Realism Invictus

[RezerCuid]

I also think it would be better to get 5-6% for each new warband and peasant...

 

[globosud]

It would make sense to me if a peak would transform like an extinct volcano, with an event in a lake, as happens in reality

 

[Ahnarras]

I mean, your suggestion essentially boils down to 1-tile fresh water lake - which is already in-game.

... Is being hammered by romans knights for the few last hours a good enough excuse for my lack of brain ? Completly forgot about the fact that there already are lake in the game.
I can't even use the excuse that I never see them in the desert, I've settled an african city next to one !

 

[[Y]]

Hmmmm. I might have to allow troops to move onto this kind of tiles afterall. Just to make the difference between the two options for a small lake more pronounced. Whether it will be ugly or fun to watch a battle over this tile - time will tell.

Is this just to make sure that when hovering over the tile it says "lake"? It feels like the base game already has what you want (single tile water body providing a source of freshwater), but now you're compromising on those wants in order to have something but that's also distinct, when you can just have those single tile water bodies.

Though if your experience is like mine, the generated maps don't have single tile water bodies. I remember getting them all the time in vanilla, but on Totestra, at least on my settings (low sealevels, giant size), I haven't seen one in years, possibly ever. Maybe that's a bug, and what you and I both want is to see that fixed?

*Scrolls up to screenshots*

Seems like you get them plenty, so maybe that's just a me problem after all.

Really like the new tech tree! A minor tweak could be to move Archery one step later, on the same level as Sailing/AH/Road Bilding/Early Metal Working. In most of my World Map games, seems to rush it.

AI Civs start with archery on monarch difficulty and above, so maybe you're just experiencing that? It's not a very strong tech (I typically don't research it until after researching Architecture and want to build walls), so I don't think it would be fit for a second tier tech.

---

@Walter Hawkwood, what would you think about making Axemen 4 and moving them to Bronze Working? You've said before that they practically "defined the Bronze Age as we know it", yet in the game they typically aren't unlocked until the very end of the bronze age, and often not until a civ has already reached classical era tech (in my games, at least. I'm curious whether others experience the same).

Reducing their strength, bumping their city attack bonus (minorly, just to compensate), and unlocking them earlier might put them at the right stage to make an impact during the game's actual bronze age.

 

[JDCP]

I don't have any trouble with unhapiness since middle-classical, as most of my cities are either stuck in growth due to lack of food or growing extremely slowly, and I've managed to build a few Wonders and collects enough hapiness ressources to have no reason to switch civics so far. But I'm pretty sure we dont play at the same game, like, at all
I don't specialize cities nor do I focus on great people generation, even though I know it's one of the goto strategy to win higher difficulty. But it's just not the way I like to play, I much rather prefer balancing between mines & towns and only building farms when absolutly mandatory. I also play on a low difficulty, prefer to turtle myself in than playing conquest and am quite the isolationnist.

Basically "Let me have my fun in my corner" type of gamer. I find it more relaxing that way ^^

I'm certain that the game would look REALLY different if I ever go up in difficulty : I will have to spend more time building units, probably won't be able to reach the World Wonders, and even my basic hapiness will be lower.
It's almost two differents games, at that point !

Not at all yes I get you I was never the type of guy to bother so much about these things, but once you step into the domain of high difficulties you can't avoid checking that everything is running to its best. Yet I agree, lower difficulties are still fun and very relaxing. The main reason to play on high difficulties is not only that the opponents get stronger, but also that it forces its system upon you, you don't get many bonuses so you have to go use whatever the game throws at you and carry ahead with it, because there's so much variety and pretty much any strategy for any scenario on which you find yourself, it's very entertaining to try to succeed into a world where everything can go wrong. In lower difficulties you'll usually be able to attain victory even if you make countless mistakes along the way, can't say the same about the opposite case.

