Realism Invictus

So I'm playing the Huge World Map (with minor tweaks), 3.72c (hotfixed from 3.72 with the loose files Walter provided, not the new full DL) + my own little tweaks. Mainly I've reduced the unit cost scaling to 10% of the default (quick and dirty removal of a "0" from all unit roles costs). So far I'm liking it, makes the early game playable, still has a noticeable effect later on when garrison and army numbers need to increase substantially. Plus I just like great field battles and sieges and feeling the approaching doom of an AI invading doomstack.
Egypt, Emperor, Realistic speed. Revolutions on but nothing of note happened yet. Leader change active. AI Plays to Win active. Victories active: Conquest, Space, Time.
Up to Medieval era it has been a terrible struggle!
Ancient Era of constant invasions and massive devastation of almost all my improvements, always woefully behind the AI in tech, indeed my only progress was thanks to open borders and prioritising techs already so commonplace they had +100% and higher bonus. Barely managed to build the Great Bath, and then all the wonders got built before I could even research their tech...
Classical Era the situation stabilised somewhat, as AIs began fighting among themselves more than invading me.
Exploration and contact with as many empires as possible has been fundamental, to get as much tech diffusion as possible. Outright begging regularly for money is what kept the economy going.
The AIs have been extremely active in fighting each other, invading and counter invading, some cities have changed multiple owners, surprisingly very few have been razed (mostly by me!).

Main highlights:

Africa is quite stable, took me the whole Classical era just to conquer Israel, Nubia and Ethiopia-Eritrea. Only way I've managed to conquer anything was to focus all I had towards 1 single city, have a core of about 10 city raider axemen, and spam at least 3 times the number of defenders in warbands (being Egypt, at least those got churned out quickly enough, anything else was sloooow). And those warbands were still being recruited while the battering rams were slowly, slowly, slowly reducing city defenses. Special mention to Israel with extra high defense %, and super archers in hill cities! 20+ turns of just sitting there, costing money, and waiting for 1% reduction for each ram.
Then a single turn of massive bloodbath, can't let the defenders heal! 99% casualties for the warbands, but who cares?
All this while at 0% research or near there, always in the red to pay for those masses of sacrificial warbands.
When I finally got to horse archers, their withdrawal helped a lot with initial injuring of defenders. Still a bloodbath for warbands.
After each city, call for ceasefire, regroup, heal, restock the treasury, maybe work on a tech, beg more money. And spam new warbands.
Relations with Carthage are suprisingly friendly, guess after a couple of failed Ancient era invasions, they realized it was better to trade.
Mali and South Africa are cautious to annoyed, they also attempted some invasions early on, then never bothered again, I guess they were mostly busy fighting each other and Carthage. Decently sized regional empires, though geography keeps them isolated.

In Europe, beyond "core areas", there's plenty of disjointed cities and the borders are all a mess.
Rome built and conquered a solid empire, mainly in central Europe. Portugal is a tech leader though with very few cities. Celts eliminated England early on, Greece initially expanded really well into Anatolia and Ukraine, then got conquered by suddenly aggressive and effective Hungarians. Armenia and Babylon expanded together, almost completely destroyed Persia, then in the early Medieval era Babylon got devastated by Rome and finally eliminated by the Arabs, who up to that point had been sitting quiet and teching like crazy. At some point they had 3 holy cities! Though 2 of them later migrated elsewere, as the Arabs kept Islam as their state religion.
Here I come in, having barely gotten some lebensraum in Africa. After the elimination of my southern neighbours, had to also raze a few "tribal" settlements that were denying me some resource tiles with their culture. Assaulting tribal forts on hills was an even worse bloodbath than Israeli archers on hills. At this time, my surviving horse archers reached Flanking III and got to the maximum 90% retreat odds possible (incl. stack aid bonuses).
So here I was, barely into Land Tenure, when I discover that the Egyptian levy, the Harafisha, has a bonus against other levies and, even more suprisingly, against archers!
The Arabs were very suprised when backwards and weak Egypt, who they so graciously sent so many imams to spread Islam to all my cities for free, "suddenly" (still took some turns of defense bombarding, got catapults now) conquered their capital with an army composed mainly of untrained peasants!
Perfect moment for me, as the massive Arabian armies had been whittled down during the conquest of Babylonian lands, and dispersed to hold onto their cities.
In a relatively quick war, Arabia fell, and half of Mesopotamia too, though I've only kept Babylon , the rest of the cities were horribly placed.
Meanwhile, luckily for me, Rome and Armenia went to war against each other, keeping them busy and reducing their armies. Anatolia was devastated, though only one Armenian city fell (placed where Costantinople would be).

