Realism Invictus
- Thread starter Walter Hawkwood
- Start date
AspiringScholar
King
A few short comments I'm curious what others think about:
- I was toying around in Civ3 yesterday just for fun (mostly to look at the visual and aesthetic differences) and remembered that bombing runs in that game variously reduced city population, damaged or destroyed units, and could also destroy buildings within a city. The latter point I was aware of already, but does anyone know of a way to code that difference into bombers in RI? That would be really cool, as it would mean you could do real strategic bombing, directly reducing population and systematically tearing up an empire from the air, not just reducing city defenses and damaging units to a cap. I think the way it works in Civ3 is more fun, and probably truer to modern warfare if you consider how potent such an approach to war has been historically. (I had even mentioned in the past possibly tying city bombing to reduced gold income a-la privateers to represent damages in strategic bombing, and Walter said he liked that idea, but that was a while ago now and he said he's done making changes personally.) TheBirdMan, I guess that makes you the unofficial programmer now?
- I increasingly get the feeling that the tech tree is a little too linear. This criticism isn't new, but most technologies have so many prerequisites that it is usually not feasible at all to beeline sacrificially to get to a key tech for your given situation. (Most techs have at least one, often two, and sometimes even three non-connected prerequisites!) Combine that with the ahead of time tech costs and the tech transfer system and you tend to get a pretty rigid tech path within each game, and one which doesn't vary too much from game to game since the actual range of options is narrower than vanilla, even just hypothetically speaking. It could be however that others don't agree and that's just an impression that I have. So, while I like the faithfulness to history of lots of these prerequisites, it seems like one of those things which detracts from the gameplay a little the way it is; and furthermore, in many of these cases, it seems like the inspiration is more along the lines of the prerequisite in question simply also existed at the time whatever associated technology was researched, not necessarily that the former was a requirement in a meaningful way - look at Cinematography for Infantry Logistics or Double-Entry Accounting for Cavalry Tactics (what the heck does that have to do with getting Cuirassiers after all?) for instance. The tree is full of loosely related techs being strict requirements for one another, and while some of them make plenty of sense, many of them do not, at least in an obvious way. Does anyone else disagree? Also, what even is your research strategy with the tech transfer on? From an optimization standpoint of getting the most output from the same input, it makes the most sense to me to just "follow the leaders" and research the techs with the greatest bonus first whenever you're not in the lead and unless you really need something instantly which is next in line to research, then just accept the fact that all of your trade partners are going to get a bonus on whatever you research, since the incentive to keep trade routes (especially late game) far outweighs the tech bonus you're giving them. It makes for an interesting and historically plausible spread of technology, but it kind of dilutes the strategy behind choosing your techs. Thoughts on that?
- I think the threshold for Legendary culture should be raised somewhat. Cultural victories still feel like something which are stumbled upon passively rather than something aimed for deliberately, and they tend to happen (IMO) too early. In many games, it's the blob-leader, definitely taking a "wide" approach, who still predictably has two Legendary cities by early Industrial. Since the AI is blind to preventing a culture win and the human player is conscious of everyone's proximity to victory midgame on, it falls on him or her to try to stop this, so in many of my games, I end up backstabbing an ally in a costly war just to raze a Legendary city or two, for the sake of setting the clock back enough to make other victories possible. Usually I'm competitive in culture and don't fall severely behind, but considering how many of the multipliers are infrastructure contingent, and for an increasingly large number of buildings as the game progresses without any size-adjusted drawbacks, cultural victories actually favor the big, scary empires, whereas in the vanilla game it's supposed to be the quiet option for a small, focused empire. The latter point isn't especially problematic for me, but the fact that it's a victory which tends to just happen more or less passively and rather early on kind of takes the other victories out of the game effectively in many cases, and that's not very fun. When it's 1700AD and you've just become painfully aware that your rival only needs one more Legendary city to win the game and you're the only player who's functionally aware of this, your whole approach has to get regeared to knocking out one of those cities; and this is way before a spaceship, the UN, or (in most cases, at least) domination. That tension between multiple various victories all close to reachable by multiple players at the end of the game makes for a lot of the late game fun, and it seems like this one is probably pretty straightforward and easy to fix, if it's just a value change. I tentatively think something like a 20-25% increase is the way to go here. Does anyone else have this impression?
- I was toying around in Civ3 yesterday just for fun (mostly to look at the visual and aesthetic differences) and remembered that bombing runs in that game variously reduced city population, damaged or destroyed units, and could also destroy buildings within a city. The latter point I was aware of already, but does anyone know of a way to code that difference into bombers in RI? That would be really cool, as it would mean you could do real strategic bombing, directly reducing population and systematically tearing up an empire from the air, not just reducing city defenses and damaging units to a cap. I think the way it works in Civ3 is more fun, and probably truer to modern warfare if you consider how potent such an approach to war has been historically. (I had even mentioned in the past possibly tying city bombing to reduced gold income a-la privateers to represent damages in strategic bombing, and Walter said he liked that idea, but that was a while ago now and he said he's done making changes personally.) TheBirdMan, I guess that makes you the unofficial programmer now?