That doesn't meant it's a necessarily superior experience, just that it's a very different one. They're very distinct from each other in the fact that you just can't apply the same strategies expecting the same results. I went higher as soon as I got bored of playing on noble and prince, but I'm sure that once I reach deity and manage to master it (probably in 50 years lol) I'll just go back to settler and continue having fun. You should do the same, no reason to change what already works right?

Looks crazy indeed ! If only now the revolting Civ would be able to spawn as their real world historical counterpart, at least on the scenarios map that simulated real world.
Having the Doge of Venise spawn near Turkey felt a bit weird

yes it's so weird, I don't mind it because I like that it brings very interesting situations to play around, it's pretty funny too.

Oh, there's lots of new stuff in there... Wonder-wise, just recently, two wonders were reworked (in one case, into a completely new thing), and a third one is on the way (maybe even today).

Great! I'm definitely checking it then

Reducing their strength, bumping their city attack bonus (minorly, just to compensate), and unlocking them earlier might put them at the right stage to make an impact during the game's actual bronze age.

I like this idea but it's going to make it easier to conquer in early ages, don't you think?

It would make sense to me if a peak would transform like an extinct volcano, with an event in a lake, as happens in reality

Yes that would be pretty cool, what events do we have related to peaks? I remember some but not entirely.

 

[TheBirdMan]

the generated maps don't have single tile water bodies.

Smartmap do give you a lot of single-tiles of coastal water - I'm not so sure about the RI Planet_generator - mostly because I can't remember - but also because it doesn't matter for me as I only use those map-generators to make a startmap I can "work" with as I want. My maps are all "handmade" and that "job" often takes 10-12-14 days before I'm satisfied. This "strange" feeling I have for my maps - that they have to look nice (call it beautiful - that might be a better word) is also the reason why I want to have both the original CoastalWalterTile and the new Freshwater Lake. They look different - they have different yields - and the features have a lot of settings the terrain doesn't have - it's "just" to find a good mix.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

World Wonder GP kicks in the moment it's built. Why not the turn after as for any regular building?

Nothing RI ever changed. Probably a vanilla thing, probably stemming from the fact that Wonders are being competed for, so the game "activates" it at the beginning of the game turn (not an educated opinion, just a guess).

There are quite a few culture buildings after Sculpture. Does Imperial Cult really need the additional ? I think 1 :happiness: would be enough because it's very low cost (as it should be)

Sounds reasonable.

A minor tweak could be to move Archery one step later, on the same level as Sailing/AH/Road Bilding/Early Metal Working. In most of my World Map games, seems to rush it. In addition, AI seems to builds Roads all over the place, instead of improvements...so they lack behind fast.

With the archer nerf to 2 str, I think Archery is where it reasonably should be. As for the roads, I don't really see that myself; usually AI prioritizes improvements and only starts buildings the roads (all over the place indeed) afterwards.

IMO foreign trade is possible to early. I propose again to delay trade on rivers to Sailing and trade on coast to Ship Building. In my current game as Poland, after Sailing, I can trade with half of discovered (far away) Civs already. This seems not very realistic for ancient era.

That's a common misconception. The ancient world was extremely interconnected. Even as far back as before the official game start, there is evidence of long-range goods exchange over many hundred miles, and once the civilization proper kicks in, so does the trade - post-4000 BC, trade networks become truly expansive. Old Kingdom Egypt, for instance, imported lapis lazuli mined in what is contemporary Afghanistan. I feel Civ 4 trade networks provide a reasonably good approximation of history, even if they defy the popular expectation.

Warband (first Irregulars) are too cheap with 48 for a 4 unit. I think a cost increase would be good + more % (maybe 5) for each additional unit.

Maybe. But generally, they are cheap for a good reason. You are supposed to have a lot of them - and that definitely goes for the per unit increase. Irregulars should normally form the bulk of your army.

It would make sense to me if a peak would transform like an extinct volcano, with an event in a lake, as happens in reality

I mean, while you are technically true that volcanogenic lakes are a thing, I don't believe any notable ones formed during the recorded human history. All the well-known ones are at least 10000 years old, usually much more.