Elsewhere in the world, Austronesia is probably the biggest and richest empire in the world, one of the main donors to poor beggar Egypt. Japan is up there with the tech leaders. Siam, Korea, and the Chinas are kept backwards by constant warfare and pillaging, same for India. There's still plenty of original barbarian cities around, which quite suprises me.
The central Asian empires seem to have expanded enough to survive, though news are scarce and they're consistently in the lower middle of the scoreboard. Good targets for money shakedowns though, since they're so distant I don't care about their opinions of me. And after the conquest of Arabia, I've got a decent military power score!

So now Egypt has its own religion with holy city and shrine (thanks, Arabia!), a solid empire with 12 cities, most of them in very good places, a decently sized army (though needing to heal for several turns) economy and research rate finally rising, thanks to newly acquired luxury resources (and finally having a religion) allowing an almost explosive growth of the population (some luxuries have constantly been imported as well).

Rome is the closest danger: though they're currently busy conquering Russia, already with Knights, Trebuchets and massive numbers of Crossbowmen, previously cordial relations have cooled due to having different religions, so a war is quite possible now.
Plus, a couple of former Babylonian cities in Lebanon-Syria, right on my new borders, are currently in Roman hands, and if the Armenians keep up the war, their garrisons might become weakened enough to become... interesting.

I've really enjoyed the leader switch at each era! Both for my own gameplay and for the feeling of historical and societal changes in different eras. Plus, relations with new leaders get partially reset, diplomacy has been quite engaging.

Performance has been fantastic, no crashes so far, turn times really fast for the size of map and number of units!

Once again, my profound gratitude to Walter for a masterpiece.
 
Last edited:
From my experience, optimal landtiles per starting civilisations is around 200-250.

Very interesting changes about BarbarianCiv option. I will try to explain what is the main reason I don’t like and don’t use it in present:
Let’s take a usual game - after some time barbarian cities start to appear (call it first barbarian wave). Now, if BarbarianCiv option is ON after a while unconquered barbarian cities will settle into civilizations. Everything is fine till here, the problem start to appear after this point: I am pretty sure that there is a mechanism in vanilla game that forces the game to have a minimum amount of barbarian cities if there is enough unclaimed land. Now, as most of the barbarian cities are gone (have transformed into civilizations), the game will force new barbarian cities to appear on map (call it second barbarian wave). The problem is that the second wave barbarians are forced to appear in much worse and unexpected spots. And then these second wave barbarian cities in turn transform into settled civilizations, but with no chance to prosper since they start in extremely poor spots with no room to expand. I had a game where barbarian city appeared almost within my empire, in a small unclaimed spot between my 3 cities (it was like a 5-6 landtile unclaimed spot). And soon afterwards that city transformed into full civ - as you imagine, with no chance to prosper.
I think if vanilla mechanism that forces barbarian cities to spawn continuously wherever possible may be halted/tweaked, we will get much better experience with BarbarianCiv option.

The mechanism you're talking about is the `iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit` value in the `Civ4HandicapInfo.xml` file. You can increase that to reduce the number of barb cities that appear. I've already done that. Or at least I've reduced the number of barb units... I should reduce the number of barb cities too.
To add on more important detail to this: Since the mechanism in question depends on unowned barb tiles, when they settle into a civilization, it does reduce the target number of barb cities to appear since all the converted tiles are now owned. That said, while that may reduce the target barb city count by 1 or maybe even 2, if it's removing 3-5 barb cities to do so, it does mean there's likely 2 more popping up immediately, which will then settle into a civ, etc. Maybe the act of a barb city settling into a civ should increase the `iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit` value by a small number.
 
How do you like the idea of making such a map setting so that there are horses and iron in the territory of the capital of each state?
 
A barb city settled into a civ as I was sieging the city (had reduced its defenses and had a variety of units ready to take it next turn). Looking at the code, I think there's a bug when checking the neighboring plots for enemy units: the variable `jX` is being used to represent both the X and the Y coordinates in the loops, instead of having `jX` and `jY`.