- I increasingly get the feeling that the tech tree is a little too linear. This criticism isn't new, but most technologies have so many prerequisites that it is usually not feasible at all to beeline sacrificially to get to a key tech for your given situation. (Most techs have at least one, often two, and sometimes even three non-connected prerequisites!) Combine that with the ahead of time tech costs and the tech transfer system and you tend to get a pretty rigid tech path within each game, and one which doesn't vary too much from game to game since the actual range of options is narrower than vanilla, even just hypothetically speaking. It could be however that others don't agree and that's just an impression that I have. So, while I like the faithfulness to history of lots of these prerequisites, it seems like one of those things which detracts from the gameplay a little the way it is; and furthermore, in many of these cases, it seems like the inspiration is more along the lines of the prerequisite in question simply also existed at the time whatever associated technology was researched, not necessarily that the former was a requirement in a meaningful way - look at Cinematography for Infantry Logistics or Double-Entry Accounting for Cavalry Tactics (what the heck does that have to do with getting Cuirassiers after all?) for instance. The tree is full of loosely related techs being strict requirements for one another, and while some of them make plenty of sense, many of them do not, at least in an obvious way. Does anyone else disagree? Also, what even is your research strategy with the tech transfer on? From an optimization standpoint of getting the most output from the same input, it makes the most sense to me to just "follow the leaders" and research the techs with the greatest bonus first whenever you're not in the lead and unless you really need something instantly which is next in line to research, then just accept the fact that all of your trade partners are going to get a bonus on whatever you research, since the incentive to keep trade routes (especially late game) far outweighs the tech bonus you're giving them. It makes for an interesting and historically plausible spread of technology, but it kind of dilutes the strategy behind choosing your techs. Thoughts on that?
- I think the threshold for Legendary culture should be raised somewhat. Cultural victories still feel like something which are stumbled upon passively rather than something aimed for deliberately, and they tend to happen (IMO) too early. In many games, it's the blob-leader, definitely taking a "wide" approach, who still predictably has two Legendary cities by early Industrial. Since the AI is blind to preventing a culture win and the human player is conscious of everyone's proximity to victory midgame on, it falls on him or her to try to stop this, so in many of my games, I end up backstabbing an ally in a costly war just to raze a Legendary city or two, for the sake of setting the clock back enough to make other victories possible. Usually I'm competitive in culture and don't fall severely behind, but considering how many of the multipliers are infrastructure contingent, and for an increasingly large number of buildings as the game progresses without any size-adjusted drawbacks, cultural victories actually favor the big, scary empires, whereas in the vanilla game it's supposed to be the quiet option for a small, focused empire. The latter point isn't especially problematic for me, but the fact that it's a victory which tends to just happen more or less passively and rather early on kind of takes the other victories out of the game effectively in many cases, and that's not very fun. When it's 1700AD and you've just become painfully aware that your rival only needs one more Legendary city to win the game and you're the only player who's functionally aware of this, your whole approach has to get regeared to knocking out one of those cities; and this is way before a spaceship, the UN, or (in most cases, at least) domination. That tension between multiple various victories all close to reachable by multiple players at the end of the game makes for a lot of the late game fun, and it seems like this one is probably pretty straightforward and easy to fix, if it's just a value change. I tentatively think something like a 20-25% increase is the way to go here. Does anyone else have this impression?
Last edited:
Yes. With each release I always seem to eventually find myself in CIV4CultureLevelInfo.xml bumping the legendary requirement up 25% for each game speed. Seems to be the sweet spot for my gameplay preferences.
TheBirdMan
King
LOL. I would love if I couldA few short comments I'm curious what others think about:
- I was toying around in Civ3 yesterday just for fun (mostly to look at the visual and aesthetic differences) and remembered that bombing runs in that game variously reduced city population, damaged or destroyed units, and could also destroy buildings within a city. The latter point I was aware of already, but does anyone know of a way to code that difference into bombers in RI? That would be really cool, as it would mean you could do real strategic bombing, directly reducing population and systematically tearing up an empire from the air, not just reducing city defenses and damaging units to a cap. I think the way it works in Civ3 is more fun, and probably truer to modern warfare if you consider how potent such an approach to war has been historically. (I had even mentioned in the past possibly tying city bombing to reduced gold income a-la privateers to represent damages in strategic bombing, and Walter said he liked that idea, but that was a while ago now and he said he's done making changes personally.) TheBirdMan, I guess that makes you the unofficial programmer now?
