 1-on-1, I should at least be able to counterattack wounded Cataphracts with Spearman under favorable odds.

3. Special Forces being classified as Gunpowder instead of Recon seems weird. IRL, Special Forces are mostly used for infiltration and recon missions. Would it be better if it is reassigned to Recon?

4. The War of Attrition doctrine may need to nerf its bonus vs Melee (or introduce some other nerfs)? While doctrines are supposed to be powerful, this doctrine in particular feels overpowered. It basically shuts down enemy Melee altogether and invalidates Spearman/Pikeman as counters against Cavalry. Looking at the other doctrines in Classical Age, Rites-of-Passage is highly conditional on the terrain, and Imperial Glory offers moderate bonus over Combat promotions. War of Attrition just seems out of place in how much of an advantage it offers in the early game.

5. Specific to the Turks, the Janissary UU seems strictly inferior compared to their Line Infantry. However, they are unlocked by Absolutism, a tech that cost the same as Flintlock Musket. Either they should be buffed as an alternative to Line Infantry, or they should be unlocked earlier and their strength rescaled accordingly (maybe at Administration?).

 

[pecheneg]

For Line Infantry and Light Infantry, the 100% vs Melee seems a bit excessive. In the Renaissance, Melee Infantry still has a role in defending against cavalry

With two exceptions, pikemen in Europe are completely dying out simultaneously with the mass spread of a full-fledged flint lock (battery).
At the same time, the Swedes kept them because the Russians were doing their favorite thing on communications and had to save gunpowder.
The Russians a) had few pikemen (1/8) b) they were not purely hand–to-hand fighters (armed with a pistol) c) and most importantly, before a clash with numerous cavalry, the pikes were handed over "to the archive".
"when the war with the Turks begins, then the pikemen will not have pikes and pistols, but fusees with bayonets with ammunition belonging to them, like other fusiliers."
In general, the Russian pike is a highly specialized weapon against the Zerg–rashes of the Swedes.

Also, I find that Spearman/Pikeman often significantly underperforms against heavy cavalry because of this bonus. While I get that they are not supposed to beat cavalry 1-on-1, I should at least be able to counterattack wounded Cataphracts with Spearman under favorable odds.

In fact, the effective attacks of spearmen on cavalry that are familiar in games are, with the exception of very special cases, pure fantasy. To cope with cavalry, infantry (and especially pikemen) need to maintain formation. Guess what will be the speed of a closed formation and the speed of even badly damaged cavalry.

 

[ThirdOrbital]

1. For Line Infantry and Light Infantry, the 100% vs Melee seems a bit excessive. In the Renaissance, Melee Infantry still has a role in defending against cavalry and assaulting cities (Arquebusiers only has a +50% attack vs Melee, but not defense). This means racing to Flintlock Musket gives an overly massive military advantage. Maybe the bonus should be scaled instead (i.e. Line Infantry +25% vs Melee, Rifleman +50% vs Melee, Trench Infantry +100% vs Melee)? Also, Longbowman in cities tends to perform very well even against Rifleman. Maybe there should be some bonus against archers?

From a historical perspective, this makes good sense as @pecheneg points out. From a gameplay perspective, I agree this is a brick wall. I recently had a successful campaign come to a crashing halt when my much-upgraded Man-at-Arms, which had been handily destroying longbows and pikemen, suddenly had <0.5% odds against Line Infantry. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Flintlock Musket is the single most significant military tech in the game.

2. For the "Heavy Cavalry" line, would it be better if the +25% vs Melee is changed to +25% attack vs Melee (or +10% vs Melee & +15% attack vs Melee)? I often find that enemy Cataphracts and Knights in cities will beat my veteran Man-at-Arms because the combat odds skew in their favor. Also, I find that Spearman/Pikeman often significantly underperforms against heavy cavalry because of this bonus. While I get that they are not supposed to beat cavalry 1-on-1, I should at least be able to counterattack wounded Cataphracts with Spearman under favorable odds.

Here I disagree, I'm generally of the opinion that cavalry underperforms relative to other unit types in most eras - especially once bombards make collateral damage less critical. The specific interaction you point out, post-cataphracts but pre-pikemen, is one of the few times I find that heavy cavalry has a chance to shine and I quite enjoy it.

4. The War of Attrition doctrine may need to nerf its bonus vs Melee (or introduce some other nerfs)? While doctrines are supposed to be powerful, this doctrine in particular feels overpowered. It basically shuts down enemy Melee altogether and invalidates Spearman/Pikeman as counters against Cavalry. Looking at the other doctrines in Classical Age, Rites-of-Passage is highly conditional on the terrain, and Imperial Glory offers moderate bonus over Combat promotions. War of Attrition just seems out of place in how much of an advantage it offers in the early game.