Edit: Also, the top of the range for the Y value is `ix - 1` rather than `iy+1`. Though I fixed that and the variable above, and still had the barb city settle into a civ while I was actively seiging it. Hmm.
 
Last edited:
I know you aren't working on Separatism anymore, but just for the sake of the bug report : The Swahilis (a prehistoric trib with so many maluses that they were still researching Pottery in 1 000 AD despite having multiple cities since the beginning of the game) were conquerred by the Zoulous.

First, I'm not sure why : their Tribal Fort that were defending their cities just seemed to.... vanished ? Are they supposed to disappear after a set number of turns, or did Shaka manage to take down their unbelievable high power with early medieval units ?

Second, more weird : Having over-extended, Shaka encountered a lot of revolts and a few cities settled into resurrecting the Swahilis Empire.
While doing so, they had a huge Tech boost, instantly researching almost all the ancient-classical and probably a few early Medieval Tech.

It's common practice for a settling Civ, but I felt weird to have a prehistoric tribe suddently be at the same level as the rest of the map.
(On that topic, I'm not quite sure how I feel about the fact that some Civ on the Huge World Map are basically dead weight and used only to block settlements for early game. I think I would rather those spots be taken by real Civ so we can all fight on the same level, and perhaps leaving Australia and North-America empty for the New World settling feeling ? You once spoke about reworking the Huge World Map, so just my little opinion ^^)

How do you like the idea of making such a map setting so that there are horses and iron in the territory of the capital of each state?

I'm not sure, at that point, why bother having those ressources at all ? It would also makes a few units quite useless (the ones that are "meh" but doesn't need Iron, for exemple, that are used by Civ without it during the Middle Age).
But if you prefer to play like it, know that you can always open the map editor at the beginning on your game and put those ressources yourself around each Civ initial settler :)

A barb city settled into a civ as I was sieging the city (had reduced its defenses and had a variety of units ready to take it next turn).


That must have been quite infuriating ! :lol:
 
The mechanism you're talking about is the `iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit` value in the `Civ4HandicapInfo.xml` file. You can increase that to reduce the number of barb cities that appear. I've already done that. Or at least I've reduced the number of barb units... I should reduce the number of barb cities too.
Hm, I haven't actually considered that at all... I'll need to process what to do with that.
Note that they were already attacking a few turns earlier, but that had some logic behind it : they were using there special unit capability to "first pick" my horse archer, and had something like 60-70% chance of winning (misplay of my part to let my poor unit so close to them :lol: ). So perhaps it's a problem of "Once they start attacking, they will continue until dead no matter the odds" ?

I'm saying it because I had the case earlier : an ennemy unit attacked a stack of cavalry of mine. First turn they had 60%+ odds winning, fair enough.
They were hurt in the battle, but attack again next turn, with only 14% odds. Why not, they are pushing their luck.
Third turn, attacking again. Obviously this time they were so damaged that they were at 0.01% odds or something like that, so it was suicide. Doubly stupid of them as their previous victory should have granted a good XP to that units, so the smart moves would have been to put them back in their city, heal for a few turns, and resume attacking once fully healed + promoted.
While it could have probably been handled more rationally, I can actually see how this might be a relatively reasonable thing to do. You can't heal in enemy territory (normally) so merely damaging your units already impacts your success (especially if the attacker lucks out and withdraws), whereas a light cavalry unit would be relatively useless as a defender anyway. I sometimes did the exact same myself to enemy stacks - throw a couple of "defenders" who can't really defend at them, even without reasonable winning chances.
Once again, my profound gratitude to Walter for a masterpiece.
Since you reported no problems or issues, I'm not replying to specific bits of your post, but rest assured I read it, and it is always heartwarming to read the player reports even if they don't point out anything new. Maybe even especially if they don't - with constant bug reports and balance discussions, it's easy to start looking at your own work as a buggy unbalanced mess. Thank you - and players like you - for snapping me out of it once in a while!
How do you like the idea of making such a map setting so that there are horses and iron in the territory of the capital of each state?
As Ahnarras validly points out, a simpler way to do it would be to simply remove them, and much less work for me.
A barb city settled into a civ as I was sieging the city (had reduced its defenses and had a variety of units ready to take it next turn). Looking at the code, I think there's a bug when checking the neighboring plots for enemy units: the variable `jX` is being used to represent both the X and the Y coordinates in the loops, instead of having `jX` and `jY`.

