Realism Invictus

[fnsnad]

Exactly. IMO, Civ (and RI, specifically) captures that ethereal spirit better, but it does come at the cost of pure realism. Even just vanilla Civ4 did a great job of capturing that spirit, but RI is in an excellent, ultra-refined spot in that regard. Sure, it's not perfect and ideally some things could be changed and made better, but within the parameters of "Civilization" for what it is, I could hardly as for something better. It would be exceptionally difficult to write a game that wasn't period-specific which got more granular and realistic, I think. The fact that RI captures that essence very well across all of human history is pretty amazing IMO.

Yeah, that I can give huge thanks to RI for. But I think I might have to just pull up my sleeves and try my hand at merging some mods myself. Particularly, on top of trying to make border wars more prominent, another thing that I hate is how I can't engage my fighter planes with their fighters directly.

It has more of a civ5/6 feel in some ways, but I think Old World combines those concepts quite well. It's not as good as RI or EU4, in my opinion, but it's a good game in its own right.

I just took a look at it. It looks cool, issue is that I love industrial/modern era combat and troops much much more than ancient combat.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Yeah, that I can give huge thanks to RI for. But I think I might have to just pull up my sleeves and try my hand at merging some mods myself. Particularly, on top of trying to make border wars more prominent, another thing that I hate is how I can't engage my fighter planes with their fighters directly.

That's honestly really exciting to hear if you have legitimate programming skills unlike me! All I'm good for with respect to the mod's development is playtesting and writing feedback, but if you seriously want to try and dive into it, by all means I will at least do that to help.

And on second thought regarding my previous post, there is one thing that I do regrettably think that RI (and really Civ4 in general) is lacking on, and that's the whole diplomacy model. I suppose my suggestion about territorial exchanges being more treaty oriented than of direct conquest is along the same lines, but I think that diplomacy, while not altogether disappointing, is still relatively lacking in interactivity and the range of options (all the more so with tech trades removed). If there's one thing I'd like to see the mod expand if at all possible, it's that. Combat and warfare in the mod is satisfying for what it purports to do in my opinion; there is a good mix of tactical and strategic decisions and depth at the same time as plenty of player interactivity, empire management is fun and presents interesting choices like "do I build this building or instead bolster my army with another unit?" etc., but the only thing that feels kind of stilted is diplomacy. While there are still lots of passive values that are meaningful and strategically significant, the actual conduct of diplomacy is pretty much just a matter of DoWs and open borders agreements, with the occasional resource trade or request/demand for money or to switch a civic or religion. While those are admittedly really important aspects of it, quite frankly it could go a lot deeper, but that part of the game is purportedly hard-coded and virtually impossible to modify. While I didn't really think about it when I was writing my last post, this is something that I would be thrilled to see expanded.

On the air combat thing, though, I know what you mean, but in my experience, any air mission you attempt in their airspace will trigger an interception roll, so what I do is just recon or air strike with my fighters first to draw in their own fighters, and they'll either be shot down or damaged enough that the bombing can commence. So while it would be cool if you could "directly" attack enemy fighters with your own, that already more or less happens just by sending yours on a mission in their skies. Programming a literal "air superiority" mission command would still be really cool though.

I just took a look at it. It looks cool, issue is that I love industrial/modern era combat and troops much much more than ancient combat.

Me too, honestly. I love pre-modern history and the game is still fun and exciting in the earlier eras, but there's just something about the multi-layered, industrialized warfare of the late game which is a lot more exciting and fun.

 

[fnsnad]

That's honestly really exciting to hear if you have legitimate programming skills unlike me! All I'm good for with respect to the mod's development is playtesting and writing feedback, but if you seriously want to try and dive into it, by all means I will at least do that to help.

And on second thought regarding my previous post, there is one thing that I do regrettably think that RI (and really Civ4 in general) is lacking on, and that's the whole diplomacy model. I suppose my suggestion about territorial exchanges being more treaty oriented than of direct conquest is along the same lines, but I think that diplomacy, while not altogether disappointing, is still relatively lacking in interactivity and the range of options (all the more so with tech trades removed). If there's one thing I'd like to see the mod expand if at all possible, it's that. Combat and warfare in the mod is satisfying for what it purports to do in my opinion; there is a good mix of tactical and strategic decisions and depth at the same time as plenty of player interactivity, empire management is fun and presents interesting choices like "do I build this building or instead bolster my army with another unit?" etc., but the only thing that feels kind of stilted is diplomacy. While there are still lots of passive values that are meaningful and strategically significant, the actual conduct of diplomacy is pretty much just a matter of DoWs and open borders agreements, with the occasional resource trade or request/demand for money or to switch a civic or religion. While those are admittedly really important aspects of it, quite frankly it could go a lot deeper, but that part of the game is purportedly hard-coded and virtually impossible to modify. While I didn't really think about it when I was writing my last post, this is something that I would be thrilled to see expanded.

