• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Realism Invictus

It's an intended, if relatively recent, mechanic. Usually if there is a civ alive, a city with its majority culture will simply defect to it - but if said civ is a vassal, it'll instead proclaim itself a "free" version of the same civ (especially since there's a high probability that the civ in question is a vassal of whoever the city was revolting from anyway). Glad to hear it works, as I never saw it happen in-game yet besides some specifically crafted testing scenarios.
So it looks like my guess about how it works was correct 🙂 It’s strange that it doesn’t happen often in your games—I used to encounter it fairly frequently even before I made my changes to the revolution values. Now, with my modifications, it happens in every game I play, often affecting multiple civilizations.
 
Last edited:
It's an intended, if relatively recent, mechanic. Usually if there is a civ alive, a city with its majority culture will simply defect to it - but if said civ is a vassal, it'll instead proclaim itself a "free" version of the same civ (especially since there's a high probability that the civ in question is a vassal of whoever the city was revolting from anyway). Glad to hear it works, as I never saw it happen in-game yet besides some specifically crafted testing scenarios.
It should prioritize leaders with the Revolutionary trait :p

From the most recent SVN:
Bugfix: cities under 5 now correctly cannot declare independence by themselves from separatism (still can join others)
I wonder if it'd be practical to, instead of a hard rule that cities under 5 pop can't revolt, have the separatism from population scale from -100 at pop 1 ("there aren't enough of us to take them on") to 0 at pop 4 and then continue at the current rate past pop 4. That way it's more ingrained in the system and gradually changes over time, allowing cities with high amounts of culture to potentially require some mitigation even at small pops, and have the risk grow as the city grows.
 
Last edited:
Neat ! I'm curious to see how that will goes in my game :D
For my games, I’ve modified the revolution values in the GlobalDefinesAlt file to make the experience even more engaging. Specifically, I increased separatism from non-state religions by 80%, from population by 50%, and from foreign culture and unhappiness by 20%. To slightly balance these harsher changes, I also increased the amount of separatism each unit can suppress by 20% and reduced separatism from unhealthiness by 25%. These adjustments have made the revolution mechanics even more dynamic and fun.
 
wonder if it'd be practical to, instead of a hard rule that cities under 5 pop can't revolt, have the separatism from population scale from -100 at pop 1 ("there aren't enough of us to take them on") to 0 at pop 4 and then continue at the current rate past pop 4. That way it's more ingrained in the system and gradually changes over time, allowing cities with high amounts of culture to potentially require some mitigation even at small pops, and have the risk grow as the city grows.
I really like the latest change in the SVN—it’s quite practical that cities with a population under 5 can no longer revolt. It was frustrating to see so many newly founded AI cities immediately defect to barbarians or other civs, which seriously undermined their colonization efforts. The only real reason small cities ever revolted was usually due to foreign culture anyway (so why to complicate matters so much? 🙃)
Maybe population 5 is a bit high—perhaps we could lower the threshold to 4 (so that pop 4 cities can revolt, but pop 3 and below cannot). I’m not sure, but either way, it’s a great improvement. And it’s worth remembering that these low-pop cities can still participate in larger, ongoing revolutions triggered by other cities.
 
Usually if there is a civ alive, a city with its majority culture will simply defect to it

Oooooh so that's why revolting Civ were sometime creating their own / forming a barbarian city, and some other time joining another already existing Civ !
I was a bit confused about that, and was thinking that it was two different kind of thing (one being the Separatism, and the other one being the vanilla "a city has too many culture from X so it join their empire instead").

Glad to hear it works, as I never saw it happen in-game yet besides some specifically crafted testing scenarios.

So far, working well and makes for a really interesting twist of events !

I wonder if it'd be practical to, instead of a hard rule that cities under 5 pop can't revolt, have the separatism from population scale from -100 at pop 1 ("there aren't enough of us to take them on") to 0 at pop 4 and then continue at the current rate past pop 4. That way it's more ingrained in the system and gradually changes over time, allowing cities with high amounts of culture to potentially require some mitigation even at small pops, and have the risk grow as the city grows.