Edit: Also, the top of the range for the Y value is `ix - 1` rather than `iy+1`. Though I fixed that and the variable above, and still had the barb city settle into a civ while I was actively seiging it. Hmm.
Oof. Looked at that bit of so-called code, and I must have written it while sleeping. There were also some nonsensical "continue" and "break" clauses in the "else" statement, and the range was also wrong! What a mess. I think I fixed it. On the brighter side, I will freely confess I don't use ChatGPT or any other AI tools to code, so all the bugs are organic and homegrown! :lol:

BTW, and on a separate note - I do use GenAI for one specific purpose, and that's leader portraits. RI uses a lot of relatively obscure leaders who don't have real, accurate, good-quality portraits available for them online (and even some non-obscure ones, surprisingly), so for a couple of years, I've been replacing the poorer ones with generated images. I try my best to carefully curate and edit them to make them true to the historical sources, but I know the results aren't always ideal, especially those that were obtained early on, when the tools at my disposal were still very limited. I am a perfectionist at heart, and I iterate and revisit the wonkier ones, but I am biased and may miss the ones that stand out to others, so please feel free to point out the ones you'd like to see me make a better effort on.
I know you aren't working on Separatism anymore, but just for the sake of the bug report : The Swahilis (a prehistoric trib with so many maluses that they were still researching Pottery in 1 000 AD despite having multiple cities since the beginning of the game) were conquerred by the Zoulous.
World Maps aren't supposed to be played with separatism on, so you're describing something that can't occur under intended settings anyway.
 
Last edited:
The mechanism you're talking about is the `iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit` value in the `Civ4HandicapInfo.xml` file. You can increase that to reduce the number of barb cities that appear. I've already done that. Or at least I've reduced the number of barb units... I should reduce the number of barb cities too.
The barbarians are so annoying - even so I don't want to get rid of them, but also they shouldn't become so dominant that they "ruin" my setup and defeat "my" normal AI opponents before the game is really up and going. So I have been "working" with those settings the last couple of years and 'iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit' only change the number of barbarian units spawning on the map. But indirectly you are right, that with a higher value the game spawn less barbarians and thus it takes longer before the number of a barbarians triggers a new barb-city.

In addition, there is a big difference in what handicap level you play with - however you can't expect (not yet) that a higher level also makes it more difficult (see screenshot)
Spoiler CIV4HandicapInfo.xlm - barbarian settings :

<Type>HANDICAP_WARLORD</Type>
<iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>50</iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>70</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>400</iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>130</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>
<iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>30</iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>35</iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationProb>5</iBarbarianCityCreationProb>
<iAnimalBonus>-50</iAnimalBonus>
<iBarbarianBonus>-20</iBarbarianBonus>
<iAIAnimalBonus>-70</iAIAnimalBonus>
<iAIBarbarianBonus>-70</iAIBarbarianBonus>

<Type>HANDICAP_NOBLE</Type>
<iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>30</iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>40</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>320</iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>110</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>
<iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>30</iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>35</iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationProb>6</iBarbarianCityCreationProb>
<iAnimalBonus>-40</iAnimalBonus>
<iBarbarianBonus>-10</iBarbarianBonus>
<iAIAnimalBonus>-70</iAIAnimalBonus>
<iAIBarbarianBonus>-70</iAIBarbarianBonus>

<Type>HANDICAP_PRINCE</Type>
<iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>40</iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>50</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>360</iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>120</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>
<iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>30</iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>35</iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationProb>6</iBarbarianCityCreationProb>
<iAnimalBonus>-30</iAnimalBonus>
<iBarbarianBonus>-5</iBarbarianBonus>
<iAIAnimalBonus>-70</iAIAnimalBonus>
<iAIBarbarianBonus>-60</iAIBarbarianBonus>

<Type>HANDICAP_MONARCH</Type>
<iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>35</iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>40</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>320</iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>110</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>
<iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>25</iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>30</iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationProb>7</iBarbarianCityCreationProb>
<iAnimalBonus>-20</iAnimalBonus>
<iBarbarianBonus>0</iBarbarianBonus>
<iAIAnimalBonus>-70</iAIAnimalBonus>
<iAIBarbarianBonus>-60</iAIBarbarianBonus>

