Realism Invictus

[Hafenguy]

Hey I have red that it is possible to decrease the stability of an enemy by positioning a lot of military units on the border of the enemy. Is that true?

 

[PKSRoman]

How many workers do you guys usually keep around in each era of the game?

One per city. But in other mods a saw worker limit who depend from map size - to realistic show that huge civs develop slower then small - its "realistic" in opinion of these modders.
It also cut situation "i use 8 bombers to bomb improvements but AI spawn workers and repair all of them in one turn"

I got this today

This bug occurs when you have separatism enabled, the city reaches a critical point and a new civilization is created or the city turns into a barbarian state.during a single game I have 5-15 such prompts.
This bug has existed for as long as I can remember.
I didn't report it because I would get a reply from walter like:
-Don't play on big maps with separatism enabled
-You shouldn't play the way you like but the way I made this mod
-Just turn off separatism if it problem for you
-I'll look into it, give me logs and in next year maybe I'll do it

Yeah, I am also coming to the conclusion that the late-game tech costs are currently too high. I'll likely tune them down.

I just like the high cost of tech - a reference to the fact that if you want to have quality technology you have to cooperate with other civilizations and not just fight them. I just played the last game on Immortal, ai got looped into perpetual wars, perpetual rebellions and perpetual separatism and in 2015 despite the bonuses to technology they were at the level of the our 1950s.
Literally 150 years of ww1-style fighting between civs.

If you can - I would like to please you to reduce the cost maxy by 10% for testing

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I'd probably go with something like "Double tech transfer base rate", which makes it clear that it's affecting the base rate and not the total rate, and doesn't overload percentages as a tech transfer measurement unit. It would be nice to see a breakdown of that when hovering over the actively researched tech when it gets a transfer bonus. Right now it just says "+X% tech transfer", with your total bonus.

That wouldn't work well with multiple sources of the additional tech transfer, which can already be the case now, with both a wonder effect and a tech effect.

If in addition to that is had a sub-list with:

That seems sensible, I'll try to arrange something like that.

It would be more immersive if the units spawned in a barb city instead of on your borders, so that it feels like that city is on a march to take you down. Or for more color, the event could actually convert a barb city into the Hun civ, give it the units, and then have it declare war on the nearest player. That would reduce the need of creating a big stack of units right away as Attila will likely keep producing units.

It's doable, but out of scope at this point, as it's a vanilla event. I could rewrite it, but that's not high on my priority list.

Haven't had much of a chance to play with it yet, but I'm not too worried about the tech transfer boost from the Great Library. It's only for one civ and doesn't directly contribute when they're the first civ to research a tech. The GL used to provide two free great scientists and I would take that effect over the current one in a heartbeat, so if that was too good, the current boost feeling impactful but not as impactful as that old GL effect is probably the sweet spot.

I was speaking more generally of the overall progress with all the recent tech transfer and tech cost changes.

Might it be worth changing the research rate modifier on map sizes?

Currently, playing on Giant maps on Immortal difficulty, the research rate in my games has been feeling absolutely spot on. Things being researched at the relatively right times, and in a good cadence that allows the game to feel dynamic but not hectic.

Balancing those based on map size is in the plans - but first we need to ensure that default settings that are being balanced are good.

Owww I love world maps, specially the Huge. What is it that you guys don't like about them?

Fixed scenarios like that offer no replayability to me; it's like rewatching a movie several times. I'd much rather watch several different ones, thank you.

Hey I have red that it is possible to decrease the stability of an enemy by positioning a lot of military units on the border of the enemy. Is that true?

Don't know where you get that from. There's no mechanics to that end.

-I'll look into it, give me logs and in next year maybe I'll do it

Well, if you don't, that's a great way to ensure it's still there next year!

I just like the high cost of tech - a reference to the fact that if you want to have quality technology you have to cooperate with other civilizations and not just fight them. I just played the last game on Immortal, ai got looped into perpetual wars, perpetual rebellions and perpetual separatism and in 2015 despite the bonuses to technology they were at the level of the our 1950s.
Literally 150 years of ww1-style fighting between civs.