Having a bonus/malus graduating changing from pop 1 to 4-5 would have, at least for me, the main advantage of explaining how it works. If I didn't came on this forum, I would never have known that city under 5 can't revolt.
But I'm not the more diligent reader of the Civlopedia, so perhaps it's written somewhere and I'm just a bad player :p

But I agree that the numbers could use some tweaking. So far I never had to bother about Separatism anywhere in my empire, except for the two cities that were settled late classical and insta-went 100% foreign culture because they were close to another Civ's borders. Having another religion or number of pop didn't seems to do anything, at least not enough to create a threat even to my small (4-ish) garnisons.

While writing that, I realized that the problem is maybe not about the Separatism, but about the Culture itself... It doesn't make much sense that a group of Settlers, born and raised in the Nile Valley, instantly feels that they are now West African just because they wandered a little off the map. A few years down the road, if nothing is done to maintain Egyptian Culture in that city, I can see why they would start to think of themself as part of another, closer Civ... But the very same day that settle down ? :confused:

Could there be something to be made so that a newly settled City start with 100% culture from it's own Civ ? Or would that break something game-play wise ?
 
Having a bonus/malus graduating changing from pop 1 to 4-5 would have, at least for me, the main advantage of explaining how it works. If I didn't came on this forum, I would never have known that city under 5 can't revolt.
But I'm not the more diligent reader of the Civlopedia, so perhaps it's written somewhere and I'm just a bad player :p
I feel like that'd be more complicated, not less, as it'd have to also be explained.
Could there be something to be made so that a newly settled City start with 100% culture from it's own Civ ? Or would that break something game-play wise ?
That would be extremely exploitable. Just raze the city of an unwanted civ and refound as yours, and suddenly all their culture is gone.
 
I feel like that'd be more complicated, not less, as it'd have to also be explained.

I dunno, one could see the Separatism changes with the Population increase in the dropdown.

That would be extremely exploitable. Just raze the city of an unwanted civ and refound as yours, and suddenly all their culture is gone.

... You mean that's not intended behaviour ?

... Uho :sad:

*smoke in the background*

More seriously, I've got a prime exemple I just encountered a few turns ago in my game. I've conquered Sicilia and took over Antioch.
The few turns of Anarchy in the city went by and now the region is supposed to be pacified.

Well I can't do much with it, because Rome as so much Culture that a big chunk of my conquest is null and Cesar has taken back what should be mine by right of conquest.

Spoiler :


Civ4ScreenShot0207.JPG




Obviously I could have continue the war and took over Rome, that would have saved Antioch and gived it some Lebensraum.
But then it would have been Rome that would have been crushed under the next roman city's cultural influence.

It kinda defeat the point of "small" war, where you just take a city or 2 and settle for peace. It gives the feeling that you have to raze the whole civilization just to enjoy your bounty.

Edit : I just realized that I drifted a bit from the initial subject, as in this specific situation I DO am an invader and it would make sense for the population of Antioch to still "feels" Roman and try to revolt against my rule.
It's more the way the countryside is controlled by Culture that is illustrated in this screenshot.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, one could see the Separatism changes with the Population increase in the dropdown.
Likewise one could see the fact that a city can't revolt on its own before pop 5 there. Just a question of tooltips.
Well I can't do much with it, because Rome as so much Culture that a big chunk of my conquest is null and Cesar has taken back what should be mine by right of conquest.

Obviously I could have continue the war and took over Rome, that would have saved Antioch and gived it some Lebensraum.
But then it would have been Rome that would have been crushed under the next roman city's cultural influence.

