Realism Invictus

[[Y]]

Hi guys!
I have a quick question about a feature that was removed from R.I.
I noticed that gaining cultural influence on land when defeating enemy troops was removed when upgrading from 3.57 to 3.6.
Was it intentional? Is there any way to restore it for the 3.6 Version? Thx for reading!

I think it was moved to a setting (or maybe the setting defaults to off now, not sure). Make sure "Influence Driven War" is selected.

 

[Lantarh]

Other two things (cosmetic):

• In the city screen, right clicking to open Civilopedia doesn't work for grayed out units
• With revolutions on, if I remember correctly, new civs spin-offing from another one are selected from a short list of cultural connected civs. If the list is finished, it selects a random free civ. It would be possible, instead, to spawn a new civ cloned from the father one, with another leader and a prefix (like West, South, North, East, Democratic, Free, Independent, Minor, Maior, etc.)? My realism vein cries when a Venetian Empire spawn from the Incas in the Earth map...

 

[globosud]

I created a new resource, hops, which uses the farm, everything works fine, but I don't understand why the image doesn't appear in the technology tree, even though it works very well, the problem is not the image because whatever I put it doesn't work, even if for example we use the one for wheat already in use. Can someone help me understand?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

united nations voted for global monarchy, free religion and collectivism. weird choose, monarch difflucty

Well, in your screenshot the scoreboard shows that the UN vote basically comes down to three leaders - and those kind of feel like the civics they'd like. So yeah, in that world history did take a rather unorthodox turn...

Civilizations seems to switch names for some reasons (I suspect an indexing problem): Portoguese -> Siberian; Khmer -> Cherokee (see my save above)

I never encountered this one before, and unfortunately the save where it has already occurred is not much help. What I need is to understand the circumstances under which it happens.

Zeppelin cannot bombard improvements/routes

I mean, that kind of matches its capabilities IRL, but I understand that it'd make a more interesting world unit if it could. I'll consider changing it.

you can still construct Coal Plants after constructing Hydro Plants (maybe this is wanted)

One day I will sort out all the different kinds of power plants for good. One day.

Vassals capitulation/liberation calculations in the tooltip shown hovering over Leader's name in diplomacy screen are wrong: I suspect this happens when there are multiple capitulations/liberations for a Civilization but data remains stuck at the first event

I didn't really change anything there at all - probably a vanilla bug you ran into. Maybe even fixed by someone already (in AdvCiv? I might take a look).

In the Huge Earth map there are no tribal villages

As intended.

Hi guys!
I have a quick question about a feature that was removed from R.I.
I noticed that gaining cultural influence on land when defeating enemy troops was removed when upgrading from 3.57 to 3.6.
Was it intentional? Is there any way to restore it for the 3.6 Version? Thx for reading!

As others pointed out, check your custom game options and turn Influence Driven War on. More importantly, why are you still on 3.6? It's so 2023...

In the city screen, right clicking to open Civilopedia doesn't work for grayed out units

I never even tried right-clicking on anything there at all! Does it work that way in vanilla? Does it work on grayed out units there?

With revolutions on, if I remember correctly, new civs spin-offing from another one are selected from a short list of cultural connected civs. If the list is finished, it selects a random free civ. It would be possible, instead, to spawn a new civ cloned from the father one, with another leader and a prefix (like West, South, North, East, Democratic, Free, Independent, Minor, Maior, etc.)? My realism vein cries when a Venetian Empire spawn from the Incas in the Earth map...

That is actually, honestly, a rather brilliant idea.

I created a new resource, hops, which uses the farm, everything works fine, but I don't understand why the image doesn't appear in the technology tree, even though it works very well, the problem is not the image because whatever I put it doesn't work, even if for example we use the one for wheat already in use. Can someone help me understand?

TBH, the most likely culprit is that you made a typo somewhere (in the ART_DEFINES?) - as the actual buttons work, as you demonstrated yourself, something is likely wrong in the XML. CivChecker is a good tool if you want to automate checking for typos.

 

[globosud]

TBH, the most likely culprit is that you made a typo somewhere (in the ART_DEFINES?) - as the actual buttons work, as you demonstrated yourself, something is likely wrong in the XML. CivChecker is a good tool if you want to automate checking for typos.

solved thanks. an error in build

 

[[Y]]

That is actually, honestly, a rather brilliant idea.