<Type>HANDICAP_EMPEROR</Type>
<iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>30</iUnownedTilesPerGameAnimal>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>35</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>280</iUnownedWaterTilesPerBarbarianUnit>
<iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>100</iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity>
<iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>20</iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>25</iBarbarianCityCreationTurnsElapsed>
<iBarbarianCityCreationProb>7</iBarbarianCityCreationProb>
<iAnimalBonus>-10</iAnimalBonus>
<iBarbarianBonus>0</iBarbarianBonus>
<iAIAnimalBonus>-70</iAIAnimalBonus>
<iAIBarbarianBonus>-60</iAIBarbarianBonus>

As you can see the level of Noble is in some places higher than the level for Prince and very close to level of Monarch. It has been so since ver. 3.55 (maybe earlier - don't know).
Hm, I haven't actually considered that at all... I'll need to process what to do with that.
You should consider a "link" between the handicap levels and map sizes. As it is now, we get an enourmous number of barbs on the larger map-sizes. Or alternative - postpone the time when the barbarians appear. I have changed the <iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>30</iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed> (monach level) to <iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>150</iBarbarianCreationTurnsElapsed>. This change means that I see the "my" 1st. barbarian unit around turn 425-475 (nominal turn 150 * 3 (more-or-less 3) due to map-size) and only fights animals until then. And the AI-nations "survive" the first 450-500 turns with all their cities - unless they change civic to slavery.........
 
Last edited:
It's common practice for a settling Civ, but I felt weird to have a prehistoric tribe suddently be at the same level as the rest of the map.
(On that topic, I'm not quite sure how I feel about the fact that some Civ on the Huge World Map are basically dead weight and used only to block settlements for early game. I think I would rather those spots be taken by real Civ so we can all fight on the same level, and perhaps leaving Australia and North-America empty for the New World settling feeling ? You once spoke about reworking the Huge World Map, so just my little opinion ^^)
World Maps aren't supposed to be played with separatism on, so you're describing something that can't occur under intended settings anyway.
This actually happens on regular maps too. I meant to report this a week back but forgot. In my game Dravidia was lagging behind and eventually got swallowed up by several big civs that all declared war on it, removing them from the board. Some turns later one of their old cities revolted and Dravidia came back, and suddenly it was one of the leading civs in terms of tech (even showing up on the "most advanced civs" list that popped up), and started seeding those techs through tech transfer to everyone else.

So I have been "working" with those settings the last couple of years and 'iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianUnit' only change the number of barbarian units spawning on the map
That's because I'm a dumbass and copy/pasted the wrong entry. I should have copied over `iUnownedTilesPerBarbarianCity`. I hope @tebriz isn't scratching their head at why my suggestion hasn't been making a difference.:shifty:

The barbarians are so annoying - even so I don't want to get rid of them, but also they shouldn't become so dominant that they "ruin" my setup and defeat "my" normal AI opponents before the game is really up and going.
In my files I've changed it so that barbs settle into civs only after 1/5th of the game has past (default is 1/7th) and reduced the distance from the capital in which it pulls in other cities (from 15 to 10, back to 15 after hitting medieval era). That's made a huge difference and I've been much happier with how this mechanic has been playing out since then. I might bump up the 10 tile radius to 12 to help them out a bit more, but these changes were enough to make them less ridiculous powerhouses compared to before. I might also remove their free settler since the only thing more annoying than a barb city settling into a civ as you have an army marching towards it is that city settling to a civ and then immedietly founding a city in the place you were going to found a city. That's just a double insult.:mad:

Oof. Looked at that bit of so-called code, and I must have written it while sleeping. There were also some nonsensical "continue" and "break" clauses in the "else" statement, and the range was also wrong! What a mess. I think I fixed it. On the brighter side, I will freely confess I don't use ChatGPT or any other AI tools to code, so all the bugs are organic and homegrown! :lol:
Homegrown bugs are the best bugs! And we've all had our spaghetti code come back to haunt us, hah. I'll try out the new file and let you know if I still encounter the same problem.
As you can see the level of Noble is in some places higher than the level for Prince and very close to level of Monarch. It has been so since ver. 3.55 (maybe earlier - don't know).
Hmm. That looks more like an oversight than an intentional difficulty assignment.

OK, this should fix it. Not uploading to SVN yet (in the middle of something), but you can use this file and it'll work.
Thanks! I'l try it out and let you know if I still encounter the issue.

