Realism Invictus

[[Y]]

This is why I've made a habit of a fast peek at the arrangement of the overall continents in the WorldBuilder before proceeding with a first turn (just looking at the minimap is sufficient, so we don't see our nearest neighborhood) - I also strongly dislike long thin ones or being alone on some remote island, far from the action. Saves a lot of time and frustration. Additionally, I have a super weak memory, so I forget about everything I've seen before I get exploration techs, so the fun is still here

Heh, maybe I should try that too. I usually consider any game an immediate loss if I open up the world builder, but I could absolutely use a piece of paper or something to block out the majority of the screen and only leave the minimap visible. Thanks for suggesting.

I have a diametrically different opinion. I like the diversity of starting situations, more or less isolated, grasland terrain or jungle, desert or forests. In my game, I started near jungle and went for animism and even got the wonder that boosts slash and burn farms. There was also a big desert near me, which made a lot of land undesirable. I still built some cities on the edges of the desert, near some oasis and gold resources. I did have quite a lot of barbarians. Now, I am at the start of the medieval period and I grabbed Hinduism along the way, so time to mass chop the jungles, and about to go Monasticism, Free Commoners and Craft Guilds. A huge transition period.

I wouldn't want to have the same type of game each time, on a continent with a similar number of neighbours knowing that there is no jungle or desert close by. Always going for the paganism religion and the early wonders that boost it. It would reduce the replayability.

Enhanced replayability is exactly why I like plains starts. If playing a jungle start, most of the decision making is already made for me. I'll use animism as my religion civic, try to get The Great Bath (as you did), structure my army based on skirmishers with the forestry promotions, not care much about cavalry, and practice healthy breathing exercises for each time my cities suffer a pandemic outbreak. And then when I get to Water Pump, the game proper can start.

There isn't much variety in choices you can make with a jungle start. But with a plains start, there's no opinionated direction from the game. Sometimes the map offers you a bunch of food resources, sometimes a bunch of production resources, sometimes a mix. You can build an economic nation, a military nation, a research nation, whichever you choose. You are free to follow the specializations offered by your leader traits and immediate resources and neighbors to have a game full of meaningful choices rather than game where you're clicking the obvious buttons because any alternative doesn't make sense for your circumstances.

If you are picky with the starting positions, you can start many games and save a dozen that you like. By the time that you're done, you won't remember the first ones that you generated.

I like the idea in general, but I don't think it holds for me. I still have strong memories of my good games from years ago and what made them great, the shape of my empires, and the distribution of the critical resources lol. Maybe that's part of my problem: I keep comparing every game to those games and getting disinterested in anything that might offer a lesser experience.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Enhanced replayability is exactly why I like plains starts. If playing a jungle start, most of the decision making is already made for me. I'll use animism as my religion civic, try to get The Great Bath (as you did), structure my army based on skirmishers with the forestry promotions, not care much about cavalry, and practice healthy breathing exercises for each time my cities suffer a pandemic outbreak. And then when I get to Water Pump, the game proper can start.

There isn't much variety in choices you can make with a jungle start. But with a plains start, there's no opinionated direction from the game. Sometimes the map offers you a bunch of food resources, sometimes a bunch of production resources, sometimes a mix. You can build an economic nation, a military nation, a research nation, whichever you choose. You are free to follow the specializations offered by your leader traits and immediate resources and neighbors to have a game full of meaningful choices rather than game where you're clicking the obvious buttons because any alternative doesn't make sense for your circumstances.

I don't see why you think there are no choices how to create your empire. First of all, it is of course never the case that every tile of your empire is jungle. It even depends on which direction you expand in. After lengthy expanding, maybe 20% of my improvements before jungle chopping were slash and burn farms. As I said, I had a big desert area and there were also plains and grasslands. I didn't have to go animism. But it was an option. It is not really a choice you make without jungles in the area. I didn't have to build the Great Bath, but it improved an interesting section of my empire and the section that I developed first.