If the available civs won't be a limit on how many civs can exist on the map, is there any possibility of adding a setting to say something like "max 30 civs"? If civs can split indefinitely without turning to barbarian civs you end up with a massive amount of civs in the game (which already happens with barb settling, too). It would be nice if players could set a limit to how many civs can exist at a time in order to keep diplomacy spam to a reasonable rate. It could be attached to map size, allowing people to change locally if desired.

 

[Ahnarras]

If the available civs won't be a limit on how many civs can exist on the map, is there any possibility of adding a setting to say something like "max 30 civs"? If civs can split indefinitely without turning to barbarian civs you end up with a massive amount of civs in the game (which already happens with barb settling, too). It would be nice if players could set a limit to how many civs can exist at a time in order to keep diplomacy spam to a reasonable rate. It could be attached to map size, allowing people to change locally if desired.

If that ever goes live, please let it be an option where you can still choose to have unlimited civ. I want madness. I crave chaos.
But having clone civ instead of having really improper civ spawning sounds like a wonderful idea indeed ! Perhaps just make it so it will avoid spawning a leader already in the game ? It would probably help avoid confusion and perhaps even a few bugs, but not sure if it would be possible with the new "switch leader every era" option.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

There is nothing unlimited about them in the first place - there's a hard limit of 76. In practice, it is already virtually unreachable on a random map. I don't feel the above-suggested change will materially impact the number of civs that spawn, just their flavour. Theoretically, it is quite easy to make an upper limit on how many civs will spawn, but I feel even with separatism and barbs settling it usually doesn't get that much out of hand as to be required, as stronger civs tend to eat small breakaways anyway - does your experience differ?

 

[Brugges&Hasselt]

As others pointed out, check your custom game options and turn Influence Driven War on. More importantly, why are you still on 3.6? It's so 2023...

Thx! I found this button that didn't exist in the 3.57 version!
If I'm still playing on 3.57 & 3.6 it's because these are my favorite versions, as I don't like the new versions that look too "Cartoonish" for me.
One feature I really would love to have back in the versions above 3.57 is detailed unit naming.
I loved that Units were named with a particular name often taken from the language of the Nation, like "Balestriere Genovese" instead of "Crossbowman (Genoese)".

 

[Ahnarras]

I'm afraid I can't really give much feedback on this specific topic, as the last few years were spend on iterating a hundred time the same attempt on doing something specific (and RNG depend) on the Huge World Map for a Let's Play I'm trying to write.
Given the scenario, I never saw a settling barbarian civ (and, except for some wild animals really early, never saw a barbarian at all, in fact) and I only recently switched the Revolution back on after the latest changes made to them.

On this topic : since your last fix, at least for the early game, I didn't saw any weird behaviour anymore. No AI city overcrownded by defense units (or if they were, there was at least a good reason, like an ennemy stack at the gate), or everyone seems to have settled a few cities at the usual early time. I'm only at turn ~300, so no revolutions yet, but at least everyone seems to behave normally again

One weird thing I noticed, though : I saw a worker improving a tile by building first the road, and only after that the pasture on it. It was in range of it's city so I'm not sure why the AI did it in that order. For me it would have been way more logical to first improve the yeld, and later on gain the health bonus. Could have been that another city of their kingdom desesperetly needed health, but I thought I will mention it just in case others saw similar behaviour in their game.

 

[RezerCuid]

One weird thing I noticed, though : I saw a worker improving a tile by building first the road, and only after that the pasture on it. It was in range of it's city so I'm not sure why the AI did it in that order

I also noticed that AI does this all the time, it has its own logic, we don't understand it.
And yet, as I found out, the unique improvement of the aborigines disappears over time, leaving bare ground, is this a bug or a feature?

 

[pi4t]

The AI seems to be making some...odd...decisions about when to break free from being a vassal. I'm not sure whether this is a vanilla AI issue, or one introduced by Realism Invictus. The turn after I forcibly vassalised a big rival, three of my voluntary vassals declared independence on the basis that I'm "too weak to defend them". I have an empire stretching across the entire world and a massive army, while none of those civs have more than 4 cities - and one of them is a single city state right on my borders. I had good relations with all of the vassals, and declaring independence in this situation is effectively suicide for them.