Question on the code. I see it iterating over a list using for i in range(0,len(barbCityList)) and then using the i variable to fetch the city by the index. Would the code be made easier to use by just doing for city in barbCityList and just having a reference to the city object directly? I don't see the `i` variable used for anything else, but maybe there are aspects of the Python version or the Civ codebase I'm not aware of.
 
This actually happens on regular maps too. I meant to report this a week back but forgot. In my game Dravidia was lagging behind and eventually got swallowed up by several big civs that all declared war on it, removing them from the board. Some turns later one of their old cities revolted and Dravidia came back, and suddenly it was one of the leading civs in terms of tech (even showing up on the "most advanced civs" list that popped up), and started seeding those techs through tech transfer to everyone else.
No, the catching up on techs bit is intentional. The revolter gets all the techs of their oppressor. What isn't intended is for the revolter to be one of the world map road bump civs that are supposed to be always lagging behind.
Question on the code. I see it iterating over a list using for i in range(0,len(barbCityList)) and then using the i variable to fetch the city by the index. Would the code be made easier to use by just doing for city in barbCityList and just having a reference to the city object directly? I don't see the `i` variable used for anything else, but maybe there are aspects of the Python version or the Civ codebase I'm not aware of.
Large bits of that code are from Platy's original modcomp, and I tried not messing with bits that I knew worked. I may one day migrate that component to the dll as well (like I did with large bits of revolutions), and that's when I'll rewrite a lot of that from scratch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [Y]
No, the catching up on techs bit is intentional. The revolter gets all the techs of their oppressor. What isn't intended is for the revolter to be one of the world map road bump civs that are supposed to be always lagging behind.
Exactly. The edge case wasn't that they got the techs, but that they were benefiting from the benefits intended for a brand new civ.

Large bits of that code are from Platy's original modcomp, and I tried not messing with bits that I knew worked. I may one day migrate that component to the dll as well (like I did with large bits of revolutions), and that's when I'll rewrite a lot of that from scratch.
Gotcha, makes sense. I thought most of that was original.

Just noticed that the "a rare but important case of a big city falling to barbarians" case depends on the subjugation building being present, but that's a separatism exclusive building, right? In a game with no separatism but with barb civs, the safeguard wouldn't work.
 
I hope @tebriz isn't scratching their head at why my suggestion hasn't been making a difference.:shifty:
Don’t worry, I haven’t started to test changes related to BarbarianCiv option yet. I am not yet done with Revolutions option 😄
But very nice of you to remind me 🤗
 
While it could have probably been handled more rationally, I can actually see how this might be a relatively reasonable thing to do. You can't heal in enemy territory (normally) so merely damaging your units already impacts your success (especially if the attacker lucks out and withdraws), whereas a light cavalry unit would be relatively useless as a defender anyway. I sometimes did the exact same myself to enemy stacks - throw a couple of "defenders" who can't really defend at them, even without reasonable winning chances.

That does make sense, true. As I hate loosing soldiers, it's not something I practice myself so it didn't even cross my mind that it could be a viable strategy.

Maybe even especially if they don't - with constant bug reports and balance discussions, it's easy to start looking at your own work as a buggy unbalanced mess.

I'm pleading guilty too, as I'm engrossed by my current game and trying to be somewhat helpful by reporting everything that looks buggy/uncomprehensible, but I will amend myself by saying that playing your mod is the most fun I've had on a strategy game for the last decade. So, thanks you again !

World Maps aren't supposed to be played with separatism on, so you're describing something that can't occur under intended settings anyway.

Didn't knew that :lol:
I read about the SVN changes on Revolution a few weeks ago and as I was about to start a new attempt, I just went "well, could as well test how it works".

If I may add : except for that Swahilis problem, I didn't notice anything weird so far Revolution-wise. Quite the contrary in fact : some over-confident empire are crumbling and the new small Civ are giving a nice "evolving" feeling to the map, creating new wars opportunity and alliances. I'm pretty noob and don't play high difficulty, but so far I have nothing to say but recommandation about the Revolution, even on the World Map !
 
World Maps aren't supposed to be played with separatism on, so you're describing something that can't occur under intended settings anyway.
This is very valuable information for me. Thank you.
While I had no troubles with revolutions either, I quit my game at medieval age bc of the rural logistics bug in 3.72.
It's quite unpleasant to see AI get so many bonusses when a new Civ spawns and also to see other civs profit from it. I wonder how bad is the bonus that Civs spawning from Barbs get in terms of military units when playing with and without increasing unit costs.
 