It kinda defeat the point of "small" war, where you just take a city or 2 and settle for peace. It gives the feeling that you have to raze the whole civilization just to enjoy your bounty.
But the cultural pressure of this type is an entirely separate and vanilla issue, isn't it? That exact same thing would have happened in vanilla. Separatism has nothing directly to do with that.
While writing that, I realized that the problem is maybe not about the Separatism, but about the Culture itself... It doesn't make much sense that a group of Settlers, born and raised in the Nile Valley, instantly feels that they are now West African just because they wandered a little off the map. A few years down the road, if nothing is done to maintain Egyptian Culture in that city, I can see why they would start to think of themself as part of another, closer Civ... But the very same day that settle down ?
A "city" in civ terms is not just a city itself, its population represents the population of the "province", which is even represented in-game as population working various tiles around the city. If you settle 1000 Egyptians in a province that was already inhabited by 100000 West Africans, even if they had no major urban centre, the province will still be predominantly West African, obviously. Your 1000 Egyptians will not think of themselves as West Africans neither immediately, nor down the road (you can't really lose culture in RI aside from IDW), but the province will be an extremely volatile juxtaposition of a handful Egyptian-speaking urban elites and a West African majority, as was always the case when colonization happened anywhere not entirely devoid of locals. Despite European colonization efforts, Africa nowadays has a predominantly African population, and that was obviously also the case in the colonial era.
 
Strange occurrence in my Germany game -- I have researched Military Science and nobody seems to have the Manoeuver Warfare Doctrine, but I can't seem to enact it?

1749052469504.png
 
Just a question of tooltips.

Yes, that was I wanted to say :)

But the cultural pressure of this type is an entirely separate and vanilla issue, isn't it? That exact same thing would have happened in vanilla. Separatism has nothing directly to do with that.

Yes, as I said, I drifter a bit on another topic :lol:
But it's even more important in R:I with Separatism ON as, by having less tiles to work, you are also needing more time to build cultural building to take back those tiles.

A "city" in civ terms is not just a city itself, its population represents the population of the "province", which is even represented in-game as population working various tiles around the city. If you settle 1000 Egyptians in a province that was already inhabited by 100000 West Africans, even if they had no major urban centre, the province will still be predominantly West African, obviously. Your 1000 Egyptians will not think of themselves as West Africans neither immediately, nor down the road (you can't really lose culture in RI aside from IDW), but the province will be an extremely volatile juxtaposition of a handful Egyptian-speaking urban elites and a West African majority, as was always the case when colonization happened anywhere not entirely devoid of locals. Despite European colonization efforts, Africa nowadays has a predominantly African population, and that was obviously also the case in the colonial era.

I didn't think of it that way... By considering it under that angle, it does make a lot more sense, true.
I guess seeing the empty savannah made me believe it was an empty area, but it does make sense that there were small local tribs of African in the area before I settle, right.

Help meee i`m Drowning

Man those screenshots made me chuckle ! :lol:
 
In my scripts, I try to arrange miracles in their historical places. I noticed that the editor sometimes does not see some buildings. After restarting the computer, everything works fine. Sometimes a prophet appears with whom no action is possible, and simply restarting the game helps.
 

Attachments

  • Снимок экрана 2025-05-28 203133.png
    Снимок экрана 2025-05-28 203133.png
    2 MB · Views: 22
A small - hopefully modest - wish.

A small freshwater lake - a new terrain feature almost like an Oasis, just without palm trees and other taller vegetation around it. Size - say a little more than ½ of a tile. Usage: Plains, grassland and maybe also tundra.

Reason: You can "make do" with a single coast tile - but it just doesn't look good. A coast tile becomes just too dominant in the landscape - at least that's my opinion..... Besides, the AI would not be able to use such a tile as a regular coast, and it would also be a bit strange if a small freshwater lake had the same resources as a coast tile.
 
resources don't generate in freshwater lakes in any case
:hammer2: My fault - I wrote resources where I thought of Yields. A coast tile gives 1 food and 1 gold (same as an Oasis). A small freshwater should give 1 food only.
I'm not sure what additional gameplay value that would bring
Maybe it also could add the freshwater <bAddsFreshWater>1</bAddsFreshWater> to the grass-, plain- and maybe tundra-tiles as Oasis does to the desert-tiles. Besides that..... I want it mostly because I think it would look good on the map.

Right now I'm using the Oasis all the way from equator and close to the polar border on my handmade maps - but I really do not like to "see" palms on the higher lattitudes or on colder-arid-dry deserts. I think it would "fit" to limit the Oasis to a maxlattitude of 25-30 and then have freshwater lakes upto to say a maxlattitude of 60-65 or so.
 
Back
Top Bottom