On the air combat thing, though, I know what you mean, but in my experience, any air mission you attempt in their airspace will trigger an interception roll, so what I do is just recon or air strike with my fighters first to draw in their own fighters, and they'll either be shot down or damaged enough that the bombing can commence. So while it would be cool if you could "directly" attack enemy fighters with your own, that already more or less happens just by sending yours on a mission in their skies. Programming a literal "air superiority" mission command would still be really cool though.

Unfortunately at present I don't have much coding skills - though it is on my bucket list to learn, perhaps this is a good opportunity to...? But I saw the Dale's combat mod was a component in this mod, and the original DCM had 'air superiority' missions, so I'm hoping if it would be as simple as just doing some minor tweaking on my part. Though until I learn to actually code properly, I have to resort to simply getting creative and piggybacking off of others' works.

I guess my main motivation for this air superiority mission is that in my last game, I had 5th generation (air superiority fighters) planes while everyone else had 2nd generation ww2 fighters. The issue was the due to the most recent changes on air combat calculations, my fighters could never engage the enemy fighters as they would always evade them, while my 5th gen bombers had to take punishment from their ww2 fighters... Now I think of it, perhaps a way to get around it is to have it so that 'pure' fighters don't evade and always engage? I mean, that's their job right? The strength differences should mean that naturally, newer fighters dominate older ones I reckon. That way, no need for the air superiority mission.
Though I think my coding skills are pretty limited, I think creative solutions like that ^ kind of show a way to get around this barrier atleast for some mechanics. I am sure that border warfare can be tackled in a similar manner... I've been looking through the influence driven war component and seeing if I can tweak anything creatively to make it so that this type of gameplay is encouraged. If you have any suggestions in general, I'd love to hear - always looking to making my game more vibrant and lively. I can share with you some of my changes I've made as well if you're interested.

I think you're pretty right on the diplomacy. While it does feel a lot more alive and well compared to say civ6, or literally any other 4x game for that matter, there is much left to be desired. Although, I would like to point out that IMO resource trading in RI is so so important, it allows one to build giant industries as one would have more raw resources to make more factories, leading to more craftsmen. Trading also allows one to make huge cities due to a higher health and happiness cap. Unfortunately, AIs are always reluctant to trade resources and its not until I colonize the new world and set up a few vassals where the aforementioned 'huge industries' from all the raw resources really start to develop.

Me too, honestly. I love pre-modern history and the game is still fun and exciting in the earlier eras, but there's just something about the multi-layered, industrialized warfare of the late game which is a lot more exciting and fun.

Yeah, there's a feeling of epicness and urgency to it that just doesn't come from ancient warfare.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Unfortunately at present I don't have much coding skills - though it is on my bucket list to learn, perhaps this is a good opportunity to...? But I saw the Dale's combat mod was a component in this mod, and the original DCM had 'air superiority' missions, so I'm hoping if it would be as simple as just doing some minor tweaking on my part. Though until I learn to actually code properly, I have to resort to simply getting creative and piggybacking off of others' works.

Sure! I've already sunk an obscene amount of time into this mod, and I don't see myself stopping anytime soon, so if I can help you on experiments or projects, I'm happy to, though once again, my technical skills are quite limited.

I guess my main motivation for this air superiority mission is that in my last game, I had 5th generation (air superiority fighters) planes while everyone else had 2nd generation ww2 fighters. The issue was the due to the most recent changes on air combat calculations, my fighters could never engage the enemy fighters as they would always evade them, while my 5th gen bombers had to take punishment from their ww2 fighters... Now I think of it, perhaps a way to get around it is to have it so that 'pure' fighters don't evade and always engage? I mean, that's their job right? The strength differences should mean that naturally, newer fighters dominate older ones I reckon. That way, no need for the air superiority mission.
Though I think my coding skills are pretty limited, I think creative solutions like that ^ kind of show a way to get around this barrier atleast for some mechanics. I am sure that border warfare can be tackled in a similar manner... I've been looking through the influence driven war component and seeing if I can tweak anything creatively to make it so that this type of gameplay is encouraged. If you have any suggestions in general, I'd love to hear - always looking to making my game more vibrant and lively. I can share with you some of my changes I've made as well if you're interested.

