Realism Invictus

[RamsesII]

Weird... I am besieging an ennemy city and my catapults do not do any bombardment damage to its walls (but Helepolis does) - first time this happens.

I thought it might be because I just discovered Mechanics and unlocked trebuchets. So I moved my catapult stack back into one of my cities and the icon to upgrade them to trebuchets does not appear...? Am I missing a certain resource? Cannot find anything in the pedia.

->Edit1: the turn after the game gave me the option to upgrade my catapults. All good (except for catapults being unable to hit walls...).
->Edit2: trebuchets also do not damage those walls (same besieged city). There is something in that city that provides defense % which those siege units cannot bring down, but Helepolis can. Castle?

 

[[Y]]

Always cool to read how vastly different people's viable strategies can be. I personally am 100% serfdom guy, beelining to it and switching ASAP

I've learned that I differ from some of the other players by never using the culture slider to increase happiness, so that probably feeds into it. Don't need that food as much if you don't have the space to grow.

Thanks, makes sense. If I may press on... how important are cottages in this strategy? do you typically build them on plots with a resource in lieu of building that resource's improvement? I was surprised, unlike other civ games I played before, how some of those resource improvements bring low yields, or at least at first before more yields are unlocked later.

Funnily enough, I don't have a good answer for you. Years ago I used to swear by them and use them all the time. Then one day I realized I hadn't been building cottages nearly as much--maybe just a handful across the entire empire, as opposed to 2-4 per city, which was my norm. Part of this is learning to get my commerce elsewhere (eg trade routes) and not needing to depend on improvements. Part of this might be getting more opportunistic about trading with AI and building up my happiness resources, meaning dedicating more tiles to food (ironic considering the statement above ). And part of it might be playing on higher difficulties and needing to field big armies fast to avoid being overrun, and not wanting to have to spend time building up cottages. I'm not sure what was affecting the evolution of my playstyle, but they aren't a core part of my standard setup anymore.

 

[Sinocpm]

I meant to reply to it earlier, but it's a shame about the water. Surely I wasn't the first to have that thought about modding Colonization's beautiful water in, though...

As to multiplayer, I've only been playing with one other player via DirectIP, but it's been quite stable. There was one OOS I got, and unhelpfully I cannot remember if that was pre or post 3.7. @Sinocpm, do you remember this one from about a month ago, and which version of the game it was in?

That was this current version, 3.7. However I suspect it might have very well been caused by an issue from your hard drive, as you mentioned some issues arrising shortly thereafter.

A couple things I have noticed since playing 3.7 in multiplayer as well as in my current (and only so far) single player game (huge world map scenario):

• Odd combat results: One thing that is mentioned in the changelist is "Combat results at extreme combat odds (<5% and >95%) are somewhat nudged towards the probable outcome to reduce player frustration".
  In previous versions I have never noticed anything that would warrant this change, I would lose the occational 95%+ combat odd, however the frequency of that happening seemed in my impression to be in line with its displayed odds, meaning out of 100 combats with 95% odds I would win around 95 of them and lose 5, or so it seemed to me. And if I had 75% odds I could be reasonably comfortable to risk it, since I felt like I had a pretty good chance to win, and it felt like I did indeed win 75 percent of the time.
  However since switching to 3.7 I feel like either the displayed or the applied odds are off. I've lost so many 75% and even 80%+ odds combats (sometimes even in a row!) that my frustration has actually increased 25%!!
  I am now far less likely to risk any combat below 85-90%, as I feel like a loss is far more likely than the odds would have me believe (of course with some exceptions).
  Now I am aware of how probability works, I could have had just a string of bad luck. But it sure feels off to me at this point... Anybody else got this impression? Is there any way to test/log this?
• The Ballistic Submarine still has the Torpedo III promotion right out of the gate, or at least so says the pedia. Haven't gotten to that point in my game yet to confirm this.
• Speaking about getting to that point, I am very much aware of Civ IV engine limitations, and that it was not made to handle all that the huge world map scenario is throwing at it. I'm in the year 1781 at this point and while it's still playable I do get crashes relatively frequently, maybe about one for every 60-90min or so of playtime, maybe more. I expect them to get even more frequent. I do have Project Lasso running in the background, although to be honest I'm not convinced it's really helping all that much, as I feel like I would get those crashes in just about the same frequency without it running in the background.
  My question is did someone ever manage to play this scenario all the way to "completion"? I.e. until the end of the modern era with AI civs still left alive and kicking? If so what setting (Civ in-game as well as Project Lasso) where you using?

Thanks again for this fantastic mod, the new slavery mechanics were great fun (especially since I'm playing as Rome, so building the Grand Colliseum there felt particularly fitting). Keep up the great work!

 

[RamsesII]

However since switching to 3.7 I feel like either the displayed or the applied odds are off. I've lost so many 75% and even 80%+ odds combats (sometimes even in a row!) that my frustration has actually increased 25%!!
I am now far less likely to risk any combat below 85-90%, as I feel like a loss is far more likely than the odds would have me believe (of course with some exceptions).
Now I am aware of how probability works, I could have had just a string of bad luck. But it sure feels off to me at this point... Anybody else got this impression? Is there any way to test/log this?