. But I'm not a programmer 
.I used to be rather good in matematic (and I still do remember something
....) - I'm able to seek, find 
and even try what's obvious - sometimes also what's not so obvious - in the XML. As for the Python - I have only had success with 2 changes of my own: The CvEventManager.py (changed the TechInfo.setAheadOfTime section (for singleplayers only)) and a little in the Revolutions.py (the self.i_______ and self.civics values in the top of the file). Else: No programming from my side 
.Below is what I did find this morning about the different bombing and ranged attack missions. Seek and you will find (in The Road to War mod that is) There is much more for people (like Walter), that knows what could be interesting and what's not. I know because I have seen it (or at least I think I have
.......).
AspiringScholar
King
I'd be interested in knowing how many other players (without making such an adjustment) feel the need to knock out the incipient cultural victor every game just to make the other victories possible. I might go ahead and modify that for the next game, though admittedly it feels like I'm cheating an "honest win" when I do something like that...
If I had such skills, I would gladly put them to that use.
I really count myself lucky and appreciate that I was able to participate in the conversations between 3.5 and 3.6, and especially that a good number of my suggestions were graciously taken up! The WW global separatism modifier from 100% to 10% completely fixes the issues with the revolutions mechanic, and for that alone, I feel like I'm playing the perfect version of Civ; the one that has a pleasing, working system for the one major thing that was missing from vanilla, notwithstanding all of the rest of the depth and content that the mod adds.
Even though I only played the game and discussed feedback with everyone else, to have been a part of the home-stretch of development at all is still really cool. This might be one of the longest-continuous mods in videogame history, honestly (at least if we adjust that evaluation on the basis of scale and scope). I can't think of another game which has had a continuously developed overhaul mod for closing in on 20 years.
So, any of you who know basic coding, I'm not trying to annoy or be needy. I assume that talking about revisions to this game is a mutual hobby here, so, that is certainly my intent, not to pester those with the know-how to modify the game.
LOL. I would love if I could
I used to be rather good in matematic (and I still do remember something
Below is what I did find this morning about the different bombing and ranged attack missions. Seek and you will find (in The Road to War mod that is) There is much more for people (like Walter), that knows what could be interesting and what's not. I know because I have seen it (or at least I think I have
Cool. I have zero knowledge of anything beyond the logical application of common sense when it comes to easy to follow XML commands, but I might try digging around here. Thanks for the reference!
P.S.
After over a year of spending inordinate amounts of leisure time on this game, I finally won on Monarch!
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
I thought Germany was an underpowered civ, but somehow I just started playing and everything seemed to click for me. Funny how Monarch on vanilla is a cakewalk in comparison. Played somewhat cautiously and built up a stable, medium-sized empire for most of the game, then industrialized and went on a massive conquering spree in the late industrial, which ended up handing me the game. Late-era conquests FTW!
Last edited:
I agree with you and AspiringScholar here, could be a nice addition indeed! So there is actually a real incentive to collect multiple locations of a single resource, not just for the limestones.this could be nice additional option: effectiveness of raw materials depends on population
Civ4 Reimagined
Civ4 Reimagined Introduction: Civ4 Reimagined is an extensive overhaul for Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword. Despite touching almost every aspect of the game, Civ4 Reimagined strives to feel like an as-it-should-be version of Civilization IV, not a kitchen sink mod. As such, don't expect tons...forums.civfanatics.com
finally, building a city to stock a fourteenth source of fish would make sense
also these all "recycle centers" , gas and nuclear plants would apply (I feel that the level of health in the modern era is overstated, in modern era i never have problem with unhealthy, i even dont need build these modern plants to reduce)
Thank you for your great answer! I obviously agree with many points, one thing I see here though is that having an archer in a stack is always a good idea (except when you're trying to put together a city assault force, and especially early on your logistics are still very limited, so every spot in that stack is very important otherwise you're going to get into pretty hefty penalties rather quickly), however they only get a bonus against recon units when attacking them, so I'm not sure if that really makes them a good safeguard against recons.
I think I would still like to see a unit get a def bonus against recon, maybe even recon units themselves?
I agree with the nerf and also that their stack aid contribution is/should be the best thing about them. In my mind in terms of game mechanics I think they should have two uses/advantages (that goes for all recon units btw, so also the later gunpowder variants):I think your ideas are good though: a nerf to 3would put them more or less on par toe-to-toe on flat terrain with contemporary classical heavy infantry, like the swordsman. Their movement and terrain bonuses would still leave them with hefty advantages of mobility and a mitigated defensive bonus for units hiding in the woods or in hills. Personally, I think their stack aid contribution is the best thing about them, and I rarely attack with them directly for that reason. With the full Recon Aid III bonus, even dirt-cheap irregulars walk out of the gate with 2-3 first strikes (in addition to probably a promotion or two from barracks/aggressive leader, etc.). Making that even more pronounced seems too unbalanced with respect to what the unit is modeling in real terms, and would eliminate something that makes pretty good sense in that regard, like their bonus against melee.