Wait, how are WW2 fighters ever going to evade F-35s or something similar? Even with the evasion promotions, I don't think that should be possible...

I think you're pretty right on the diplomacy. While it does feel a lot more alive and well compared to say civ6, or literally any other 4x game for that matter, there is much left to be desired. Although, I would like to point out that IMO resource trading in RI is so so important, it allows one to build giant industries as one would have more raw resources to make more factories, leading to more craftsmen. Trading also allows one to make huge cities due to a higher health and happiness cap. Unfortunately, AIs are always reluctant to trade resources and its not until I colonize the new world and set up a few vassals where the aforementioned 'huge industries' from all the raw resources really start to develop.

True - do you play the huge world map or just terra scripts with a "new world" written in?

Yeah, there's a feeling of epicness and urgency to it that just doesn't come from ancient warfare.

And there's also the fact that by the time you're in the late industrial or modern era, you most likely have all or most of the ministries and a strong, developed core empire, so that recently-conquered cities are pretty much self-sufficient right from the get-go, so there's a lot of immediate return on conquest late in the game, whereas in the earlier phases, it's much more about potential gain and power, by claiming land or shortstopping a threatening empire from outpacing your own development, but until you get your happiness, health and infrastructure built up (a long and gradual process in the first half of the game), you won't really reap the benefits of conquest. While I see the strategic importance of early conquest for that very reason, it's not as immediately rewarding from a gameplay perspective as taking over a continent in just a few years of modern war.

 

[fnsnad]

Sure! I've already sunk an obscene amount of time into this mod, and I don't see myself stopping anytime soon, so if I can help you on experiments or projects, I'm happy to, though once again, my technical skills are quite limited.

Wait, how are WW2 fighters ever going to evade F-35s or something similar? Even with the evasion promotions, I don't think that should be possible...

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was going on the offensive, they had their fighters on interception. But because there is no 'air superiority' mission, in efforts to try and tackle their fighters, I would send it to do the strike mission on the ground units, hoping that my fighters would get intercepted and engage the enemy fighters. Problem is, my fighters were so much more advanced that they would always 'succeed' and evade the other fighters and attack the units. The bombers have less evasion percentage and are in the 'percentage range' of being actually intercept by the enemy fighters. But I think my XML changes by making it so that fighters rarely evade would fix it; after all, why on earth would you ever want a fighter to evade when going on an attack mission? I suppose you'd want that if you actually wanted your fighters to attack units or (later) improvements, but why not just use bombers for that? Now that I think of it, the only loophole I can think of to this XML change would be that it could hamper the multirole combat fighters that you put on carriers, and if you wanted to use those fighters to actually act as tac/strat bombers, it couldn't because it would always engage... Either I would have to treat the multirole figher separately or have it so that tac bombers can load up onto carriers.

True - do you play the huge world map or just terra scripts with a "new world" written in?

I'd love to play the huge world map if it didn't lag so much in the late game. I instead use RL_totestra huge with new world on and 'some' continents. What map settings do you play on?

And there's also the fact that by the time you're in the late industrial or modern era, you most likely have all or most of the ministries and a strong, developed core empire, so that recently-conquered cities are pretty much self-sufficient right from the get-go, so there's a lot of immediate return on conquest late in the game, whereas in the earlier phases, it's much more about potential gain and power, by claiming land or shortstopping a threatening empire from outpacing your own development, but until you get your happiness, health and infrastructure built up (a long and gradual process in the first half of the game), you won't really reap the benefits of conquest. While I see the strategic importance of early conquest for that very reason, it's not as immediately rewarding from a gameplay perspective as taking over a continent in just a few years of modern war.