Save game attached, both for the turn they broke free and the turn before.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Which version, 3.72?

 

[[Y]]

There is nothing unlimited about them in the first place - there's a hard limit of 76. In practice, it is already virtually unreachable on a random map. I don't feel the above-suggested change will materially impact the number of civs that spawn, just their flavour. Theoretically, it is quite easy to make an upper limit on how many civs will spawn, but I feel even with separatism and barbs settling it usually doesn't get that much out of hand as to be required, as stronger civs tend to eat small breakaways anyway - does your experience differ?

Yeah. In a sense I'm used to it from years of playing on Giant maps with low sea levels, but it's still felt in various ways:

* Announcement spam. So many events happen that it's easy to miss the important ones, since only 4-5 are shown at a time, and there can be dozens or more a turn. That is, at least in the announcements shown at the top of the screen. I can still access the log, but not everything shows up there, and it's a hassle to figure out where the new one starts. and more of a hassle to do that every turn.
* A bunch of 1 or 2 city civs that exist in inhospitable lands (tundras, deserts, etc) and who's only gameplay impact is to make the game insufferable with demands, threats, and closed borders. They have no significance on the world stage, and on the small stage just offer annoyances. It does make the game world feel more alive, but not in a way that's worthwhile. They're just tedium.
* The constant churn of small civs asking for protection and then breaking away. Pretty sure that's been brought up before. It adds to the announcement spam, makes it annoying to track alliances, and completely discourages the player from every bothering with the protection mechanic because it's short longevity means the costs you pay into it won't bear fruit (at least for me, maybe others find it more useful than I do).

My goal with a limit would be to find a reasonable number where each civ on the map is a civ that adds to the game, and keeping the tundras/deserts, etc to barbarian cities or simply remaining uncivilizationed territory.

 

[tebriz]

Yeah. In a sense I'm used to it from years of playing on Giant maps with low sea levels, but it's still felt in various ways:

* Announcement spam. So many events happen that it's easy to miss the important ones, since only 4-5 are shown at a time, and there can be dozens or more a turn. That is, at least in the announcements shown at the top of the screen. I can still access the log, but not everything shows up there, and it's a hassle to figure out where the new one starts. and more of a hassle to do that every turn.
* A bunch of 1 or 2 city civs that exist in inhospitable lands (tundras, deserts, etc) and who's only gameplay impact is to make the game insufferable with demands, threats, and closed borders. They have no significance on the world stage, and on the small stage just offer annoyances. It does make the game world feel more alive, but not in a way that's worthwhile. They're just tedium.
* The constant churn of small civs asking for protection and then breaking away. Pretty sure that's been brought up before. It adds to the announcement spam, makes it annoying to track alliances, and completely discourages the player from every bothering with the protection mechanic because it's short longevity means the costs you pay into it won't bear fruit (at least for me, maybe others find it more useful than I do).

My goal with a limit would be to find a reasonable number where each civ on the map is a civ that adds to the game, and keeping the tundras/deserts, etc to barbarian cities or simply remaining uncivilizationed territory.

That’s why I play with Barbarian Civilization option disabled. This eliminates some of the abovementioned problems.

 

[TheBirdMan]

That’s why I play with Barbarian Civilization option disabled.

I'm always playing with Barbarian Civ disabled. Not for the mentioned reason, but I always choose "my" nations to be near-neighbors IRL and I place them as close as I can to their "normal" place on a worldmap. So a SouthAmerican-nation would be totally unwanted if I play on a Europe/MiddleEast map - even though all my maps are "homemade" and with a "fantasy-shape" (I make all my maps as scenarios, so with 17 nations I'm actually able to have 17 different start-ups).

Above is also the reason why I'm not playing with Revolutions on.

Other two things (cosmetic):

• With revolutions on, if I remember correctly, new civs spin-offing from another one are selected from a short list of cultural connected civs. If the list is finished, it selects a random free civ. It would be possible, instead, to spawn a new civ cloned from the father one, with another leader and a prefix (like West, South, North, East, Democratic, Free, Independent, Minor, Maior, etc.)? My realism vein cries when a Venetian Empire spawn from the Incas in the Earth map...