... Is being hammered by romans knights for the few last hours a good enough excuse for my lack of brain ? Completly forgot about the fact that there already are lake in the game.
I can't even use the excuse that I never see them in the desert, I've settled an african city next to one !

Happens to the best of us.

@Walter Hawkwood, what would you think about making Axemen 4 and moving them to Bronze Working? You've said before that they practically "defined the Bronze Age as we know it", yet in the game they typically aren't unlocked until the very end of the bronze age, and often not until a civ has already reached classical era tech (in my games, at least. I'm curious whether others experience the same).

Reducing their strength, bumping their city attack bonus (minorly, just to compensate), and unlocking them earlier might put them at the right stage to make an impact during the game's actual bronze age.

I don't know; I have to digest this one properly. The balance implications need to be considered. Also, my previous statement on them was far too Euro- and China-centric, and it was not quite as universal as I made it sound. Many other places, such as the Eastern Mediterranean, never saw prominent battle axe use.

 

[TheBirdMan]

A minor tweak could be to move Archery one step later

In addition to Y's answer, then remember that Archery was invented 10.000 years or so before this game starts (4.000 BC), so move the archery one step later????

I did move the unit "Archer" forward so they can be trained same time as the militia - but I kept the archery where it was. That way they can't get exp.points unless they win at least 1 battle (EDIT or they - sometimes later - make a archery.

 

[tebriz]

IMO foreign trade is possible to early. I propose again to delay trade on rivers to Sailing and trade on coast to Ship Building. In my current game as Poland, after Sailing, I can trade with half of discovered (far away) Civs already. This seems not very realistic for ancient era.

Nice idea

 

[[Y]]

I like this idea but it's going to make it easier to conquer in early ages, don't you think?

Not necessarily. 5 -> 4 strength is a bigger nerf than it looks. They'll still carve their way through Archers (too easily, I think, but things can be adjusted), but less effectively than now. And irregulars and spearman would stand a better chance against them when defending. To depends on how a city is defended.

I don't know; I have to digest this one properly. The balance implications need to be considered. Also, my previous statement on them was far too Euro- and China-centric, and it was not quite as universal as I made it sound. Many other places, such as the Eastern Mediterranean, never saw prominent battle axe use.

. Pretty much all that needed to be said, I think. In terms of how the game currently plays, I think they're fine where they are. My motivation was really just manifesting that one statement. Every time I research Weapon Smithing after Metal Casting (which the AI does a lot too, or it will prioritize Drama before WS), I would hear your voice in my head (or an imagining of it, I guess) pointing out that it's the wrong era.

 

[tebriz]

That's a common misconception. The ancient world was extremely interconnected. Even as far back as before the official game start, there is evidence of long-range goods exchange over many hundred miles, and once the civilization proper kicks in, so does the trade - post-4000 BC, trade networks become truly expansive. Old Kingdom Egypt, for instance, imported lapis lazuli mined in what is contemporary Afghanistan. I feel Civ 4 trade networks provide a reasonably good approximation of history, even if they defy the popular expectation.

What about Sailing allowing only resource trade? Not trade routes and techtransfer?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

What about Sailing allowing only resource trade? Not trade routes and techtransfer?

Again, why? Transfer of ideas happened much easier than transfer of bulk goods - for instance, writing has only been separately invented 2 or 3 times IRL, everyone else got it "through tech transfer". And separating trade routes from resource trade is just weird - if one can transport strategic quantities of ores or stone, other goods should definitely be possible too.

 

[tebriz]

Again, why? Transfer of ideas happened much easier than transfer of bulk goods - for instance, writing has only been separately invented 2 or 3 times IRL, everyone else got it "through tech transfer". And separating trade routes from resource trade is just weird - if one can transport strategic quantities of ores or stone, other goods should definitely be possible too.