1. In one on one situations be inferior to other comparable troops on flat terrain, but (slightly) superior on "their" terrain (in offense and defense)
2. Give stack aid contributions in the form of first strikes like they do now (maybe slightly nerf them), as well as a bonus to their terrain (so something like Recon Aid III amounts to 2 first strikes and +25% att/def on hills/forests/jungle)
Yeah, that is pretty much my experience as well. However the magic first strikes don't last forever though, do they? I mean the stack aid ability does reduce over time, meaning early technology recon troops + later technology other troops = lower recon aid. At least that has been my impression while playing the game. However unless I am mistaken the special promotions by some world units or national units seem to last forever, no? So bringing your centuries old Helepolis along for a siege in the gunpowder era will give you virtually no siege aid, however the defending troops are still affected by its "fear" promotion, meaning 1 first strike less. That don't seem right
Great idea, would add a lot of depth to late era wars.- I was toying around in Civ3 yesterday just for fun (mostly to look at the visual and aesthetic differences) and remembered that bombing runs in that game variously reduced city population, damaged or destroyed units, and could also destroy buildings within a city. The latter point I was aware of already, but does anyone know of a way to code that difference into bombers in RI? That would be really cool, as it would mean you could do real strategic bombing, directly reducing population and systematically tearing up an empire from the air, not just reducing city defenses and damaging units to a cap. I think the way it works in Civ3 is more fun, and probably truer to modern warfare if you consider how potent such an approach to war has been historically. (I had even mentioned in the past possibly tying city bombing to reduced gold income a-la privateers to represent damages in strategic bombing, and Walter said he liked that idea, but that was a while ago now and he said he's done making changes personally.) TheBirdMan, I guess that makes you the unofficial programmer now?
Absolutely, had the same feeling while playing. Agree with pretty much everything here, including the "just follow the leader" strategy. I don't think a complete overhaul is needed here, just some tweaks like getting rid of some prerequisites would work wonders. Also maybe it's possible to have a lower base % of technology being automatically shared through open borders, and on top another diplomatic option of "research exchange" or something where that % goes up to the level it is now? So you can choose, who you "actively" want to trade technology knowledge with.
Personally, I don't worry too much about enemy recon units. During the early classical era they probably are the most cost-effective unit (unless you have a city with enough food to give that title to shortswordsmen), but the scaling cost means the enemy can't build too many, and they're vulnerable to a counterattack from the rest of your stack.I agree with you and AspiringScholar here, could be a nice addition indeed! So there is actually a real incentive to collect multiple locations of a single resource, not just for the limestones.
Thank you for your great answer! I obviously agree with many points, one thing I see here though is that having an archer in a stack is always a good idea (except when you're trying to put together a city assault force, and especially early on your logistics are still very limited, so every spot in that stack is very important otherwise you're going to get into pretty hefty penalties rather quickly), however they only get a bonus against recon units when attacking them, so I'm not sure if that really makes them a good safeguard against recons.
I think I would still like to see a unit get a def bonus against recon, maybe even recon units themselves?
I agree with the nerf and also that their stack aid contribution is/should be the best thing about them. In my mind in terms of game mechanics I think they should have two uses/advantages (that goes for all recon units btw, so also the later gunpowder variants):
1. In one on one situations be inferior to other comparable troops on flat terrain, but (slightly) superior on "their" terrain (in offense and defense)
2. Give stack aid contributions in the form of first strikes like they do now (maybe slightly nerf them), as well as a bonus to their terrain (so something like Recon Aid III amounts to 2 first strikes and +25% att/def on hills/forests/jungle)
Yeah, that is pretty much my experience as well. However the magic first strikes don't last forever though, do they? I mean the stack aid ability does reduce over time, meaning early technology recon troops + later technology other troops = lower recon aid. At least that has been my impression while playing the game. However unless I am mistaken the special promotions by some world units or national units seem to last forever, no? So bringing your centuries old Helepolis along for a siege in the gunpowder era will give you virtually no siege aid, however the defending troops are still affected by its "fear" promotion, meaning 1 first strike less. That don't seem right
Great idea, would add a lot of depth to late era wars.