This is my very first game of R:I (and civ4) so I wouldn't know how 3.7 compares, but I just captured that Israeli city I alluded to earlier and had a poor RNG string with what was 7 swordsmen / men-at-arms + 1 Saqaliba GG attack the last damaged defenders in the city; each of my units had a 60%-80% odds, and the end result was 2W-6L. Probably just bad luck but since you're asking... however I had done quite a few wars in that game and had not noticed any such pattern before.

After capturing that city I noticed the GW Ishtar Gate inside : could it be this building that messes up with city defense and did not allow neither my catapults nor trebuchets (unlike Helepolis) to soften the walls?

Spoiler :

As for game speed am at 942AD, save file size is 3.6MB. Zero crash nor issue and still super fast AI turn time (<10s).

 

[RamsesII]

Funnily enough, I don't have a good answer for you. Years ago I used to swear by them and use them all the time. Then one day I realized I hadn't been building cottages nearly as much--maybe just a handful across the entire empire, as opposed to 2-4 per city, which was my norm. Part of this is learning to get my commerce elsewhere (eg trade routes) and not needing to depend on improvements. Part of this might be getting more opportunistic about trading with AI and building up my happiness resources, meaning dedicating more tiles to food (ironic considering the statement above ). And part of it might be playing on higher difficulties and needing to field big armies fast to avoid being overrun, and not wanting to have to spend time building up cottages. I'm not sure what was affecting the evolution of my playstyle, but they aren't a core part of my standard setup anymore.

It's good enough an answer for me, very interesting, thanks! there is so much depth in this mod that it is complicated to keep track of the maths. In other civ series I have played, which improvement to build and tile to work is relatively straightforward. Well in R:I it looks like it isn't, and that's actually a very good thing.

 

[TheBirdMan]

I'm aiming to release 3.71 by the month's end.

Great - fit almost perfect the time when I expect to be "battle ready" again.

Ohhh, and while I remember:
I have yet to get to the time in the game where either I or the AI gets artillery - or just bombards for that matter. What are your experiences in this area - can the AI now "use" passive bombardments - i.e. fire at you without attacking you directly - in a satisfactory way (yes, I know that the word "satisfactory" can be bent and twisted in many different ways - but still)?


EDIT: My question is "open" and I'm interested in just about anything that gives me insight into what I can expect.......

 

[RamsesII]

Hey all,

Several other gameplay questions for those of you with time and inclination to help a new player :

- Serfdom and Manors, yields are amazing. The pedia says 0.5% RNG to spawn peasant revolt. I have a total of 14 manors through my 20 cities wide empire, so I should on average have a revolt about every 15 turns. For a while it's roughly what has happened, and then I got something like 6 or 7 turns in a row, mostly in my Somalia province (is it because it is far away from my capital city? and/or becauuse the Ethiopian culture remains predominant there?), and the last one was a stack of 15 levies near my core cities. I was wondering whether it was a real 0.5% RNG each turn, or rather every 20 turns each manor will spring forth a revolt, which would explain why I had so many in sequence since I built the manors roughly around the same time. That stack is the first thing that really scared me since the start of the game, fortunately Memphis was garrisoned with longbowwmen behind walls and a castle. I am now considerirng switching civic...

Spoiler :

- Vassalage. When it became available through Feudal Contract, about 10 civs asked to become my vassals. I rejected all offers for fear of bankrupting my economy and triggering chain wars. I was wondering what were the long-term benefits of having vassal states and how other players use that mechanic. Funnily enough, as I am gathering my forces to finally conquer Mecca, the last Arabic city left standing, Ibn Khattab just became the vassal of a new power on the world scene... Japan, with whom I just made contact and who could be the only global rival I have (outside the Americas).If I attack Mecca, will this inevitably trigger war with Japan who will then send a massice SoD accross Asia? or worse, a naval invasion? anyway, exciting and well played from the AI.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Yes, it's a true chance, checked each turn. Which obviously means it can cause outliers.

 

[RamsesII]

Yes, it's a true chance, checked each turn. Which obviously means it can cause outliers.

Thanks. Flat same RNG for each manor, or is it city dependant based on culture, size, distance from palace?

Corollary question : can I dismantle or sell down a certain building I have already built in a city?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Flat as in the exact chance shown, no complications. The size of the revolt, though, is based on the population.

And no, you can't. That functionality would require a whole new major AI block to be added, which is way beyond my abilities.

 

[RamsesII]

Thanks Walter, all clear.

 

[Deder]

Hi! @Walter Hawkwood , could you change the barbarian ships so that their priority isn’t destroying fishing nets, etc., or fighting other naval units, but instead transporting units from small uncivilizated islands and then landing them on the territory of civilizations?

And I also noticed that barbarians are reluctant to target cities that are far away from them. I’m not sure how many tiles, but probably around 30–40. Instead, they just merge into large hordes and wander aimlessly.

I have one more question: could you recommend how to make the trade mission work both ways? For example, I’ve assigned some slaves—including Slavic, African, and European—to the merchantAI and given them appropriate values for the trade mission. However, I’d like the country receiving the trade mission to also gain a portion of the gold.