I agree with you to some extent, but in my test games, even the more peaceful hands-off games end with the world barely entering jet age, let alone space. So the techs definitely can and should be somewhat cheaper.

 

[globosud]

I agree with you to some extent, but in my test games, even the more peaceful hands-off games end with the world barely entering jet age, let alone space. So the techs definitely can and should be somewhat cheaper.

Why not allow the exchange of technology only in the case of a request for peace or a truce?

 

[TheBirdMan]

Mapsize 160*128, 9850 landtiles, 12 Civs, Classical Era, 14 Cities: 32 workers.

I can add, that I do not have any exact number of workers per city - it all depends on the game "here-and-now" (is it relative peaceful or hostile as H.ll). Right now my present game is peaceful. so I'm expanding - and I need workers to do that.


As for techexchange/techtransfer.

Here I absolutely prefer the latest. I my opinion techtransfer and techdiscovery by conquest/spying is the best solution we have. I have always (in old days) "hated" this with techexchange/-trade.......

 

[PKSRoman]

fun fact: if you ignore all religion-related techs (anti-clerical leader) you can jump from classical to rennesaince era (theoretically)
"Rome never fall and discover America in 1293" Alternative Universe

 

[TheBirdMan]

"Rome never fall and discover America in 1293"

Still somewhat later than the Vikings............ Unfortunately the natives there were hostile.

 

[[Y]]

After medieval I get as much as I want, by the later half of the game I will have the enough amount of cities to guarantee a good defense so I can lay down the guns and produce some folks, but from ancient to classical I don't think I've ever had more than 5 workers.

I don't really mind the Era, I'm usually going for 1 Worker per 2 cities so I will build one when needed depending on how my expansion goes.
But that's on the huge world map / egyptia, and I'm turtling hard in ancient era, so by the time my second city is settled my first worker as usually improves almost all goods tiles around my capital.

From my (very old) memories of trying random map a few years ago, I had to go with 1 worker per city on most start if there was a bit of forest around. I had even considered 1.5 Worker per City for the most "deep into the woods" starts I had.

One per city.

Mapsize 160*128, 9850 landtiles, 12 Civs, Classical Era, 14 Cities: 32 workers.

I can add, that I do not have any exact number of workers per city - it all depends on the game "here-and-now" (is it relative peaceful or hostile as H.ll). Right now my present game is peaceful. so I'm expanding - and I need workers to do that.

That's all quite a range! I used to be in the "one worker per two cities" camp, but a few months ago started experimenting with going more and earlier with workers, and it's been paying off. Between chopping down forests, building roads, and expanding more aggressively, it's been a huge boost.

The math checks out, too. A worker costs 90 hammers/food to build (more or less depending on settings). If it constructs an improvement that yields 2 hammers/food, it pays for itself within 45 turns. That is, say, if you built 3 militia and no worker, you could in the same timeframe build a worker and then 3 militia. If you build two improvements that yield 2 hammers/food, or an improvement that yields more than that, it pays for itself even faster. You have to balance it against other needs of course (we need to defend our cities), but if choosing between building a worker or a building that will yield a bonus (say a carpenter giving +1 hammer), odds are you'll have a better return on investment from building the worker.

It's doable, but out of scope at this point, as it's a vanilla event. I could rewrite it, but that's not high on my priority list.

Ahh, I could have sworn that was an RI original! It's so hard to tell them apart after all these years.

I was speaking more generally of the overall progress with all the recent tech transfer and tech cost changes.

Balancing those based on map size is in the plans - but first we need to ensure that default settings that are being balanced are good.