I agree with your historical arguments, but strictly from a gameplay perspective—even though RI is an amazing mod—it still has its practical limitations. We need to consider how things are reflected in gameplay, since not everything can be replicated exactly as it happened in real life.
From a gameplay standpoint, it would give an additional “flavour ” to the game if cities were first connected by rivers, and later by sea after researching a more advanced technology. To balance this, we could increase the tech transfer rate. By the way, I really like the new tech transfer system, but I think the early-game transfer rate is a bit too low. I’ve modified it to +20%/+20% (instead of the default +20%/+10%).
That said, the sea connection issue isn’t something that bothers me much—just thinking out loud . The mod is absolutely fantastic, and I’m really happy to see how actively it’s being improved. So many important and well-thought-out tweaks and enhancements have been made over the past few months—great work!

 

[Wolf Rider]

I’m not sure if this is a bug or an intended feature, but I've had my vassals try and break free at weird times. The executive summary is that 2 of my vassals came to me at different points and said "You aren't strong enough to protect us, what are you going to do about it?" when I was the most powerful empire in the game (although both during war).

The first one was Massinia, who tried to break free even though he only had 1 city left (he asked to be a vassal 2000 years prior when the Norse were attacking him and they had left him with just the one city). I was at war, but I was the most powerful empire, so it seemed odd that he would say that I was not strong enough, especially when I was 2 tech levels ahead of him, and had 10-12x his power.

The second one was Greece, who asked to be my vassal during a war with Sahel and America. I got America to make peace, and recaptured 3-4 cities which I gave back to Greece, so it was me and Greece against Sahel, and at this point I had 7x the power of Sahel and 4x the power of Greece. For some reason, Greece decided this was the perfect time to tell me that I was no longer powerful enough to protect them.

I love that the vassals are willing to shrug off their master, especially during times of war, but it seems weird that they would do that when their master is the most powerful empire by far, and has a massive strength advantage as over them. I'm not sure if this is how it's supposed to be, or if there's something wrong with the decision process, but I wanted to bring it up.

Thanks for everything, it's such an amazing mod, and it's incredible to see that it's still being updated!

 

[[Y]]

Currently, when playing, after conquering a barbarian city, the city's name immediately changes to a name from the leader's city list. Is that intended? If it is intended, is it possible to disable it?

Besides liking having the city name remain as it was (unless there is a strong reason for it to switch away, such as a historical renaming), it's kind of upsetting when I plan to raze the city, and the pop up asks if I want to raze a city from my own leader's city list.

 

[yurv3]

Don't you think that the constitutional monarchy and Big Ben should be postponed for a later period? The renaissance has just begun, and already such political changes. Another suggestion about early miracles. To replace the statue of Odin with a large pagan complex on the shores of the Baltic Sea is the Arkona Temple city.

 

[Major Tom]

Currently, when playing, after conquering a barbarian city, the city's name immediately changes to a name from the leader's city list. Is that intended? If it is intended, is it possible to disable it?

Besides liking having the city name remain as it was (unless there is a strong reason for it to switch away, such as a historical renaming), it's kind of upsetting when I plan to raze the city, and the pop up asks if I want to raze a city from my own leader's city list.

There is an option to turn off dynamic city naming when you start a game.
If you don’t like custom games you can always change city names in game in city screen by clicking name there. If you raze it on the spot, not sure if the name is consumed from the list. But when you found a new city you can call it what you want.

Personally I like dynamic city names. It’s one of the cool things in the mod.

 

[tebriz]

I’m looking for advice regarding city and colony maintenance costs. Logically, as map size increases, the maintenance cost per city tends to decrease. For example, the Giant map size only has 25% city and 25% colony maintenance costs, as defined in the CivWorldInfo file. However, the Special map size (used in the World Map Scenario), despite being even larger than Giant, has significantly higher maintenance values—60% for cities and 30% for colonies.
Was this done intentionally to make the AI more inclined to create colonies out of distant cities?
I’m asking because I’m trying to determine the best settings for my own maps, which are mid-sized—between the Giant and Special sizes (around 6,500–7,000 land tiles). In my CivWorldInfo settings, I mostly follow the Special map settings, but I’ve reduced the city and colony maintenance values to 25% each.
My main question is: Does lowering city maintenance cost from 60% to 25% discourage AI from forming colonies?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I agree with your historical arguments, but strictly from a gameplay perspective—even though RI is an amazing mod—it still has its practical limitations. We need to consider how things are reflected in gameplay, since not everything can be replicated exactly as it happened in real life.
From a gameplay standpoint, it would give an additional “flavour ” to the game if cities were first connected by rivers, and later by sea after researching a more advanced technology. To balance this, we could increase the tech transfer rate.