Right, modern war has just so many more possibilities combined with its already grand feeling scale. I think I also particularly enjoy late game because I (usually playing the US) like the idea of being a mild and meek civ for most of the game and then turning into an absolute behemoth late game, imposing my will and projecting power in all corners of the world.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was going on the offensive, they had their fighters on interception. But because there is no 'air superiority' mission, in efforts to try and tackle their fighters, I would send it to do the strike mission on the ground units, hoping that my fighters would get intercepted and engage the enemy fighters. Problem is, my fighters were so much more advanced that they would always 'succeed' and evade the other fighters and attack the units. The bombers have less evasion percentage and are in the 'percentage range' of being actually intercept by the enemy fighters. But I think my XML changes by making it so that fighters rarely evade would fix it; after all, why on earth would you ever want a fighter to evade when going on an attack mission? I suppose you'd want that if you actually wanted your fighters to attack units or (later) improvements, but why not just use bombers for that? Now that I think of it, the only loophole I can think of to this XML change would be that it could hamper the multirole combat fighters that you put on carriers, and if you wanted to use those fighters to actually act as tac/strat bombers, it couldn't because it would always engage... Either I would have to treat the multirole figher separately or have it so that tac bombers can load up onto carriers.

Ah, I see now... Yeah, that is somewhat inconvenient. Still, though, if you have 5th generation fighters, wouldn't your bombers also outclass their interceptors and be pretty much immune to interception?

I'd love to play the huge world map if it didn't lag so much in the late game. I instead use RL_totestra huge with new world on and 'some' continents. What map settings do you play on?

Yeah, same here. I like the world map, but the turn resolution gets ridiculously slow quite early on, so most of my games are just RI Totestra with the same settings as you describe actually.

Right, modern war has just so many more possibilities combined with its already grand feeling scale. I think I also particularly enjoy late game because I (usually playing the US) like the idea of being a mild and meek civ for most of the game and then turning into an absolute behemoth late game, imposing my will and projecting power in all corners of the world.

I love how at the end of the game, though someone appears to be on top, it can totally flip in just 10-20 turns, not only with war but especially with espionage as well. That tense volatility at the end packs a lot of fun.

 

[fnsnad]

Ah, I see now... Yeah, that is somewhat inconvenient. Still, though, if you have 5th generation fighters, wouldn't your bombers also outclass their interceptors and be pretty much immune to interception?

I mean, especially since my bombers are like 3 generations ahead they evade a lot of the times, but they still get intercepted sometimes, which I am fine with, it's just frustrating that my own modern fighters can't do anything about it - which is what I hope to fix.

Yeah, same here. I like the world map, but the turn resolution gets ridiculously slow quite early on, so most of my games are just RI Totestra with the same settings as you describe actually.

I love the script, though I have a bad habit of rerolling too many times as I often like to go into world builder and examine the map to see if it has an interesting layout and not just two pangea blobs.

I love how at the end of the game, though someone appears to be on top, it can totally flip in just 10-20 turns, not only with war but especially with espionage as well. That tense volatility at the end packs a lot of fun.

Yeah. But there's part of me that feels like something is just missing that is keeping it from being completely amazing (to me). Don't get me wrong, it is amazing, but it's nagging me that combat in RI is still a little too civ like and not HOI like. I also wish that combat animations could be sped up. I don't want to disable them as I enjoy watching them and disabling them ruins immersion to me, but I wish that it'd only be like 2 seconds instead of what it is now. Although, for immersion sake, I did decrease the size of units and increased the # of little guys per unit. I think I changed it to 8ish troop guys per infantry type unit and 3 tanks per armor unit. I think my XML changes to the fighter interception thing takes care of my earlier gripe, now only to tackle my gripe of only city combat... Perhaps a good way to start would be to try and remove the unhappiness that comes from having no troops in the city? Maybe also the separatism component as well... But I figure that might start to affect balance.
EDIT - I just realized making fighter's no longer evade is a terrible idea. I forgot about ships and ground units intercepting fighters...

Now that I think of it. Another thing I would love to be changed (either by me or someone more skilled than I) would be somehow someway model the way modern militaries are smaller but more efficient than their WW2 counterparts. Especially on huge maps with numerous stacks, every single individual unit feels rather inconsequential and a loss of even stack is barely a scratch. To be fair, this could also just be because our modern world hasn't seen a world war and thus there have been no need to enlist huge amounts of people. But even still, another thing that I even saw in this thread a bit ago was trying to simulate the idea that units don't get completely obliterated after every battle, and instead, upping the withdrawal chance so that units live longer. I guess what I'd like is to make each unit more important and less expendable while also surviving longer... Perhaps I simply make units cost more and that I give every unit some withdrawal chance?

 

[fnsnad]

Whenever or if Walter sees this: Is there the RI source code anywhere that I can fiddle around with? That would be amazing.