Gotcha. I play pretty far from the default settings so I can't weigh in on that. I can say that on Large map sizes with Immortal-ish difficulty, on revision 5487:

• Early game feels great. I've been very happy with research rates in ancient and classical eras.
• Medieval era is a slog, but it's always been that. I wonder if in part this is because when early wonders/buildings start to obsolete, so many bonuses that pushed things ahead in the early game are now gone or are replaced, leading to a stasis effect. This isn't necessarily bad, I like that different eras feel different.
• Renaissance in my current game is going by pretty fast. I'm one of the two tech leaders in the game and researching new techs at about 8-9 turns per tech, no tech transfer bonus. But I built my empire to be a commerce factory, so this could be the end result of being highly optimized, with everything working as intended. In terms of game dates, I want to say that Rome and I entered the Renaissance around 1100. Maybe 1200, can't remember. It's currently 1500 exactly and I'm researching Absolutism, and have Explosives and Economics researched. I haven't gotten this far into the games in years and years, so can't comment how typical it is with my settings, or even if it's typical of most games everyone plays.

Other observations:

The Explorer doesn't feel like it has much of a place at the moment.

It has terrain attack bonuses, but no defenses, making it pretty terrible for exploring. I sent a couple of them to a new continent and they got absolutely demolished by the existing barbarian units. I would have been better off sending Pikemen or even Levies. The Explorer's 2 speed isn't very useful when in thick jungle or forest, so units with more stats or cheaper production are more practical.

It lags too far behind its contemporary units to be militaristically applicable, with no bonus against melee like Skirmishers have, and having only 7 strength compared to the 8 strength of Pikemen, Longbowmen, and Arquebussiers, and most of those have been in production for hundreds of turns by the time you unlock the Explorer. For comparison, it would be as if Skirmishers were unlocked by Armor Crafting (well after Composite Bowmen show up from Iron Working) and had no bonus against melee.

I think giving them more ability to explore safely in hostile territory would help in their intended use (cross-ocean exploration). How would you feel about Explorers starting with the Hit and Run promotion (-1 terrain movement cost)? This would make them feel like proper explorers in unknown lands, and help them serve as scouts in existing armies, terrible at engagement but good for reconnaissance.

---

It's kind of weird that there's trade across the ocean before you can build ships that can carry units across the ocean, but still only after you can build ships that explore the ocean. Is this reflective of a specific phase in history?

I like that Navigation provides a spliting point between Chartered Companies and Navan Engineering, but the tech itself just feels like padding.

 

[Joij21]

It's kind of weird that there's trade across the ocean before you can build ships that can carry units across the ocean, but still only after you can build ships that explore the ocean. Is this reflective of a specific phase in history?

It may be. I heard once that some historians believe the Portuguese may have arrived off the East coast before Columbus found the Caribbean. Mainly fisherman who set up outposts to harvest cod then ship it back to Europe due to declining fish stocks from overfishing in the Old World.

So the ocean trade coming first might represent those first fishermen and navigators who wanted to keep certain routes secret to protect their fish mongering and possibly other types of trade secret so competitors don't know how to source their goods/protect profits. The scout ships probably represent the "official" navigators which were state sponsored and went down in the history books ala Columbus. Finally the transports then represent the ability of official state power being able to be projected overseas albeit mostly through mercenary types like the conquistadors who didn't exactly follow state instruction properly, same with early privateers and other thug types that initially made the migration over.

 

[Ahnarras]

Fixed scenarios like that offer no replayability to me; it's like rewatching a movie several times. I'd much rather watch several different ones, thank you.

Counterpoint : I find it quite amusing to replay the huge world map again and again, and to observe how different each game can be. Granted, the map is the same, but the big players changes often.
A Civ that was dominating in one game will have a minor role in the second ; a Civ that was your closest ally in one will betray you and zergrush you (or militiarush? ) ; the fanatical religious leader that ruled the world is now a deeply atheistic one because his favorite religion was founded by someone else... and so on.

And that's with playing always the same Civ as the player. I guess there is even more difference if you choose another Civ, as the proximity of the player tends to influence AI quite a lot.