To be completely honest with you, I was considering this myself at some point. While delaying it substantially is out of question from the realism PoV, delaying it by a single tech might make sense.

By the way, I really like the new tech transfer system, but I think the early-game transfer rate is a bit too low. I’ve modified it to +20%/+20% (instead of the default +20%/+10%).

Well, it being lower was the point. The tech prices were adjusted accordingly.

I’m not sure if this is a bug or an intended feature, but I've had my vassals try and break free at weird times. The executive summary is that 2 of my vassals came to me at different points and said "You aren't strong enough to protect us, what are you going to do about it?" when I was the most powerful empire in the game (although both during war).

Vassals are wonky indeed, and looking at their behaviour is on my to-do list, but no promises, as all this code is original K-Mod, so I don't know what I'll find there.

Currently, when playing, after conquering a barbarian city, the city's name immediately changes to a name from the leader's city list. Is that intended? If it is intended, is it possible to disable it?

Besides liking having the city name remain as it was (unless there is a strong reason for it to switch away, such as a historical renaming), it's kind of upsetting when I plan to raze the city, and the pop up asks if I want to raze a city from my own leader's city list.

No easy way, you'll have to dig in python for that.

Don't you think that the constitutional monarchy and Big Ben should be postponed for a later period? The renaissance has just begun, and already such political changes.

You know, you're right. I think it got to where it is when other techs were moving around, but it is supposed to be a somewhat later tech. And Big Ben specifically should be moved from it.

Another suggestion about early miracles. To replace the statue of Odin with a large pagan complex on the shores of the Baltic Sea is the Arkona Temple city.

We don't really know what it looked like at all. Uppsala Temple would be more appropriate specifically for the Nordics, but neither suggestion really has anything to do with the "Sculpture" tech. I would love to replace it with a historical example, especially given that we know that giant carved idols were definitely a thing, and there definitely were some that would have been considered "wonders" at the time, but unfortunately all historical evidence seems to be thoroughly erased after Christianisation. I could still go with Uppsala, as Adam of Bremen says it "contained statues of Thor, Wotan and Frikko", so I can represent that visually with three carved idols, but of course that would leave us without the iconic wooden temple. Anyway, this has given me some ideas...

I’m looking for advice regarding city and colony maintenance costs. Logically, as map size increases, the maintenance cost per city tends to decrease. For example, the Giant map size only has 25% city and 25% colony maintenance costs, as defined in the CivWorldInfo file. However, the Special map size (used in the World Map Scenario), despite being even larger than Giant, has significantly higher maintenance values—60% for cities and 30% for colonies.
Was this done intentionally to make the AI more inclined to create colonies out of distant cities?
I’m asking because I’m trying to determine the best settings for my own maps, which are mid-sized—between the Giant and Special sizes (around 6,500–7,000 land tiles). In my CivWorldInfo settings, I mostly follow the Special map profile, but I’ve reduced the city and colony maintenance values to 25% each.
My main question is: Does lowering city maintenance costs from 60% to 25% discourage the AI from forming colonies?

The size is only used for World Maps and it's intentional that it's more punishing, as those are more resource-dense than a typical random map and as such the relative value of a single city is higher.

 

[tebriz]

Well, it being lower was the point. The tech prices were adjusted accordingly.

Oh, really? I only checked the very first technologies (their cost was not changed), so I thought the rest of the technologies is unchanged as well