Absolutely, had the same feeling while playing. Agree with pretty much everything here, including the "just follow the leader" strategy. I don't think a complete overhaul is needed here, just some tweaks like getting rid of some prerequisites would work wonders. Also maybe it's possible to have a lower base % of technology being automatically shared through open borders, and on top another diplomatic option of "research exchange" or something where that % goes up to the level it is now? So you can choose, who you "actively" want to trade technology knowledge with.
For the sake of realism a re-work could be in order, but in terms of balance I think they're good how they are. And if they weren't good units in their own right their unique promotions become much less interesting, and they would be quite poor exploration units because the barbarians would kill them too easily.
I believe the stack aid is based on the strength ratio of the units, rather than the tech level directly. Not that that makes much of a difference to what you said. I do like to keep a few low-tech national units around for their bonuses - I once had a group of elite Immortals who got so experienced they were taking cities from gunpowder units!
The linear tech tree was actually a deliberate choice; Walter talked about it a while ago. He likes to force a more historical progression. I think you'd only need to alter one or two prerequisites per era to change that. I don't particularly like the idea of bringing back deliberate tech sharing - is there really any logic behind it before the industrial era? Personally I'd like to increase the basic cost of mediaeval and later techs, so that civs can only keep up with historical progress if they have lots of open borders agreements; that way isolated or isolationist countries and big, stable empires which wipe out all their neighbours would get left behind and the tech leaders won't be hitting the renaissance in the 6th century...
TheBirdMan
King
Hmmm.
That's actuallly what happens now in my (test)game - at least upto end of medieval era. I have not expanded it more - yet. I'm still working at it.
Problem is, that my changes has to be done individullay by each player, who want something like what I'm doing.
I'll post some screenshots tomorrow - if any likes what they "see", we can take it from "there".
.
AspiringScholar
King
On that note, I wonder how labor intensive simply reenabling corporations themselves would be? It seems like it was something which was just gutted out of the game, and (with the single possible exception of the briefcase icon now being changed to open an interface menu) doesn't seem like something incompatible with how the game is currently. Since all of the files are still there for vanilla Civ4, maybe it would be so simple as just putting them back in? In addition to providing an incentive to acquire multiple resources of the same sort, you could also tie that together with the RI industrial goods for a symbiosis with the mod's industrial system!
Talking about and comparing the ins and outs of this game is fun, so thank you too for the discussion.
Yeah, good point regarding the offensive-only counter of the Composite Bowmen. Since they can't even outrun the Skirmishers, that's almost moot. As a ranged unit itself, it seems correct that the bonus should be defensive as well, but I am guessing that the rationale for that was because Skirmishers already have a penalty attacking cities, and archers already have a huge bonus defending them, so for purposes of city combat at least, that would make it impossible to attack them with skirmishers... but, that's not really what they're for anyway, so I think it's probably worth changing as well.
Actually, an idea just came to mind which I think would address the issue quite nicely from both a gameplay and a historical standpoint: make Skirmishers target other Skirmishers first in combat, the way that several units already have this ability. It makes sense if they are the scouts and screening units ahead of everyone else marching and in battle, that (with their greater speed and maneuverability) they can retreat away if encountered by the enemy at a disadvantage, except against other similarly agile and maneuverable units. That seems right historically and also, in gameplay would mean that having your own skirmishers in a stack, even if not a hard counter, still provides a first screen of protection for your valuable heavy infantry, which shouldn't be first-hit realistically if such skirmishers were marching with them at fighting-readiness. This also causes their stack aid bonus to make more sense, since realistically the first strikes that they provide shouldn't be a "back pocket" ability when those units are theoretically "behind the frontline" and not directly fighting and taking direct damage. Ironically, that would actually kind of serve to make them more important, but only inasmuch as they are currently not even vulnerable to themselves, categorically. They'd also die and have to be recycled more frequently, when you can currently just keep them in reserve indefinitely as a sort of "stack supercharger" because of the aid bonus.
That mechanic definitely already does exist though, so I assume it would be extremely easy to edit.
Yeah, that is pretty much my experience as well. However the magic first strikes don't last forever though, do they? I mean the stack aid ability does reduce over time, meaning early technology recon troops + later technology other troops = lower recon aid. At least that has been my impression while playing the game. However unless I am mistaken the special promotions by some world units or national units seem to last forever, no? So bringing your centuries old Helepolis along for a siege in the gunpowder era will give you virtually no siege aid, however the defending troops are still affected by its "fear" promotion, meaning 1 first strike less. That don't seem right
Well, since the aid bonus is applied in terms of relative strength, not logistics cap (as far as I know, at least), meaning that effectively, yes, you're right, but only because the 4
becomes increasingly underwhelming as the total of the rest of the units in the stack increases relative to them, not because less of the logistics cap is filled up as it expands with technology. As logistics caps increase, you'll likely have a greater range of unit categories in the stack as well, so indirectly it decreases, but there's nothing which theoretically stops you from just adding more Skirmishers until the Recon Aid goes back up to III. (In my games, having about 3 or 4 Skirmishers in a stack of around 15 units keeps the aid bonus maxed out even in the late medieval.)I am kind of an air power junkie, so if this could be worked in at all, that would be really cool. It seems like the underlying mechanics are there (since riots destroy buildings from
and nukes wipe city population out already). How that gets randomized and actually applied I am not sure, but I'll gladly volunteer my efforts however I can help.Assuming I read the XML file correctly, I went ahead and nerfed tech transfer to 20% per civ instead of 40%. It made me wonder what exactly the idea for it was in the first place, too, because this mechanic is already in Beyond the Sword (albeit in a slightly more limited form) from the knowledge bonus of knowing other civs which have the technology. According to the file, it's a pretty substantial bonus too.