The math checks out, too. A worker costs 90 hammers/food to build (more or less depending on settings). If it constructs an improvement that yields 2 hammers/food, it pays for itself within 45 turns.

If you want to optimize, it's good to have many workers. There is a sort of diminishing return, but it's not really a problem in early game (and you can always disband your uneeded workers later in the game if you want to spare the maintenance cost).
But from a "nice map" point of view, I prefer fewer workers, as the geography of the map will slowly changes as the centuries goes by. With 2-3 workers per city, you will just fully improve the cross in one go and you won't have the same feeling of progression.

Also : a lot of workers means huge deforestation possibility, which can be a huge bonus military-wise (specially against early barbarians).

Medieval era is a slog, but it's always been that.

I kinda had the same feeling, and, while wondering why, realized that a lot of the medieval techs concentrate on military units (or new ressources to build them / building to transform a ressource into a new one used in military).
If you aren't at war, nor planning one, it's not really thrilling to have a new unit when you know you probably won't need it.
And if you are at war... then the time each turns needs make the era even more sluggish

Things seems to go better once you've got some bombardments capacity, but a bunch of longbowman with walls+castle+keep/palace means a VERY long siege. Which perfectly summarize the era, at least at my knowledge, so don't take that as a critic : it's just the way the middle-age is suppose to be.

 

[[Y]]

If you want to optimize, it's good to have many workers. There is a sort of diminishing return, but it's not really a problem in early game (and you can always disband your uneeded workers later in the game if you want to spare the maintenance cost).
But from a "nice map" point of view, I prefer fewer workers, as the geography of the map will slowly changes as the centuries goes by. With 2-3 workers per city, you will just fully improve the cross in one go and you won't have the same feeling of progression.

Also : a lot of workers means huge deforestation possibility, which can be a huge bonus military-wise (specially against early barbarians).

I definitely want to optimize. Not crazily, but I'm always looking out for small things I can do differently that will help scale well.

I haven't experienced the same with the map lacking a feeling of progression. I love both lumber mills and windmills, so my maps usually start with some farms and a necessary amount of mines, while preserving river forest tiles for lumber mills, and get a huge makeover in the middle ages. Add in removing jungles, mechanized farms, paved roads, and even removing lumber mills for windmills, and the map's always changing.

Though for what it's worth, in my current game there's definitely been a long stretch where my 15 workers were all idling in cities waiting for something to do. I really could have used paved roads this game, but there's been very little limestone on this map.

And if you are at war... then the time each turns needs make the era even more sluggish

Hah, excellent observation. And turns take longer in general, or rather the time between them. I'm 2 turns away from the Industrial era in my current game, and the Renaissance was definitely my most rapid research era.... But also the slowest, spending something like 3 to 4 real life days hanging out there.

 

[Takofloppa]

So what's the current consensus about revolutions? Are there still some glaring problems (except the error from BugEventManager, should be rather easily fixable) or other balance issues with too much/not enough revolts?

 

[tebriz]

So what's the current consensus about revolutions? Are there still some glaring problems (except the error from BugEventManager, should be rather easily fixable) or other balance issues with too much/not enough revolts?

They’re absolutely playable. Ideally, I’d prefer to see slightly fewer revolutions starting in the modern era, and a bit more earlier in the game. But compared to how revolutions worked before the latest updates, the current system is vastly improved!

 

[Oresme]

Counterpoint : I find it quite amusing to replay the huge world map again and again, and to observe how different each game can be. Granted, the map is the same, but the big players changes often.
A Civ that was dominating in one game will have a minor role in the second ; a Civ that was your closest ally in one will betray you and zergrush you (or militiarush? ) ; the fanatical religious leader that ruled the world is now a deeply atheistic one because his favorite religion was founded by someone else... and so on.

And that's with playing always the same Civ as the player. I guess there is even more difference if you choose another Civ, as the proximity of the player tends to influence AI quite a lot.