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

In fact, I've noticed myself that most of the people who post regularly in this thread say that they play the biggest possible maps with the most possible civs, and I'm a little curious why they find that more fun, even if performance isn't an issue.

In my case, it "feels" more like the real world.

In game turns, it makes it harder for any one civ to have all the resources that they need. Civilizations evolve around the natural resources they are "born" with, and it makes other civs have to either trade for them or conquer them.

Conquering changes relationships. A warlike civ might make friends with other warlords, but become unfriendly to most civs who will then refuse to trade with them and close their borders making an expansionist civ have to fight everyone to grow. This will lead to vassal blocs that emerge. This makes war less likely because it can trigger a world war instead of a regional skirmish.

In other words, the diplomacy aspect of the game becomes much more prominent on a large map with many civs. SoDs become less of an issue because war becomes less of an issue for all but the most maniacal leaders.

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

Does the big world map still lead to MAF problems in the later eras even on a 64-bit OS? I know that some other modpacks (C2C in particular) have come up with some magic code which stops them, so I'm wondering if that got included in RI as well.

This is why I recommend using a process manager like Process Lasso from Bitsum.com.

It has a real-time monitor that forces the Civ4BTS executable to trigger a memory refresh when total used memory reaches a limit. This effectively eliminates the MAF errors by forcing BTS to release its memory frequently.

 

[fnsnad]

This is why I recommend using a process manager like Process Lasso from Bitsum.com.

It has a real-time monitor that forces the Civ4BTS executable to trigger a memory refresh when total used memory reaches a limit. This effectively eliminates the MAF errors by forcing BTS to release its memory frequently.

Is this automatic? As in, if I just download process lasso and have it running, it automatically does this?

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

Is this automatic? As in, if I just download process lasso and have it running, it automatically does this?

Almost. You have to turn on the watchdog feature to watch the BTS process.

After installing Process Lasso, start Civ4 Beyond the Sword. You will then see the process Civ4BeyondSword.exe running (sort the list by Process Name).

Right-click on it and choose "Set Watchdog Advanced Rules..."

Process Match will be filled in with "civbeyondsword.exe"

For the entry "For" choose "virtual memory" then "Greater than" then "825" for megabytes for "1" seconds

For the entry "then" choose "trim virtual memory"

For "Virtual memory metric to use" choose "working set."

Click Add Rule.

That's it. Process Lasso will now monitor Civ4 and trim the memory whenever it exceeds 825Mb.

 

[Hafenguy]

That's honestly really exciting to hear if you have legitimate programming skills unlike me! All I'm good for with respect to the mod's development is playtesting and writing feedback, but if you seriously want to try and dive into it, by all means I will at least do that to help.

And on second thought regarding my previous post, there is one thing that I do regrettably think that RI (and really Civ4 in general) is lacking on, and that's the whole diplomacy model. I suppose my suggestion about territorial exchanges being more treaty oriented than of direct conquest is along the same lines, but I think that diplomacy, while not altogether disappointing, is still relatively lacking in interactivity and the range of options (all the more so with tech trades removed). If there's one thing I'd like to see the mod expand if at all possible, it's that. Combat and warfare in the mod is satisfying for what it purports to do in my opinion; there is a good mix of tactical and strategic decisions and depth at the same time as plenty of player interactivity, empire management is fun and presents interesting choices like "do I build this building or instead bolster my army with another unit?" etc., but the only thing that feels kind of stilted is diplomacy. While there are still lots of passive values that are meaningful and strategically significant, the actual conduct of diplomacy is pretty much just a matter of DoWs and open borders agreements, with the occasional resource trade or request/demand for money or to switch a civic or religion. While those are admittedly really important aspects of it, quite frankly it could go a lot deeper, but that part of the game is purportedly hard-coded and virtually impossible to modify. While I didn't really think about it when I was writing my last post, this is something that I would be thrilled to see expanded.

 

[Hafenguy]

Totaly agree with that. What else diplomacy options would you like to have?

In the german "base" mod there are more diplokatoc Features like a agreemant for passage only for Civil units and the possibility to have alliances with more than one civ.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Whenever or if Walter sees this: Is there the RI source code anywhere that I can fiddle around with? That would be amazing.