To quote the XML directly:
Spoiler :
And actually, I also am not sure what this 88 or the term "tech welfare" mean in the first place, but it's there, too:
Spoiler :
So, I don't know if the "value" of 30 is a strict percentage or signifies something else, but you already have a "neighbor bonus" for tech research in the base game, so a substantial tech transfer is redundant (to my mind) for two main reasons:
1.) It already exists, and spread of technology, while naturally faster between friendly, cooperating societies, is also spurned by suspicion, fear, jealousy and such, of nations who are cool or hostile. For an obvious example, Europe received lots of technological inspiration from China in the high middle ages, proximately owing to the travels of Marco Polo, but not because of any kind of formal open-borders agreement. (Indeed, one guy traveling to another country and seeing its society with his own eyes, then coming home and talking about all of the fascinating and different things he saw pretty much exactly constitutes discovering the other team in Civ terms!) Furthermore, Europe has never had warm relations or close diplomatic ties with any Chinese state, yet it was still consciousness of their more advanced society which inspired a lot of similar inventions and technologies there. So, why you have to have a formal military access agreement for this to take place much faster seems unnecessary, even if it makes sense that it would be slightly faster if some kind of formal cooperation existed as well.
2.) On a similar note, Open Borders already indirectly boosts shared research due to increased
from trade routes which wouldn't exist otherwise. In the latter-half of the game especially, trade income becomes absolutely enormous, so, in addition to the already preexisting bonus to research for another civ you're in contact with knowing any given tech, your actual ability to research it is greatly enhanced because of your open borders relationship with that civ due to the income from trading with it. So, if you didn't have Open Borders, your research would be a lot slower, and that is mutual for the other civ too. Adding another 40% bonus on top of that seems like overkill, especially when the concept it is trying to represent is already accomplished by the interplay of existing mechanics.So, really, what you're suggesting for the additional research agreement is basically what the Open Borders tech transfer is in the first place already! It would be cool if that could be a separate agreement from Open Borders itself, but I think most of the diplomatic options are hard-coded and so unfortunately I think that's more or less impossible within the parameters of the game engine.
On the note of the tech pace, are you seriously seeing AIs hit industrial in the 6th century...?
I do notice that the tech pace tends to be a bit faster than actual history relative to the calendar date, but nothing even close to that.But, it looks like there actually is exactly what you're looking for in TechDiffusion_GlobalDefines.xml which I referenced above, where you can adjust the entire category of tech costs by era.
While I'm making little tweaks for myself (such as increasing the Legendary threshold by 25% as CastleRum mentioned), and in particular nerfing tech transfer, I think I'll also go ahead and reenable actual tech trading, but only near the industrial era, possibly a little earlier than would be warranted by history. That's the time that tech stealing starts to take off with the arrival of significant
boosts from multiple spy slots and flat output from buildings, so the tech game gets more volatile around then anyway. Modern Physics is probably the best choice from a quasi-realism standpoint, but I think it's a bit late to be meaningful, so maybe something relatively early with a good conceptual feel like Enlightenment would be fun.Also, if anyone else is curious, I was able to reduce the frequency of the volcano eruption and plane crash events, since they consistently fire every 10-20 turns or so in my games once their prerequisites are met. (Fun fact: the volcano eruption event is weighted at a whopping 300! when almost everything else is 100 or lower.) I turned them down quite a bit without eliminating them altogether, and I also made the volcano event something which is non-recurring. Yes, I know that volcanoes erupt more than once in history, but how often does that happen to the scale of wiping out half of a major province's entire countryside, as it does in the game?