Last edited:
One more question to increased unit costs. Later tech units cost gold in maintenance. Is this independent from the increase unit cost or is it an alternative mechanism so that when opting out of increased unit cost the monetary cost per unit is active?
 
Hello Walter.
Version 3.72.

1. I think there is a problem (or a mechanic I don't understand) with cultural expansion.
Last time I reported the problem there were several city razed in the area, but this time no.
Borders should have expanded also in these coast areas:

1748195995524.png
:

In some other areas it works as expected:

1748195943036.png


Seems to happens with cities in small islands.

2. What is the mechanic behind sea ice shifting? I see that sea ice plots change over time, seems they can both appear and disappear.
 

Attachments

Resource convo:

I thought about necrobumping any old thread where chernozem and andosol were mentioned, but I didn't see anything with those terms used with the thought that's in my head. We know that those tiles can be improved based on your civ type or the techs you've discovered - all food resources. In my latest game (3.72c), I didn't have cotton or hemp so I couldn't build shipyards and get that nice +1 food on water tiles. C'est la vie. I don't know the historical or practical notions of growing cotton or hemp, but it seems like chernozem would be a good candidate for a cotton or hemp resource in the game. Not sure which tech would apply to make something like that available... I remember (many RI versions ago) that some UUs couldn't be built without cotton (sorry, cba'd to look up which civ it was, but I think it was a middle-eastern or north African one). As you expand, you could strategically plan to settle near those tiles after you know where cotton or hemp exist yet realize you can't get to them.

On a related thought, how about the idea of a Great Merchant or Artist being able to "create" a cotton or hemp resource with its consumption, kinda like how a Great Merchant or Artist does the same thing with movies, glassware, hits, or motor vehicles. Not that using a GP in this way would make the resource for a city's consumption, but just make it available to your civ. In the same way how someone figures out how to use something in a way no one else has: i.e. - the resource had been there all along but it took a bit of cleverness to make it beneficial. I guess it would make that person "great". :cool:
 
Hello! I am huge fan of your mod!

Currently, I am playing as Egypt in the Triassic scenario (which I enjoy very much, since I like playing on Pangaea worlds). Anyways, I am now in the medieval period and I have researched the tech that grants me longbowmen. Sadly, I was only able to upgrade 4 out of my 16 composite bowmen to longbowmen. The other 12 have NO option to upgrade to longbowmen (I have enough money btw). Is this normal? Are they on the crossbow line?

As a side note, does anyone know a reliable way to randomly generate pangaeas? It seems more often than not that it's not a true pangaea and I rather not go to map editor to check each time since I like to have the wonder of exploring the world.

I've attached my save game file for reference.
 

Attachments

On a related thought, how about the idea of a Great Merchant or Artist being able to "create" a cotton or hemp resource with its consumption, kinda like how a Great Merchant or Artist does the same thing with movies, glassware, hits, or motor vehicles. Not that using a GP in this way would make the resource for a city's consumption, but just make it available to your civ. In the same way how someone figures out how to use something in a way no one else has: i.e. - the resource had been there all along but it took a bit of cleverness to make it beneficial. I guess it would make that person "great". :cool:

Could be done but I think it's more or less the same idea that what we were discussing on the previous page about Iron availability. It's more a gameplay reason than a realism thing : those military ressources (because even though Coton provides some interesting bonuses gold-wise, it's basic purpose still seems to be to help build medieval/early renaissance ships) are scarce and wanted to gives a reason to wage wars and expand into colonialism. Making them available by other means would cheapen that.

As for the realistic side of thing, you can always think of it in that way : anyone can have a bit of coton but the ressource on the map represent the fact that your Civ as access to enough of it to mass-produced sails and ships.
 
Hello Walter.
Version 3.72.

1. I think there is a problem (or a mechanic I don't understand) with cultural expansion.
I want to add some knowledge but a solution is needed here: Some coastal waters are actually ocean. I ran into this problem when i tried to explore australia with a sailboat. it does not work. you need an ocean faring vessel. I think these "borders" are intentional in order to limit early exploration, but in some cases like yours these may be remnants from the map creator and should be corrected.
 
Back
Top Bottom