There is, if I'm not mistaken:

p/civ4mods/code - Revision 5532: /realism/bts/trunk/mod

You need to install the SVN version, in the GameCore folder you can find the dll source code; not sure this is the latest version anyway. It looks like the dll was updated last december, but I don't know if there are more recent repositories (from the notes it looked like it was Release Candidate for version 3.6). Anyway, I tried to have a look at the code, I've also been able to compile a debug dll to fix a CTD occouring in my game, but I'm probably missing something as the mod returns an error and crashes when I try to load the game.

 

[JohnCarterOfMars]

On random maps, I've only ever played the standard size with the default number of civs, though with barbarian civs and revolutions turned on, that ends up being about 10-15 by the mid-late game unless there's a lot of consolidation in that particular game. Occasionally I like to play the huge world map, but I find that the increasingly-long turn resolution ends up taking the fun out of it, because it ends up being like an entire minute only by the early ADs. I don't really blame the developers for that, since they're really redlining the engine to maximum and were candid about performance issues with it, but while the epic scale of that scenario specifically appeals to me quite a lot (particularly since all of the minor civs were individually written and placed in their historical locations), on a random map I personally don't see the allure of huge maps, and I find that standard strikes a good balance with a number of teams which is interactive but not tediously cluttered and a size where gaining or losing one individual city is still strategically meaningful. When the map is enormous, it feels like every expansion is too granular and doesn't carry much weight of its own. To each their own, though.

I will add this...

This post explains (to me) why you were so insistent on changing the separation values. If the map is standard and the civ count is 15, then I can see the frustration in the few large civs suddenly balkanizing and creating easy fodder for takeover. I don't think this is as frequent an occurrence when the map is huge and the civ count is high due to the diplomacy element of the game.

That said, I've learned to manage my separation values after suffering through repeated peasant revolts and city uprisings, now that I better understand the mechanics at work. I also haven't seen the largest civs break up much in the mid-to-late game, either. However, I haven't loaded up the latest update yet to play the game with your separation adjustments, so I can't say how it affects my gameplay.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I will add this...

This post explains (to me) why you were so insistent on changing the separation values. If the map is standard and the civ count is 15, then I can see the frustration in the few large civs suddenly balkanizing and creating easy fodder for takeover. I don't think this is as frequent an occurrence when the map is huge and the civ count is high due to the diplomacy element of the game.

That said, I've learned to manage my separation values after suffering through repeated peasant revolts and city uprisings, now that I better understand the mechanics at work. I also haven't seen the largest civs break up much in the mid-to-late game, either. However, I haven't loaded up the latest update yet to play the game with your separation adjustments, so I can't say how it affects my gameplay.

I started playing again RI a couple of months ago after some years and I must say that separatism works very good for me: not too strong, not too weak. I only tried a couple of maps (one is the large earth map, I'm playing as Russia and I own all the real world Russia territory), but I had no real problem managing separatism, although it was definitely not easy. I've reached the start of modern era and I'm enjoying the mod a lot.

 

[fnsnad]

There is, if I'm not mistaken:

p/civ4mods/code - Revision 5532: /realism/bts/trunk/mod

You need to install the SVN version, in the GameCore folder you can find the dll source code; not sure this is the latest version anyway. It looks like the dll was updated last december, but I don't know if there are more recent repositories (from the notes it looked like it was Release Candidate for version 3.6). Anyway, I tried to have a look at the code, I've also been able to compile a debug dll to fix a CTD occouring in my game, but I'm probably missing something as the mod returns an error and crashes when I try to load the game.

Thank you!!

I started playing again RI a couple of months ago after some years and I must say that separatism works very good for me: not too strong, not too weak. I only tried a couple of maps (one is the large earth map, I'm playing as Russia and I own all the real world Russia territory), but I had no real problem managing separatism, although it was definitely not easy. I've reached the start of modern era and I'm enjoying the mod a lot.

Same for me here; I find that on huge map starting 15 civs (usually ballooning to around 25 medieval/renaissance and then climbing back down to 18ish in modern), a large scale revolution/separatist state rising from a major power happens once a game, which to me is enough to keep the game moving without feeling like every other civ is just getting split apart randomly.

 

[Hafenguy]

How long does a game like that take for you?

 

[fnsnad]

How long does a game like that take for you?

Assuming you're asking me, probably in the ballpark of 50 hours. I play until pretty much the end of the modern age. Usually takes 10 total hours to finish ancient, classical and medieval era combined. Then many another 10 hours of renaissance, and then the remaining time is all industrial/modern.