I actually quite dislike War of Attrition for a similar reason - it is undeniably powerful vs melee, but once melee troops are obsoleted my heavily promoted units are suddenly near useless. I would like to see it reworked to be less situationally but more generally powerful. In general I love doctrines and would love to see the weaker ones buffed rather than the stronger ones nerfed. It's easy to go overboard on utility based promotions such as mobility, healing, or flanking when a unit given straight strength will outperform in many use cases.

 

[shadics]

I found some glitches in some idle animations of some units

Same animation different faction, the crossbow disappears

 

[Silica_Pathways]

Now I have same amount of cities as the best AI player. Although my cities are far from each other, at least they are less tightly packed than my competitor's, so I do have some chance of getting to the top score.
I also noticed in this mod AI blasts out much, much more culture. It's the first time in Civ4 where my capital gets culture pushed back in later eras. Though since multiple AI's do the same strategy at once they aren't also likely to win cultural victory just by blasting culture, so whether this strategy will win anyone anything remains to be seen.

 

[FrenziedDodo]

Any way to remove Spices as a resource for starting position. It seems spices are the best resource in the game and half of starts are 3 spices or spices + clams. It is spices everywhere. It is a bit problematic when you play MP and somebody is granted to start with 3 spices start and he is pretty much screwed. And cows are i think just too good for starting resource. Food and more importantly production beats any resource. I just wish starting positions could be more balanced, or simply nerf cows so there is less difference between cow start and any other start.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I found some glitches in some idle animations of some units
View attachment 650712View attachment 650713View attachment 650714View attachment 650715
Same animation different faction, the crossbow disappears
View attachment 650716View attachment 650717

That doesn't look like the default graphics for RI at all, but I really like it, especially the water. Which separate graphics did you mod in?

 

[shadics]

That doesn't look like the default graphics for RI at all, but I really like it, especially the water. Which separate graphics did you mod in?

The terrain is from vincent infinite project mod offers it separately as an addon, it's on moddb.com
and the rest looks so colorful because I like to raise the saturation and brightness a lot using Reshademe

 

[AspiringScholar]

The terrain is from vincent infinite project mod offers it separately as an addon, it's on moddb.com
and the rest looks so colorful because I like to raise the saturation and brightness a lot using Reshademe

The warm and bright color palette reminds me of Civ3's aesthetics.

 

[Silica_Pathways]

Piracy seems also very intense with the improved AI, privateers attack even stronger ships.
And spies, far more active than vanilla.

 

[Drakarska]

Piracy seems also very intense with the improved AI, privateers attack even stronger ships.
And spies, far more active than vanilla.

This is the only mod ( and I play several ) that I actively keep spies in my cities. Especially if Sitting Bum is in the game.
I take that back, I do the same on C2C as well. But for entirely different reasons.

 

[Rosie McCattail]

Now I have same amount of cities as the best AI player. Although my cities are far from each other, at least they are less tightly packed than my competitor's, so I do have some chance of getting to the top score.
I also noticed in this mod AI blasts out much, much more culture. It's the first time in Civ4 where my capital gets culture pushed back in later eras. Though since multiple AI's do the same strategy at once they aren't also likely to win cultural victory just by blasting culture, so whether this strategy will win anyone anything remains to be seen.

What difficulty?

 

[Silica_Pathways]

What difficulty?

The balanced one (noble in vanilla terms).

 

[Snowygerry]

I just noticed an option "Influence-Driven War" in my settings - can't remember selecting that at game start, is that an addition of the recent update ?

What does it do exactly ?

 

[shkitur1]

there is no option to sign defencive pact (alliances) with other civ. this is bug or such option was intentionally removed from diplomacy?

 

[aantia]

@shkitur1 IDW makes combat change the culture in the area, and I think also includes the system for making citizens rise up to defend an unguarded city. Permanent alliances have an option, which is turned off by default.

 

[Silica_Pathways]

@shkitur1 IDW makes combat change the culture in the area, and I think also includes the system for making citizens rise up to defend an unguarded city. Permanent alliances have an option, which is turned off by default.

Defensive pacts and permanent alliances are two different things.

 

[shkitur1]

I mean this. In vanilla there was option sign defensive pact with other civ. In Realism invictus i cannot find it. all techs i researched