However here I might change my mind if/when this suggestion ever gets implemented. I'm happy to see Walter likes it - so maybe...... some day......

 

[AspiringScholar]

Yeah. In a sense I'm used to it from years of playing on Giant maps with low sea levels, but it's still felt in various ways:

* Announcement spam. So many events happen that it's easy to miss the important ones, since only 4-5 are shown at a time, and there can be dozens or more a turn. That is, at least in the announcements shown at the top of the screen. I can still access the log, but not everything shows up there, and it's a hassle to figure out where the new one starts. and more of a hassle to do that every turn.
* A bunch of 1 or 2 city civs that exist in inhospitable lands (tundras, deserts, etc) and who's only gameplay impact is to make the game insufferable with demands, threats, and closed borders. They have no significance on the world stage, and on the small stage just offer annoyances. It does make the game world feel more alive, but not in a way that's worthwhile. They're just tedium.
* The constant churn of small civs asking for protection and then breaking away. Pretty sure that's been brought up before. It adds to the announcement spam, makes it annoying to track alliances, and completely discourages the player from every bothering with the protection mechanic because it's short longevity means the costs you pay into it won't bear fruit (at least for me, maybe others find it more useful than I do).

My goal with a limit would be to find a reasonable number where each civ on the map is a civ that adds to the game, and keeping the tundras/deserts, etc to barbarian cities or simply remaining uncivilizationed territory.

On the note of demand spam (and in particular the hard-stop and binary solicitation form that they take, rather than being negotiable in any way), I am curious how "hard-coded" the diplomacy actually is, and what the real limitations for trying to overhaul this actually are. That is the one thing that I pretty definitely dislike about Civilization IV which RI unfortunately hasn't been able to remedy much, and actually takes away some of the otherwise extant dynamic diplomacy with removing tech trades without a similarly engaging substitute. As strategically interesting as the open borders paradigm is, it's much less granularly engaging than tech trading, even if still less gimmicky. We often hear that "diplomacy is hard-coded" and though I'm sure it's said with good reason, I'm also curious what that actually means in concrete terms, since some mods seem to have made some pretty substantial revisions to it, with entirely new options that the AI seems to understand how to use (and even some that have incorporated a "don't bother me" option that prevents these solicitations from even happening).

Interestingly, I think Civ III's diplomacy was more fun, with things like being able to bargain for embargoes, conditional alliances, GPT for non-resource trades, etc. I think there are legitimate balance reasons for their being removed, but "We have enough on our hands" and a myriad of other reasons often prevent the player from even requesting them, and then when they can, it is just that: a request or demand which is unilaterally compelled, not something made in the context of a broader deal (which would be hard to implement, admittedly, but is how real diplomacy is conducted) or even traded for.

 

[[Y]]

That’s why I play with Barbarian Civilization option disabled. This eliminates some of the abovementioned problems.

Which is sensible. Barb settling is one of those features that I really really want to like, but the approach taken with them often sucks the fun out of games for me. Last game I played was going okay, until they started settling en masse, blocking some settling locations I was intending to take, and with all those bonuses that make wars with them tiring and wasteful. That immediately made me lose interest in continuing to play.

But I do like the idea of them popping up. Just in a different form. Next time I feel like playing RI, I might try my hand a grounds-up revamp that's more inline with my own take on barbarian settling.

 

[tebriz]

Which is sensible. Barb settling is one of those features that I really really want to like, but the approach taken with them often sucks the fun out of games for me. Last game I played was going okay, until they started settling en masse, blocking some settling locations I was intending to take, and with all those bonuses that make wars with them tiring and wasteful. That immediately made me lose interest in continuing to play.

But I do like the idea of them popping up. Just in a different form. Next time I feel like playing RI, I might try my hand a grounds-up revamp that's more inline with my own take on barbarian settling.

I totally agree. I would also like to play with Barbarian Civ option ON, if the option was customazible. I remember in Caveman2Cosmos you could do it - you could choose under which exact conditions they spawn, with how many units and what level of technology. Also, you could customise civs spawning in New World separately. Without all of these options, I don’t see how RI barbarian option could fit my desired game type. Still, RI is the best mode ever, not only in CIV4, but in whole civilization series!

 

[pi4t]

Which version, 3.72?

Yes.