If you want to optimize, it's good to have many workers. There is a sort of diminishing return, but it's not really a problem in early game (and you can always disband your uneeded workers later in the game if you want to spare the maintenance cost).
But from a "nice map" point of view, I prefer fewer workers, as the geography of the map will slowly changes as the centuries goes by. With 2-3 workers per city, you will just fully improve the cross in one go and you won't have the same feeling of progression.

Also : a lot of workers means huge deforestation possibility, which can be a huge bonus military-wise (specially against early barbarians).



I kinda had the same feeling, and, while wondering why, realized that a lot of the medieval techs concentrate on military units (or new ressources to build them / building to transform a ressource into a new one used in military).
If you aren't at war, nor planning one, it's not really thrilling to have a new unit when you know you probably won't need it.
And if you are at war... then the time each turns needs make the era even more sluggish

Things seems to go better once you've got some bombardments capacity, but a bunch of longbowman with walls+castle+keep/palace means a VERY long siege. Which perfectly summarize the era, at least at my knowledge, so don't take that as a critic : it's just the way the middle-age is suppose to be.

The full Feudalism set-up is *really good* if you’ve never tried it and sets you up well for the Renaissance if played well, and in a way that accords well with how things played out historically.

Some of the best design in gaming history. Everything works hand in glove. The Commerce on Farms from Manor and Hammer on Cottages from Guild House supercharge Golden Ages just when Great People start showing up in numbers. Serfdom training up your units/producing Great Generals whether you’re warring or not (you should be), Castles to keep the rebels from taking backline cities.

Beelining Military Engineering before Land Tenure may be a good idea! Also helps secure Kremlin which is a huge boost for that approach.

 

[Ahnarras]

I love both lumber mills and windmills, so my maps usually start with some farms and a necessary amount of mines, while preserving river forest tiles for lumber mills, and get a huge makeover in the middle ages.

Hmmm, true, it did went like that for my only city that was in a "normal" area. But the bulk of my empire is on desert tiles with few rivers (and even then, the rivers tiles are usually taken for khemet farm or used by ressources), so I didn't have too much to change. Without the base production from the tile, I realized that going all in on Craftsman doctrine made them of equal value to a mine. And as I've builded the Sixtine Chapel, they are also contributing to my Culture, so no point in changing thing on the map.

It should changes once I will unlock levees and that windmill become self-suffisant in food.

So what's the current consensus about revolutions? Are there still some glaring problems (except the error from BugEventManager, should be rather easily fixable) or other balance issues with too much/not enough revolts?

I didn't found any problems so far. It adds more complexity, and makes the map way more prone to sudden changes, so it's fun to have it on.
I perhaps wouldn't recommand it if your goal is to challenge yourself : seeing your biggest AI opponent crumble down in a few turns, or being dragged down in unending wars (I conquer thee, you rebel, I reconquered thee, you rerebel...), makes the game a bit easier, to my opinion. But for the storytelling part of the game, it's great !

The Commerce on Farms from Manor and Hammer on Cottages from Guild House supercharge Golden Ages just when Great People start showing up in numbers. Serfdom training up your units/producing Great Generals whether you’re warring or not (you should be), Castles to keep the rebels from taking backline cities.

True. I was fighting for my survival in a 3 vs 1 war (including the top AI of the map at that point), so I didn't dare add Serfdom on top of that, but the doctrines are indeed quite important in Medieval Age.
And there is indeed a lot going with serfdom / feodalism in MA. That's perhaps one of the reason I find it less interesting than Classical : As I didn't switch to those doctrines, there was a lot of stuff I didn't get to interact with.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Finally got to commit the Aristocracy overhaul that sounded "an hour's work tops" in my head and took me weeks to finish properly. Or almost finish, as the task of adding unique noble families still remains (but will be a walk in the park compared to what's done already). I'd love to get some feedback on the overall feel of the new system from a player's perspective. My design goals were such:

1. More hands-on approach that requires active decision-making from the player.
2. More rewarding for taller playstyles (a throwback to the "hard-tall" vs "soft-tall" discussion, as the new system is useless for a 1-city civ, but far more beneficial for a 4-city one than a 10-city one).
3. More individual flavour for different civs. Even without the unique ones in place, the noble family "packages" available to different civs are different.

I only tested it with (lots of) hands-off AI-only games, so a player's perspective is welcome (and yes, I noticed the missing strategy entry for Aztecs' version after I uploaded, it'll be fixed in the next revision). The already implemented Aztecs and Incas will likely be the only exception from the general pattern; everyone else is getting the 4+1 treatment that Rome currently has.

The Explorer doesn't feel like it has much of a place at the moment.

It has terrain attack bonuses, but no defenses, making it pretty terrible for exploring. I sent a couple of them to a new continent and they got absolutely demolished by the existing barbarian units. I would have been better off sending Pikemen or even Levies. The Explorer's 2 speed isn't very useful when in thick jungle or forest, so units with more stats or cheaper production are more practical.

It lags too far behind its contemporary units to be militaristically applicable, with no bonus against melee like Skirmishers have, and having only 7 strength compared to the 8 strength of Pikemen, Longbowmen, and Arquebussiers, and most of those have been in production for hundreds of turns by the time you unlock the Explorer. For comparison, it would be as if Skirmishers were unlocked by Armor Crafting (well after Composite Bowmen show up from Iron Working) and had no bonus against melee.

I think giving them more ability to explore safely in hostile territory would help in their intended use (cross-ocean exploration). How would you feel about Explorers starting with the Hit and Run promotion (-1 terrain movement cost)? This would make them feel like proper explorers in unknown lands, and help them serve as scouts in existing armies, terrible at engagement but good for reconnaissance.

Yeah, the explorer unit always felt... weird. It's technically a part of the light infantry upgrade line, but it always felt like it wasn't intended for regular military use - and retooling it into a proper military unit would feel wrong. Yet, retooling it completely away from the regular military niche also feels weird, as it sits right there, between skirmisher and light infantry, both units very clearly meant to be used in battle. I simply have no clear-cut vision for this one. At least yet.

It's kind of weird that there's trade across the ocean before you can build ships that can carry units across the ocean, but still only after you can build ships that explore the ocean. Is this reflective of a specific phase in history?

I like that Navigation provides a spliting point between Chartered Companies and Navan Engineering, but the tech itself just feels like padding.

From a gameplay perspective, all these effects are distinct enough and have different enough benefits to make them more or less appealing in certain situations, rather than being treated as a bundle. You may, say, be interested in trading with different continents, but completely uninterested in invading or settling them.

From a historical perspective, the age of exploration (XIVth-XVth centuries), the boom of maritime trade (XVIth century), and the era of mass migration to the New World colonies (starting in the XVIIth century) are definitely chronologically separate, each at least 100 years apart from the other. The first ocean-crossing transport ship, being the merchantman, might add to the confusion a bit, as logically it's associated with cross-continental trade from the previous tech, but in Naval Engineering, it's specifically available to you as a transport ship, for carrying troops and civilians, not for conducting trade. As with almost all maritime transport throughout history, you might say you're pressing the ships that already exist in private hands into service as transports (as late as early XXth century, that was still the major way of getting soldiers across the seas; specialised troop transports only really began to kick off after WW1, even though our friend @pecheneg has shared an interesting - all the more so for its rarity - troop transport ship from the XIXth century).

Counterpoint : I find it quite amusing to replay the huge world map again and again, and to observe how different each game can be. Granted, the map is the same, but the big players changes often.
A Civ that was dominating in one game will have a minor role in the second ; a Civ that was your closest ally in one will betray you and zergrush you (or militiarush? ) ; the fanatical religious leader that ruled the world is now a deeply atheistic one because his favorite religion was founded by someone else... and so on.

And that's with playing always the same Civ as the player. I guess there is even more difference if you choose another Civ, as the proximity of the player tends to influence AI quite a lot.

And obviously that's a matter of personal tastes, and it's not my place to tell others what to enjoy. I simply shared my own perspective, and I completely understand how others may like to play differently. The only different thing about my perspective, of course, is that it directly influences which bits of RI get more development attention.

 

[yurv3]

Cossacks, conquistadors, and various types of adventurers were usually dashing raiders, brave in attack but not in defense in field battles, although there are many examples of them bravely enduring sieges in cities and fortresses.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Cossacks, conquistadors, and various types of adventurers were usually dashing raiders, brave in attack but not in defense in field battles, although there are many examples of them bravely enduring sieges in cities and fortresses.

A lot of them were indeed professional or semi-professional soldiers (in the case of conquistadors, shipping them to the New World was actually a way to "defuse" an overabundance of people who only knew how to fight so they don't turn to banditry once reconquista has ended), but those who did the actual exploration and those who fought as parts of armies in major wars were usually different people. Which is part of the reason the Explorer unit feels so weird - it's currently trying to be both. I even contemplated splitting the unit in two, separating the explorer proper (which would then become a much more specialised unit, and likely limited in number) from the contemporary light infantry (something like calivermen, who'd be a much clearer direct upgrade to skirmishers), but it'd take far too much effort on my side, so that particular solution is very unlikely.

 

[Ahnarras]

Yeah, the explorer unit always felt... weird. It's technically a part of the light infantry upgrade line, but it always felt like it wasn't intended for regular military use - and retooling it into a proper military unit would feel wrong. Yet, retooling it completely away from the regular military niche also feels weird, as it sits right there, between skirmisher and light infantry, both units very clearly meant to be used in battle. I simply have no clear-cut vision for this one. At least yet.

Well, they does have a bonus with goody huts, so there's that ? Althought I agree that, if I have horses, I would rather go with late horse archer for the M3 than having the explorer on foot.
I think explorers also have the possibility of being taken on the very first ships that cross oceans, something regulars military units can't ?

Anyways, it's a niche, but it's not always a bad thing to have.

And obviously that's a matter of personal tastes, and it's not my place to tell others what to enjoy. I simply shared my own perspective, and I completely understand how others may like to play differently. The only different thing about my perspective, of course, is that it directly influences which bits of RI get more development attention.

I'm writing a ruleset for a tabletop game my friends and I are planning. On the ~20 factions you can play, the ones we are playing are almost done. The others one are... uh... less done, and that's an euphemis.
So I understand your position on that matter

Anyways, I may have encountered a bug. I'm trying to upgrade my Galatikoi Kleruchoi into Saqaliba. I've got the Technology for, I've got the ressources, I was even able to build one Saqaliba when I was under the National Units limit.
But there seems to be no way to upgrade my remaining Galatikoi, even though the Civlopedia tells me that they should be able to. Perhaps something is missing ?

I'm adding a save if you wanna check, I think it's a turn where the Galatikoi is in a city (in Waset).
It's not a big deal, I will probably just delete them and rebuild new one (except for the one that are with a Great General : I will probably cheat my ways to upgrade them in the editor, as I would hate to loose all the yummy promotion they have earned since they were humble Sherdens Gards )

Ps : First thousand turns done, youhou !

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Anyways, I may have encountered a bug. I'm trying to upgrade my Galatikoi Kleruchoi into Saqaliba. I've got the Technology for, I've got the ressources, I was even able to build one Saqaliba when I was under the National Units limit.
But there seems to be no way to upgrade my remaining Galatikoi, even though the Civlopedia tells me that they should be able to. Perhaps something is missing ?

I'm adding a save if you wanna check, I think it's a turn where the Galatikoi is in a city (in Waset).
It's not a big deal, I will probably just delete them and rebuild new one (except for the one that are with a Great General : I will probably cheat my ways to upgrade them in the editor, as I would hate to loose all the yummy promotion they have earned since they were humble Sherdens Gards )

Thanks, I'll definitely take a look - most likely my fault somewhere in there. Which revision?