Last edited:
Just skimmed your post; the rest looked v. interesting so I'll take a proper look later. I've seen the AI hit the renaissance in the 6th century; it's pretty dependant on the map, though. Large maps with one big Eurasia-style continent really give the AI (or a player) a boost. When I played with map scripts that gave a more equal distribution of continents I always wanted to be on a small one so I could dominate it, but now I play on totestra with the minimum/default no. of continents, since it gives a pretty earth-like map, and I have to play a much more diplomatic game to secure tech leadership (and generally can't if I'm alone on a small continent).On the note of the tech pace, are you seriously seeing AIs hit industrial in the 6th century...?
But, it looks like there actually is exactly what you're looking for in TechDiffusion_GlobalDefines.xml which I referenced above, where you can adjust the entire category of tech costs by era.
TheBirdMan
King
First I need to repeat: I'm not a programmer. Not even a bad "copy" of a programmer.
I can't make new buildings nor new ressources - and if I sometimes in the future should learn how to do it (if "someone" hold my hand and learned it to me step-by-step).... then I wouldn't know how to add any of these new buildings/ressources to this game.
Second I have not made changes to the text in the civilopedia. Mostly because I do not need it myself (yet).
Therefore - reuse or new ways of using existing buildings and ressources is all, what I'm doing.
I'll start by quoting my post from 10th March this year (now with corrections from today):
"So let's "follow" how the ressource PrimeTimber end up as Naval (Supplies) in my game:
You have the ressurce PrimeTimber somewhere on the map. You build the improvement LoggingCamp upon the ressource. Here I take it, that this is the place, where the "crude" lumber is "processed" to Timber (as this is the word, that is used in the CIV4BuildingInfos.xml file). The Carpenter then consumes 1 Timber and produces 3 naval. When a Sawmill is available, 1 Timber produces 5 naval. Partly because more boards and planks are needed in the cities later on due to many larger buildings, partly because I presume the "waste" is lower. Naval in my game is timber processed and "consumed" by a carpenter/sawmill and turned into boards or planks. But Naval is also Hemp (Cannabis) processed to ropes (for ship rigging), whereas Cotton has been "moved" in that sense, that it isn't used for naval equipment anymore but only in the TextileMill for fabric."
Besides this, Limestone has become vital - after being in the hands of a stonecutter(!). Because it's the masonry, that is the important thing here.
And why is this important? Well if you do not have any processed lumber (Timber) and you do not have any masonry, then you do not have walls, aquaducts, castles, manors...... and a lot of other buildings.......
Now this is the easy part... Next might be more complicated.......
.
I can't make new buildings nor new ressources - and if I sometimes in the future should learn how to do it (if "someone" hold my hand and learned it to me step-by-step).... then I wouldn't know how to add any of these new buildings/ressources to this game.
Second I have not made changes to the text in the civilopedia. Mostly because I do not need it myself (yet).
Therefore - reuse or new ways of using existing buildings and ressources is all, what I'm doing.
I'll start by quoting my post from 10th March this year (now with corrections from today):
"So let's "follow" how the ressource PrimeTimber end up as Naval (Supplies) in my game:
You have the ressurce PrimeTimber somewhere on the map. You build the improvement LoggingCamp upon the ressource. Here I take it, that this is the place, where the "crude" lumber is "processed" to Timber (as this is the word, that is used in the CIV4BuildingInfos.xml file). The Carpenter then consumes 1 Timber and produces 3 naval. When a Sawmill is available, 1 Timber produces 5 naval. Partly because more boards and planks are needed in the cities later on due to many larger buildings, partly because I presume the "waste" is lower. Naval in my game is timber processed and "consumed" by a carpenter/sawmill and turned into boards or planks. But Naval is also Hemp (Cannabis) processed to ropes (for ship rigging), whereas Cotton has been "moved" in that sense, that it isn't used for naval equipment anymore but only in the TextileMill for fabric."
Besides this, Limestone has become vital - after being in the hands of a stonecutter(!). Because it's the masonry, that is the important thing here.
And why is this important? Well if you do not have any processed lumber (Timber) and you do not have any masonry, then you do not have walls, aquaducts, castles, manors...... and a lot of other buildings.......
Now this is the easy part... Next might be more complicated.......
.
Last edited:
TheBirdMan
King
Because - what do you do if you do not have access to a certain ressource (remember the second box named "Requires" shows which ressources and the number that building need - uses, consumes, takes away from your "stock" - to be builded.
If you do not have enough - then you must "find" them - the ressources - somewhere. If you still want to make that building that is (see the text in the lower left: Requires Prime Timber (0 available)....
If you do not have enough - then you must "find" them - the ressources - somewhere. If you still want to make that building that is (see the text in the lower left: Requires Prime Timber (0 available)....
Last edited:
TheBirdMan
King
Now to end for today:
Food and booze are also vital in my "mod". Luckily the game has 3 distilleries and 4 canned food factories, that I have used in a very different way than you are used to.
More tomorow (if any (still) might be interested).