Will the update to version 3.71 include changes in C++ or C#? I’m asking because I’ve been replacing things in XML and tweaking Python for about two weeks now, and I’m nearly finished. I’m wondering if simply copying my XML files will work (I’ve made minor changes in Python, which I can manually reapply without any trouble).

 

[Ahnarras]

I'm aiming to release 3.71 by the month's end.

Now I'm curious : should I start a game next week as planned, or would it be better to way till that release...

 

[Jaded1]

All this talk of shortening the early stages of the game sounds awful. It going to butcher the realism in Realism Invictus. There are many nations that have great power and flavor units, in the Ancient and Classical Era's, that won't be able to use them well because the Era's will go by to fast. The balancing and racing to build Ancient and Classical Wonders won't make it worth having them anymore, because they'll lose there value way to quickly. The same goes for unlocking early Doctrines you'll lose the big advantages you gain to quickly by having them become obsolete earlier in the game. All it's going to do is make choosing late blooming nations and doctrines more attractive, detracting from the early game strategy. But mostly it's going to take away the one thing that makes this mod great. And that is the historical realism.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Hi! @Walter Hawkwood , could you change the barbarian ships so that their priority isn’t destroying fishing nets, etc., or fighting other naval units, but instead transporting units from small uncivilizated islands and then landing them on the territory of civilizations?

Why? They do what they are supposed to be doing, that is, be pirates.

And I also noticed that barbarians are reluctant to target cities that are far away from them. I’m not sure how many tiles, but probably around 30–40. Instead, they just merge into large hordes and wander aimlessly.

I don't see this as a major issue. All that empty space will be settled sooner or later and they will find their target then.

I have one more question: could you recommend how to make the trade mission work both ways? For example, I’ve assigned some slaves—including Slavic, African, and European—to the merchantAI and given them appropriate values for the trade mission. However, I’d like the country receiving the trade mission to also gain a portion of the gold.

I'd recommend looking up the trade mission function in the GameCore - shouldn't be very hard to make it give out stuff to both parties (though if you don't create a separate one, it will also affect Great Merchants).

Will the update to version 3.71 include changes in C++ or C#?

Yes.

Now I'm curious : should I start a game next week as planned, or would it be better to way till that release...

There won't be anything mindblowing there, I'd say start whenever.

All this talk of shortening the early stages of the game sounds awful. It going to butcher the realism in Realism Invictus. There are many nations that have great power and flavor units, in the Ancient and Classical Era's, that won't be able to use them well because the Era's will go by to fast. The balancing and racing to build Ancient and Classical Wonders won't make it worth having them anymore, because they'll lose there value way to quickly. The same goes for unlocking early Doctrines you'll lose the big advantages you gain to quickly by having them become obsolete earlier in the game. All it's going to do is make choosing late blooming nations and doctrines more attractive, detracting from the early game strategy. But mostly it's going to take away the one thing that makes this mod great. And that is the historical realism.

Such intensity! You do realise that currently from my experience Bronze Working comes around 1500 BC, a time when IRL the bronze age has ended already? A pinnacle of historical realism I guess.

 

[Ahnarras]

Such intensity! You do realise that currently from my experience Bronze Working comes around 1500 BC, a time when IRL the bronze age has ended already? A pinnacle of historical realism I guess.

Fair point. My personnal preference would be to compensate by reducing the number of IG years passing for each turn at the beginning of the game, and therefore adding a bit of turn to the total that a game takes.

But the fact that I never managed to finish a game even after spending hundreds of hours in your mod probably tells that it's long enough as it is

 

[PKSRoman]

“Oh no, ottomans arrive! quick, it's time to moor on that hill 300 meters above the ground!”
hehe.

also i still can build drydocks on lakes

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

“Oh no, ottomans arrive! quick, it's time to moor on that hill 300 meters above the ground!”
hehe.

Don't you pin that on me! That's vanilla!

also i still can build drydocks on lakes

IIRC the tile threshold is 4 water tiles. After all, a 5-tile lake is almost a sea, and you might need to have a couple of dreadnoughts patrolling it.

 

[Jaded1]

Fair point. My personal preference would be to compensate by reducing the number of IG years passing for each turn at the beginning of the game, and therefore adding a bit of turn to the total that a game takes.

But the fact that I never managed to finish a game even after spending hundreds of hours in your mod probably tells that it's long enough as it is

This would make more sense to me. Dropping the amount of years that pass per turn to help align the Era/Age to the current time period would solve the problem without reducing the total turns spent in the Ancient and Classical Era's

 

[[Y]]

This would make more sense to me. Dropping the amount of years that pass per turn to help align the Era/Age to the current time period would solve the problem without reducing the total turns spent in the Ancient and Classical Era's

As has been stated multiple times, the current intention is not to make the early game shorter, it's to shift things around so that the length of the ancient and classical eras give you more time with proper empire building and interaction with other civs. This will give you more time to get use out of the unique and national units/wonders of the early game, not less.

I already commented that I didn't really like the early tech balance myself and would make the ancient era somewhat cheaper, while classical somewhat more expensive.

(emphasis mine).