And of course, you still have every freedom to develop your economy to become militaristic or scientific or what is more usual for me, a mix of both.

And the unit promotions are usually not based on what terrain a few of your cities are situated, but more about the border terrain. And maybe you want to go generalist combat or drill just so that your units are not dependent on a certain terrain type but are more flexible. I usually do that, but not always.

I like the idea in general, but I don't think it holds for me. I still have strong memories of my good games from years ago and what made them great, the shape of my empires, and the distribution of the critical resources lol. Maybe that's part of my problem: I keep comparing every game to those games and getting disinterested in anything that might offer a lesser experience.

There is a big difference between the map of a game that you played for 60+ hours and which you filled with cities and shaped to your will or one that you just viewed quickly to check whether it fulfills some conditions and then saved. I vividly remember a game that I played over a decade ago and how the continents were formed and what islands were important in a conquest.

I launched a dozen torrestra maps to get a feel for what parameters would give me a nice map and I don't know anything about them.

 

[ConquestCola]

For those who play with the option to have barbarians turn into civs, how does that work in practice? I've never used the option and since it usually takes several weeks for me to finish a game, I'm not in a rush to experiment without some foreknowledge.

1) Do ALL barbarian cities suddenly flip to the same culture or is it a local thing with one city at a time? Only the latter makes sense to me.
2) How technologically advanced are newly spawned Civs, in relation to existing civs? (EDIT: I think Walter just answered this a few posts ago. Thank you, Walter!)
3) More vaguely, what has your experience been with this option if you've chosen it? Was it fun, frustrating, both?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

1) Do ALL barbarian cities suddenly flip to the same culture or is it a local thing with one city at a time? Only the latter makes sense to me.

They do it in local clusters, all barbarian cities within 15 tiles of the prospective capital. In practice, it usually means 2-3 cities, though in some cases, it may be more. I just ran an excellent hands-off party with an empty new world, where a true US-like leading world power managed to form later in the game when others reached the continent, and the end game even came down to a showdown between it and a union of several civs running communist civics from another continent.

 

[AspiringScholar]

For those who play with the option to have barbarians turn into civs, how does that work in practice? I've never used the option and since it usually takes several weeks for me to finish a game, I'm not in a rush to experiment without some foreknowledge.

Though I am not sure what the specific input thresholds for this are, barbarian cities accumulate culture from being attacked (via the influenced driven war mechanic), and at a certain point, they will "flip" into a proper civ, which as a rule (I think) is one of the derivative ones. As was just mentioned above, ironically they end up being powerful rivals in most games. Oftentimes, if you're playing a map script with a new world, this will happen shortly after you make contact and explore the new continents, since the AI is prone to attacking them as well, and since "Barbarian" is one distinct civ, their "points" to that effect seem to add up fairly quickly.

3) More vaguely, what has your experience been with this option if you've chosen it? Was it fun, frustrating, both?

I personally quite like this feature and find that it adds a challenging gameplay element, as well as a lot of flavor (since it is the set of more uncommon derivative civs which get showcased). One of my favorite games of RI ultimately came down to a showdown between myself as the US and a massively bloated Texas that was running away with the game. It felt like a "neo" Civil War fighting tooth and nail against another American in the modern era.

--

Quick question, but what's the historical reference for the "Republic of China?" Their flag looks quite odd, and not what I would have guessed for something coming out of east Asia. I am playing as the "northern" (default?) Chinese this game and switched to democracy. I would have expected Taiwan, but, I suppose that gets kind of awkward since that already exists (or did, until this last patch) as a derivative civ.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Though I am not sure what the specific input thresholds for this are, barbarian cities accumulate culture from being attacked (via the influenced driven war mechanic), and at a certain point, they will "flip" into a proper civ, which as a rule (I think) is one of the derivative ones.

IDW has no interaction with barbarian civ settling. There is simply a per-turn probability of settling based on the number of cities and total barbarian population. The civ gets selected randomly from all playable and derivative civs. Settling requires at least one regular civs' city on that continent, so if you have an empty new world, you'll get relatively massive "post-colonial" civs once the colonizers arrive and start settling.

As was just mentioned above, ironically they end up being powerful rivals in most games. Oftentimes, if you're playing a map script with a new world, this will happen shortly after you make contact and explore the new continents, since the AI is prone to attacking them as well, and since "Barbarian" is one distinct civ, their "points" to that effect seem to add up fairly quickly.

There is no "ironically" there, really. From the get-go, my approach to it, gameplay-wise, was that they should be powerful enough to compete for the top spots at least half of the time. I see no point in spawning fodder for others. If we want new civs to appear, they should be set up in such a way as to be competitive.

Quick question, but what's the historical reference for the "Republic of China?" Their flag looks quite odd, and not what I would have guessed for something coming out of east Asia. I am playing as the "northern" (default?) Chinese this game and switched to democracy.

China has lots of dynamic flags, so I can only guess which exact one you're referring to. I suspect you're talking about the Beiyang flag, which was the flag of the first Chinese republic. The flag was adopted by the government in Beijing after the fall of Qing dynasty.



This was the government of China after the revolution in 1911, as the Kuomintang government in the South wasn't internationally recognised. Chiang Kai-Shek only took over the entirety of China after the Northern Expedition in 1926-28, after which the Kuomintang took over as the internationally recognised Chinese government, with their flag (which is now the flag of Taiwan).

The flag has a stark symbolism that is very Chinese in origin and dates back to Qing era. Here, for instance, a couple of versions of the same base colours can be seen:

The five colours are the five constituent "peoples" of China: the Han (red), the Manchus (yellow), the Mongols (blue), the Hui (white), and the Tibetans (black). It dates back to the Chinese five-element system (contrasting with the traditional four Aristotelean elements in the West), and various versions of it were in use at least as far back as Tang dynasty. There were multiple variations of that symbolism in early XX-century China, but that's the flag that ultimately became the official one for the Republic of China. I suspect that the five-part symbolism at least partially inspired the CCP when they designed the current mainland Chinese flag, though the official explanation for its five stars is completely different.

I would have expected Taiwan, but, I suppose that gets kind of awkward since that already exists (or did, until this last patch) as a derivative civ.

The early XX century is one of the clear cases of China being split on a North-South axis. Simultaneously to the republican government in Beijing, a parallel government was run by Sun Yat-Sen from Guangzhou. That's the one that flew the "Blue Sky, White Sun, and a Wholly Red Earth" flag, which is now the flag of the Chinese Republic in Taiwan. The two governments weren't really fond of each other and tried stamping each other out, but ultimately, it was a race to the bottom, as both were gradually losing their grasp on China until the Northern government disintegrated into Warlord cliques, while the Southern was taken over by Chiang Kai-Shek as his personal dictatorship.

 

[Deder]

I adjusted the AI code, so the SVN version AI now uses ranged attacks effectively. It can't simply be done through XML.

Hi! Can you make also that units like rams will also attack before melle assault? I mean: I set up all archery ( and recon ) units combat limits like in your mod have rams. It would be nice if AI would know that becose of low combat limit archers and rams have very big chance of withdrawal they can hurt easly and with very few loses enemy stakc before assault. And also like with ranged attack of siege units it woudl make archers to fire arrows to everthing what will close to their defenisve positions. ( dont worry about losing defenisve boosts, I noticed that you need to change position to lose it, so archers can be fortified and rain arrows to enemy enclose ) .

Also I want to ask when you will put next update of your changes in svn version to normal version. ( My xml and python folders 3.6 version i easy copy paste to 3.61 version, but my xml folder doesnt work with svn ) - And I m a big fan of yours last changes in svn version ^^

Below example code of an archer

            <iCombat>3</iCombat>
            <iCombatLimit>30</iCombatLimit>
            <iAirCombat>0</iAirCombat>
            <iAirCombatLimit>0</iAirCombatLimit>
            <iXPValueAttack>4</iXPValueAttack>
            <iXPValueDefense>2</iXPValueDefense>
            <iFirstStrikes>0</iFirstStrikes>
            <iChanceFirstStrikes>2</iChanceFirstStrikes>
            <iInterceptionProbability>0</iInterceptionProbability>
            <iEvasionProbability>0</iEvasionProbability>
            <iWithdrawalProb>15</iWithdrawalProb>
            <iCollateralDamage>50</iCollateralDamage>
            <iCollateralDamageLimit>20</iCollateralDamageLimit>
            <iCollateralDamageMaxUnits>2</iCollateralDamageMaxUnits>
            <iCityAttack>40</iCityAttack>
            <iCityDefense>40</iCityDefense>
            <iAnimalCombat>35</iAnimalCombat>
            <iHillsAttack>25</iHillsAttack>
            <iHillsDefense>25</iHillsDefense>
            <TerrainNatives/>
            <FeatureNatives/>
            <TerrainAttacks/>
            <TerrainDefenses/>
            <FeatureAttacks/>
            <FeatureDefenses/>
            <UnitClassAttackMods/>
            <UnitClassDefenseMods/>
            <UnitCombatAttackMods>
                <UnitCombatAttackMod>
                    <UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_RECON</UnitCombatType>
                    <iUnitCombatMod>75</iUnitCombatMod>
                </UnitCombatAttackMod>
            </UnitCombatAttackMods>
            <UnitCombatDefenseMods>
                <UnitCombatDefenseMod>
                    <UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_ARCHER</UnitCombatType>
                    <iUnitCombatMod>20</iUnitCombatMod>
                </UnitCombatDefenseMod>
            </UnitCombatDefenseMods>
            <UnitCombatMods>
                <UnitCombatMod>
                    <UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED_LIGHT</UnitCombatType>
                    <iUnitCombatMod>100</iUnitCombatMod>
                </UnitCombatMod>
            </UnitCombatMods>

 

[AspiringScholar]

IDW has no interaction with barbarian civ settling. There is simply a per-turn probability of settling based on the number of cities and total barbarian population. The civ gets selected randomly from all playable and derivative civs. Settling requires at least one regular civs' city on that continent, so if you have an empty new world, you'll get relatively massive "post-colonial" civs once the colonizers arrive and start settling.

Oh, then I was legitimately misunderstood about that mechanic. Does the chance intensify with more regular civ settlement, or is it simply binary and triggers once the first one is founded?

There is no "ironically" there, really. From the get-go, my approach to it, gameplay-wise, was that they should be powerful enough to compete for the top spots at least half of the time. I see no point in spawning fodder for others. If we want new civs to appear, they should be set up in such a way as to be competitive.

I wasn't sure if it was deliberate, but I certainly find it more interesting and enjoyable that that is how it plays out. My assumption was that being relatively unperturbed with suddenly spawning with good land and a par level of tech with the rest of the game is simply quite a slingshot.

China has lots of dynamic flags, so I can only guess which exact one you're referring to. I suspect you're talking about the Beiyang flag, which was the flag of the first Chinese republic. The flag was adopted by the government in Beijing after the fall of Qing dynasty.

View attachment 702365

That is indeed the one that I am referring to! I love these historical sketches, especially when they're about something I barely had a notion of before. I vaguely know about the fall of the Qing and the Warlord Period, but didn't know that Chiang's government wasn't internationally recognized initially, nor the clever symbolism of the flag itself.

This was the government of China after the revolution in 1911, as the Kuomintang government in the South wasn't internationally recognised. Chiang Kai-Shek only took over the entirety of China after the Northern Expedition in 1926-28, after which the Kuomintang took over as the internationally recognised Chinese government, with their flag (which is now the flag of Taiwan).

The flag has a stark symbolism that is very Chinese in origin and dates back to Qing era. Here, for instance, a couple of versions of the same base colours can be seen:

View attachment 702366
The five colours are the five constituent "peoples" of China: the Han (red), the Manchus (yellow), the Mongols (blue), the Hui (white), and the Tibetans (black). It dates back to the Chinese five-element system (contrasting with the traditional four Aristotelean elements in the West), and various versions of it were in use at least as far back as Tang dynasty. There were multiple variations of that symbolism in early XX-century China, but that's the flag that ultimately became the official one for the Republic of China. I suspect that the five-part symbolism at least partially inspired the CCP when they designed the current mainland Chinese flag, though the official explanation for its five stars is completely different.

How does their explanation differ, then? Also, wouldn't identifying it with something deep in the culture's tradition confer legitimacy in a way that the CCP would encourage? Perhaps that would be inconsistent with the whole aim of the Cultural Revolution's deliberate reconstruction of national identity, though.

The early XX century is one of the clear cases of China being split on a North-South axis. Simultaneously to the republican government in Beijing, a parallel government was run by Sun Yat-Sen from Guangzhou. That's the one that flew the "Blue Sky, White Sun, and a Wholly Red Earth" flag, which is now the flag of the Chinese Republic in Taiwan. The two governments weren't really fond of each other and tried stamping each other out, but ultimately, it was a race to the bottom, as both were gradually losing their grasp on China until the Northern government disintegrated into Warlord cliques, while the Southern was taken over by Chiang Kai-Shek as his personal dictatorship.

I am actually curious which flag I'll get when I switch to dictatorship, as I intend to. Without planned economy, it probably won't be the contemporary CCP flag, but if it switches to the Taiwanese flag, isn't that slightly dissonant with history since the Republic of China today still has that same flag, and technically is a democracy?

Also, on the historicity of China in-game, I am curious about the canal: how many of these were actually built? I thought that maybe a handful of them were, but the use case for the improvement encourages their widespread use. I think it is conceptually very cool, but it feels a little out of place and awkward that there are often so many of them representing a large portion of the Chinese civ's land use. It almost seems like it might be more appropriately represented as a unique building, but again, I'm not particularly strong on Chinese history so I am simply unaware if they were actually widespread and prominent IRL.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Hi! Can you make also that units like rams will also attack before melle assault? I mean: I set up all archery ( and recon ) units combat limits like in your mod have rams. It would be nice if AI would know that becose of low combat limit archers and rams have very big chance of withdrawal they can hurt easly and with very few loses enemy stakc before assault. And also like with ranged attack of siege units it woudl make archers to fire arrows to everthing what will close to their defenisve positions. ( dont worry about losing defenisve boosts, I noticed that you need to change position to lose it, so archers can be fortified and rain arrows to enemy enclose ) .

What you're describing isn't in RI. Rams don't have combat limits set differently, nor a withdrawal chance. And I don't understand why they would have, the notion of ram crews running around the field trying to attack people sounds rather ridiculous.

Also I want to ask when you will put next update of your changes in svn version to normal version. ( My xml and python folders 3.6 version i easy copy paste to 3.61 version, but my xml folder doesnt work with svn ) - And I m a big fan of yours last changes in svn version ^^

As usual, around Christmas.

Oh, then I was legitimately misunderstood about that mechanic. Does the chance intensify with more regular civ settlement, or is it simply binary and triggers once the first one is founded?

Binary. It intensifies with total barbarian population and number of cities (and as such, after some of those settle, goes way down for a while organically).

How does their explanation differ, then? Also, wouldn't identifying it with something deep in the culture's tradition confer legitimacy in a way that the CCP would encourage? Perhaps that would be inconsistent with the whole aim of the Cultural Revolution's deliberate reconstruction of national identity, though.

Theirs is "4 social classes all guided by 1 (big) CCP". And I guess the old flag wasn't too popular with the communists at the time, especially given that it was also used by some Japanese collaborationist governments.

Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1937–1940) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reformed Government of the Republic of China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Manchukuo (an obvious variation on the theme)

I am actually curious which flag I'll get when I switch to dictatorship, as I intend to. Without planned economy, it probably won't be the contemporary CCP flag, but if it switches to the Taiwanese flag, isn't that slightly dissonant with history since the Republic of China today still has that same flag, and technically is a democracy?

You'll get the flag of the Empire of China, an attempted military dictatorship in the North. Which is also an obvious play on the same five-colour motif.

Also, on the historicity of China in-game, I am curious about the canal: how many of these were actually built? I thought that maybe a handful of them were, but the use case for the improvement encourages their widespread use. I think it is conceptually very cool, but it feels a little out of place and awkward that there are often so many of them representing a large portion of the Chinese civ's land use. It almost seems like it might be more appropriately represented as a unique building, but again, I'm not particularly strong on Chinese history so I am simply unaware if they were actually widespread and prominent IRL.

The short answer is "many". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_canals_in_China

The canal system was absolutely essential to China throughout all of its unified history, and to a great extent facilitated said unification. Without a very extensive canal system, the empire of China's extent would be a logistic impossibility; compare and contrast the Roman empire - it is far from random that its general shape mostly followed the Mediterranean sea - "Mare Nostrum" - that was absolutely essential to the exchange of goods and movement of people. China doesn't have a sea right in the center of its territory, and its river systems, while extensive, wouldn't cope with the logistic tasks themselves. China was positively crisscrossed by the canals, including its main transport artery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_(China)

 

[Deder]

What you're describing isn't in RI. Rams don't have combat limits set differently, nor a withdrawal chance. And I don't understand why they would have, the notion of ram crews running around the field trying to attack people sounds rather ridiculous.

You're right! I remembered it wrong. However, after checking, I noticed that rams still have the ability to kill. (It seems super strange to me, so limited ability was obvious to me.)

But also I can see you still left that ability to catapults ( limit set to 75 ), so I hope in next release it would work so my archer design will work fo AI as I mentioned earlier.

 

[Takofloppa]

Hi Walter, do you accept new contributions? I was always lurking here in the thread but I can also do some things in DLL - as my CV I include a patch that implements a mechanic preventing AI from declaring war against nuclear powers as described here https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/realism-invictus.411799/page-551#post-16664926. I tested it with autoplay and some logs so hopefully it works, although the codebase is not the easiest so I'm still learning how everything works.

Attachments are rejecting to cooperate, so I guess I will put it here for now: https://pastebin.com/pkRieEaN

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

You're right! I remembered it wrong. However, after checking, I noticed that rams still have the ability to kill. (It seems super strange to me, so limited ability was obvious to me.)

But also I can see you still left that ability to catapults ( limit set to 75 ), so I hope in next release it would work so my archer design will work fo AI as I mentioned earlier.

While early siege units can technically attack in RI, they will only ever succeed against very damaged units. I didn't want to take that away altogether as it tends to mess with AI's head, but all in all, attacking with them is not encouraged.

Hi Walter, do you accept new contributions? I was always lurking here in the thread but I can also do some things in DLL - as my CV I include a patch that implements a mechanic preventing AI from declaring war against nuclear powers as described here https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/realism-invictus.411799/page-551#post-16664926. I tested it with autoplay and some logs so hopefully it works, although the codebase is not the easiest so I'm still learning how everything works.

Attachments are rejecting to cooperate, so I guess I will put it here for now: https://pastebin.com/pkRieEaN

Thanks, always happy to get a helping hand, especially with a skill that I don't excel at myself. Let's take this to PMs.

 

[Watermelon]

Love the mod, cant believe Im still learning as much as I do: I took Walters hint regarding some players undervaluing hammers compared to commerce/beakers and after trying building even more units and using more hammers, instead of buildings (of not immediate need) and commerce, I can safely say: You are correct. I am probably quite the extreme warmonger, having run a -10 to -20 gold at 0% research for about 30 turns in classical, barely above 25% research even now in medieval, but techs are expensive for what they provide (after the first couple in ancient era) and you can always tech later, when you are still alive and not DoWed by 3 AIs.

I believe tech diffusion through open borders is too strong. Open borders are too easily available to be given a +40% research boost (library + university) for "free" and multiplicatively . Unless a very small world, you can have 4-5 open borders, which give you double research if you are content to be like 50 turns behind techs (later on). E.G. why would I prioritize printing press without modifiers, when I get an even greater effect (double research) by waiting a couple of turns, while freeing up hammers in the meantime? Essentially, the less towns you have, the better they become, esp. as AI rather easily pushes into ahead of time modifiers, which nerfs their research buffing yours indirectly. This becomes even worse, when you use the hammers to build units, conquer stuff and then get techs for free, sometimes entire techs for a single city, that might cost you (only) 15 levies or so, catching up to tech leaders without a sweat, including their cities.

I like killing AIs and warmongering but I do dislike how easily you can minimize the disadvantages of low research. I do really think attempting for a tech lead, while there is any AI or decent land around is always way too expensive for what you gain. I would nerf tech diffusion maybe to 30% and 15 or 10 % increments, as it would make early conquest more expensive, players and AI not quite as snowbally, lengthing the game. Maybe decrease the tech amount you gain by conquering stuff on a larger map, as a single war in the later eras is enough to net you half an era in techs on a huge map.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I believe tech diffusion through open borders is too strong. Open borders are too easily available to be given a +40% research boost (library + university) for "free" and multiplicatively . Unless a very small world, you can have 4-5 open borders, which give you double research if you are content to be like 50 turns behind techs (later on). E.G. why would I prioritize printing press without modifiers, when I get an even greater effect (double research) by waiting a couple of turns, while freeing up hammers in the meantime? Essentially, the less towns you have, the better they become, esp. as AI rather easily pushes into ahead of time modifiers, which nerfs their research buffing yours indirectly. This becomes even worse, when you use the hammers to build units, conquer stuff and then get techs for free, sometimes entire techs for a single city, that might cost you (only) 15 levies or so, catching up to tech leaders without a sweat, including their cities.

I like killing AIs and warmongering but I do dislike how easily you can minimize the disadvantages of low research. I do really think attempting for a tech lead, while there is any AI or decent land around is always way too expensive for what you gain. I would nerf tech diffusion maybe to 30% and 15 or 10 % increments, as it would make early conquest more expensive, players and AI not quite as snowbally, lengthing the game. Maybe decrease the tech amount you gain by conquering stuff on a larger map, as a single war in the later eras is enough to net you half an era in techs on a huge map.

I actually agree with you. I also feel the system is a bit too passive. It should be more involved than just signing some Open Borders. While I don't have a clear picture in my head of how exactly I'll go about it, it will definitely involve nerfing the passive open borders spread.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I actually really like the technology diffusion. It is so much superior to a system of technology trading. In a large part of human history, there were no clear borders or 'technologies that belonged to a nation' because the notion of a nation often barely existed. If a master iron smith in Paris had an apprentice who started a business in Rome, then the knowledge of that master went through the apprentice to Rome. That was no technological theft.

For instance, in the regions of Europe, technology spread and there was nothing regarding borders that stopped it. Only when people were not connected to each other, when an ocean or desert stopped contact would there be a serious technological divide.

Tech diffusion means that you can hardly get far ahead technologically of other nations which means that that should also not be your goal. It would be weird if we go back to a system where connected nations have really different levels of technology.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

And I am not going to get rid of it, I want to make it more involved and interactive. For instance, get certain buildings/wonders to provide significant input into it, or maybe have it scale with relations or geographic proximity (moving the capital closer to progressive neighbours, anyone?). I am not yet settled on the particulars.

 

[Roland Johansen]

You could have it related to trade. The fraction that a foreign nation's trade is part of your total trade. If they have 12 trade routes in your cities with a total value of 40 and your total value of trade routes is 100, then their fraction of the trade is 40%, meaning that there is a lot of interaction between the civilizations.

It does mean that later in the game, when you have more trade routes per city, the fraction of the trade routes of a certain nation in your empire could become lower.

You could argue that in modern times, nations do try to keep some technologies as a secret, limiting trade around the business that is related to that technology (trade embargoes related to nuclear technology and chips.)

It would be interesting if you could have some form of open borders with limited trade that allowed you to exclude a few technologies from the technology diffusion. But it sounds really complicated to create, especially regarding AI.

Just putting a thought out there. Trying to connect it to how technological diffusion really works.

 

[Watermelon]

I believe distance to capitals might be indeed a quite clean solution. After all, e.g. Peter the Great did exactly that to catch up to other european powers. The Japanese move from Kyoto to seaside Tokyo could counted as a somewhat similar move (next to other reasons). The duration of the open border agreement could also be a factor, after all establishing knowledge and trading links does take time, and would indirectly make good relations an advantage. Knowledge sharing should probably also not be possible, when there is no trade connection possible.

Serfdom and Free commoners are also obvious targets to modify the gains through open borders. One could also modify the gains by counting how much of the populations borders more advanced empires compared to how much population there is in the (backward) interior.

Maybe have a grace period, so that technologies that are researched only become available to share after x amount of turns to have more of a "first mover advantage".

 

[[Y]]

though I don't know whether there's something tailored for your specific tastes.

I focused on this thought more and decided that I was being somewhat childish by walking away because what I wanted wasn't being served to me. So I started delving into how map generation works and modifying Totestra to suit my wants more. Been playing around with it for the past day and am now getting continents that suit my preferences more: generally bigger, leaning wider than longer, and less "noise" creating weird and snaky continents. I'll probably keep messing with it as I play, but it's been a positive change so far.

Happy to share my edits if anyone's curious about how to go about modifying the map generation script towards their own preferences.

And I am not going to get rid of it, I want to make it more involved and interactive. For instance, get certain buildings/wonders to provide significant input into it, or maybe have it scale with relations or geographic proximity (moving the capital closer to progressive neighbours, anyone?). I am not yet settled on the particulars.

My rough thoughts/ideas:

• Research bonus requires a civ to have open borders with you, be in your trading network (or whatever it's called when you can trade resources), and for that civ to have completed research on that tech
• Default bonus +10% per civ
• Once you research Alphabet, additional +5% per civ from other civs with Alphabet
• Once you research Paper, additional +5% per civ
• +5% per civ when running each of Republic, Inclusivity, Merchant Families, and Free Religion civics
• -5% (to min 0) per civ when running each of Tribal Union, Traditional Custom, and Protectionism civics
• Theocracy and Civil Religion only allow the bonus from civs that share your state religion
• Free Religion gives +2% per civ for each religion in any your cities
• Qumran provides +10% per civ (instead of the happiness bonus. I often get it and the volatility of the research rate makes it a double edged sword)
• +100% from Information Networking
• With (tech ???--medieval maybe), a Great Spy can create a Spy Network national wonder, which grants the bonus from all civs within trade network, regardless of open borders
• With (tech ???--something roughly early 20th century), a Great Spy can create a Intelligence Agency national wonder, which grants the bonus from all civs, regardless of trade network or open borders

 

[Roland Johansen]

The longer that I think about this, the more I wonder whether a complicated formula for the technology transfer bonus really adds something to the game.


Players would also need to know how the formula works to understand why they get a bigger bonus at one moment compared to the next. You can't just put a (for example) 57.6% bonus there and expect players to be fine with that number without showing the calculation behind it.

Furthermore, there are many of the suggested parts of that formula that you can't influence, so it is a formula with a variable outcome that is out of your control.

Finally, ancient technologies were transferred very differently than modern ones, so saying that these ancient civilizations didn't (for example) have paper and therefore had a hard time transferring the knowledge of animal husbandry doesn't make sense. So, adding a lot of detail can make it even less realistic than a simple formula.

The only element that I like is the length of good relations. That is something that you can influence and it makes sense that it would affect technology transfer in all ages of the world. And it is also used as a modifier in foreign trade.

Keep it simple and you get better gameplay.