Realism Invictus

[trashmunster]

Are you alright? That seemed to come from nowhere, and your other posts seem to have a different tone.

Its sarcasm clearly, directed at Walter, warning him of a very weird and dangerous potential development, he'll understand, hopefully

 

[AspiringScholar]

Its sarcasm clearly, directed at Walter, warning him of a very weird and dangerous potential development, he'll understand, hopefully

I halfway suspected, but that's always harder to discern over text. How does a not-broken ranged attack exacerbate any rubber-banding, though? If anything, that enables a smaller civ's army to punch above its weight better than it can currently, which shifts things away from being merely about matching production thresholds (which lots of other factors already balance against, beside the point).

 

[trashmunster]

I halfway suspected, but that's always harder to discern over text. How does a not-broken ranged attack exacerbate any rubber-banding, though? If anything, that enables a smaller civ's army to punch above its weight better than it can currently, which shifts things away from being merely about matching production thresholds (which lots of other factors already balance against, beside the point).

Ah it was not about that particular change. Though I understand why you thought so, since my message came right after it. That change about bombardment I guess is legit. Though to be fair I doubt AI ever used bombardment to its full potential ( correct me if I am wrong). It rarely brings a lot of siege units, unlike player so it rarely encountered that bug. Although bug-induced the idea that you cant use 12 artillery strikes at once and have to do something else in-between was not that bad for human player tbh.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Ah it was not about that particular change. Though I understand why you thought so, since my message came right after it. That change about bombardment I guess is legit. Though to be fair I doubt AI ever used bombardment to its full potential ( correct me if I am wrong). It rarely brings a lot of siege units, unlike player so it rarely encountered that bug. Although bug-induced the idea that you cant use 12 artillery strikes at once and have to do something else in-between was not that bad for human player tbh.

The AI is very competent with siege and ranged attacks in general now (aerial warfare included!), but this is a post-3.61 SVN change you will likely be pleased with.

 

[[Y]]

Ah it was not about that particular change.

The feedback and warning will be more effective if you specify which change it is about.

 

[JDCP]

Lately I've been trying to play on gigantic maps, real big! yall get what I mean? with around 50 players... crazy stuff! I have been wondering if my save being way too big (like going over 4mb or 5) is a bad thing, in which case, how can I fix this? I got a nice PC with tons of ram but still... I'm just curious.

I ask mainly because I tried to make a world builder save (which is around 5mb) and I can't load it as an scenario, which kinda bothers me runtime error or something

 

[AllTheLand]

- Dromons are 5 Str. 5 movement units that upgrade into 6 Str. 4 movement ships. It's quite annoying to lose the 1 movement speed if upgrading.

Nukes imo shouldn't affect more than a single tile – for realism, simplicity, balance, maybe even aesthetics – Civ 4 generally seems to glorify nuclear war a bit. Setting iNukeRange to 0 in Civ4UnitInfos.xml would probably do the trick, but I think it's a bit of a spoilsport change and would only seem justified if the whole late game became more serious and competitive through balance changes somehow.

I don't know if RI nukes multiple tiles like vanilla or not, but I agree with f1rpo.

Each leaders has their own conditions/likelihood to declare peace. You can read about it in the civopedia page for each leader, at the bottom right.

I was talking less about the likelihood of opening negotiations (some leaders are more stubborn, but it's never crazy), but also the demands being made for peace. When the minimum peace offer is for me to give up my second best city, after over 60 turns of war and having beaten 3 successive invasion attempts (the first invasion took one of my cities, but I gained it back afterwards), it's annoying. I got peace later on when a cultural expansion gave me iron and I could mount some invasion army. When my invasion army was still not in sight, the demand was still for my city, when I entered my enemy's territory, he immediately offered to give me gold instead.

I would have to look at the code, I suspect that the stubbornness is related to the fact that I sustained heavy losses, missing the fact that I could keep sustaining them and I rather would than give up that city. If an offensive war is failing to make progress, the AI should either increase how much it invests in the war to achieve a breakthrough, or give up, not perpetually stay at war incurring losses without achieving anything.