Food and booze are also vital in my "mod". Luckily the game has 3 distilleries and 4 canned food factories, that I have used in a very different way than you are used to.
More tomorow (if any (still) might be interested).
TheBirdMan
King
I'm quite sure the AI handles this better than I'm doing. At least as long it's "simple". The AI seldom makes mistakes and do as I - builds another place than "intended" because sometimes I forget what I wanted to do 
....
Where I do doubt is where I "see" a places, that is perfect to make a military stronghold (producing units/good defenses) - sometimes in the future. Those places have to be builded up first and it can take quite some time before they are "as I want them to be". I doubt the AI can do that. On the other hand - the AI do not make a mistake if it turns out, that I did
..........
....Where I do doubt is where I "see" a places, that is perfect to make a military stronghold (producing units/good defenses) - sometimes in the future. Those places have to be builded up first and it can take quite some time before they are "as I want them to be". I doubt the AI can do that. On the other hand - the AI do not make a mistake if it turns out, that I did
..........I can swear I've heard that story before
This is an optimization that means you will rarely found the religion you want, build the wonder you want, be ahead on the military curve, explore the oceans or find and settle critical resources. It's optimizing you for overall research pace, yes, but is it optimizing you for winning? Those are two different things. Research in RI is incredibly important, but the importance comes from the techs being a means to an end, not from researching being an end in-and-of itself.
When I play, I tend to switch between times when I'm trying to be the lead in a particular field (say, getting a good 8-strength city attacker before others get longbowmen, or axemen before others get iron working and build up a lot of 4-strength bowmen), or found a religion, or hit a wonder/doctrine that will make a particular strategy viable, etc. I'll focus my research on getting to that specific tech FAST, dedicating a lot of currency to research, and then switch into a style where I'm playing catch up on less important techs with the bonus from so many other civs already having the tech. During this later time I'm more willing to dedicate currency to support wars, unit upgrades, or maintenance on new cities that still don't produce much.
In regards to the tech tree being linear, I agree, it is. But RI isn't a game about varying tech stories and research differentiation, it's a game about optimizing empire management and strategic decisions. Playing well is about deciding which key techs are most important to your game and getting there first, and being able to maintain an economy that won't collapse under your empire's weight. In this sense I feel that the linearity helps, since it makes research a race rather than a cultural differentiator.
I agree that some requirements are too strict from a flavor perspective, and would be curious to see how the game plays without them (if there even is a difference, which there might not be), but I don't think that means the status quo for tech needs improvement. It does what it needs to do well for the purposes of the game, in my opinion, at least.
AspiringScholar
King
I can swear I've heard that story before
Ominously, that seems vaguely familiar to me as well.
You know, your feedback on some of the questions I've put out there have really made me rethink my own position, this included. (The last one that comes to mind was your take on the health and happiness bonus from resources being contingent upon buildings, which after thinking about what you said I now agree with you on.)
After all, it's not that linear, but still a lot less of a free-range than vanilla Beyond the Sword. I think Aanita is right that cutting out just a few of the prerequisites might free it up a lot (and might make for some more interesting gameplay) but as it is, your point still stands that, even if it's somewhat constricted, it's still meaningful in the sense that it's a race rather than an individualization stamp. I think it ultimately is related to the difference of approach that this mod takes; that of a long game where immediate gains might not be realized for a long time, and where short-term setbacks might not exacerbate much over time, if one plays their cards right. It's more or less unintuitive from a strict 4X game standpoint, where snowballing prevails and basically all individual gains and losses continue to multiply in the same direction (the only exception in vanilla being, probably, city maintenance and its impact on expansion speed). With respect to teching in RI, this is especially apparent, since falling behind in tech for even sometimes quite a while isn't necessarily a death-sentence for your empire (indeed, sometimes not even particularly detrimental at all), but you do have to time it appropriately and in the right situational circumstance, or it certainly can be. It's taken a long time for me to be able to read that in the mod with some degree of clarity, but I think that's the hallmark of a well-made strategy game: the same approach should not be generally viable, nor any scenario have the same panacea solution from game to game.
That said, I still think something a little less linear would be more fun, even if it is ultimately a race as you say, since the actual things which you can immediately pursue in the short run fall into a narrower range of options. I wish I could remember exactly what Walter had to say about this point, since I would be willing to bet it has more to do with the game as a template for the way that actual historical technology unfolded rather than what is hypothetically plausible. Either way, this mod is perhaps too much fun, notwithstanding, if the previous balance in my life being hampered has anything to say about that...
TheBirdMan
King
Although there have not yet been any comments about my special "adjustments", so a little about my "thoughts" about beer, wine and alcohol (personally, I rarely drink anything with "percentages" other than beer)....
)....Spoiler :
Last edited:
