Realism Invictus

[Walter Hawkwood]

It may technically be possible in some way, but I wouldn't mess around with city-less civs, too much potential for all kinds of bugs. Also, in that case, it kind of feels like the people of said cities are actually on your side, which feels wrong. If it came to war, the people had already made their choice to oppose you.

 

[[Y]]

It does bring up an interesting possibility, though, of utilizing slave/serf revolts to add local separatist rebellions. Maybe the city itself isn't ready to jump ship from the empire, but a military presence there decides that they are ready, and spawn nearby. Something along the lines of Caeser crossing the rubicon, but also patches of smaller would-be revolutionaries.

 

[globosud]

It may technically be possible in some way, but I wouldn't mess around with city-less civs, too much potential for all kinds of bugs. Also, in that case, it kind of feels like the people of said cities are actually on your side, which feels wrong. If it came to war, the people had already made their choice to oppose you.

This is partly true, because the army would represent the armed citizen population with a leader, while the defense would be carried out by the official central army of the nation.

obviously the city would be left without internal defenses, the only possibility is that your army arrives in the same turn to defend it. for example if it happens during a war you are fighting, the rebels could actually bring you to your knees by conquering half your empire. But as in reality, you can also find an ally ready to help you, to quell the revolt. each city, obviously, would create its own army of separatists. I would leave the possibility of bribing the rioters, but with a lot of money

 

[[Y]]

This is partly true, because the army would represent the armed citizen population with a leader, while the defense would be carried out by the official central army of the nation.

obviously the city would be left without internal defenses, the only possibility is that your army arrives in the same turn to defend it. for example if it happens during a war you are fighting, the rebels could actually bring you to your knees by conquering half your empire. But as in reality, you can also find an ally ready to help you, to quell the revolt. each city, obviously, would create its own army of separatists. I would leave the possibility of bribing the rioters, but with a lot of money

To clarify, in your interpretation, no military leader or soldier ever defects or organizes a separatist movement? The military in all circumstances obeys the existing regime?

How would you describe, say, the English civil war in terms of RI Separatism? Did the parliamentarians have to conquer London?

 

[globosud]

To clarify, in your interpretation, no military leader or soldier ever defects or organizes a separatist movement? The military in all circumstances obeys the existing regime?

How would you describe, say, the English civil war in terms of RI Separatism? Did the parliamentarians have to conquer London?

you are confusing a coup d'état or putsch with a separatist movement , which decides to rebel against the central government. English Civil War technically it's not considerest a separatis rebellion. was a conflict within a single state, fought between of king charles I and parlamient. The main issue was who should hold political and religiuos power in England : the monarchy or Parlamient. A separatist rebellion is a region or group tries to leave the country and become indipendence. then it can also happen that part of a national army takes off its uniform to fight with the rebels. A regular army will never represent just one group or region. But it represents an army composed of units from any region of the nation.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

But as in reality, you can also find an ally ready to help you, to quell the revolt. each city, obviously, would create its own army of separatists. I would leave the possibility of bribing the rioters, but with a lot of money

But that is exactly what already happens now before a rebel civ spawns! You already always get a chance to bribe/use secret police/negotiate etc.

 

[Ahnarras]

The army should represent the future nation, and conquer the cities that will then become its own, but I don't know if it's feasible. for example, they send 20 Macedonian troops, who conquer a city which obviously becomes Macedonian, then if they fail, obviously the attempt at separatism also fails

It may technically be possible in some way, but I wouldn't mess around with city-less civs, too much potential for all kinds of bugs. Also, in that case, it kind of feels like the people of said cities are actually on your side, which feels wrong. If it came to war, the people had already made their choice to oppose you.

obviously the city would be left without internal defenses, the only possibility is that your army arrives in the same turn to defend it. for example if it happens during a war you are fighting, the rebels could actually bring you to your knees by conquering half your empire. But as in reality, you can also find an ally ready to help you, to quell the revolt. each city, obviously, would create its own army of separatists. I would leave the possibility of bribing the rioters, but with a lot of money

To clarify, in your interpretation, no military leader or soldier ever defects or organizes a separatist movement? The military in all circumstances obeys the existing regime?

All of that seems pretty interesting. It would grants a way to deal with separatist cities before they switch, so without having to loose buildings in it.
To represent the locals soldiers presenting a risk to defect with the rebels, each unit in the city could have a % of chance to revolt and be added on the stack of attacking rebels.
The base number of rebels could depends on the Pop of the city, perhaps being inflated by era or doctrines, and then you add the rebels soldiers on top of that.

They could also have a special bonus that make the city defense inoperant (or heavily reduced) towards them, representing how well they know the city's protection / have access to the key of the sidedoor of the walls.

BUT... and that's a big but... It sounds like a programming nightmare. As Walter said, it would needs to have cityless Civ, and add a lot of coding to make sure everything works fine.
And I'm pretty sure remembering Walter seeing that R:I is now in somewhat maintenance mode as he's mostly alone working on it + that separatism is a too complex thing to work on alone and that he doesn't want to invest more time on it to rather prioritize other things. There's a whole road between "polishing" an almost-done Mod and trying to re-implement such complex features

I prefer to look at Separatism in a "post-event way" : the reduction that garrisonned units grants to Separatism ? It's your army fighting the rebels in the streets.
The micro-event where you can bribe or otherwise influence the rebels ? It means the city has already shifted, at least a big part of it.

The point where the city do revolt and form a new Civ ? It's too late. It means that it has been years with the riots/troubles going on, and you didn't managed to act on it.
Now it has break free and the rebels control the population. It may have been only a single turn, gameplaywise, but remember that means a couple of years has passed (except for really late in the game, but to be honest, a revolting city could happen overnight).

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

I prefer to look at Separatism in a "post-event way" : the reduction that garrisonned units grants to Separatism ? It's your army fighting the rebels in the streets.
The micro-event where you can bribe or otherwise influence the rebels ? It means the city has already shifted, at least a big part of it.

Thank you! I am not sure why everyone is missing that point - you absolutely can deal with separatist cities now before they switch, and this is exactly the point where you do it. The event denotes that this is the last chance of doing something to separatists without an all-out military intervention. When you get it, the city in question has already fallen into disorder and the population supports the secession.

 

[globosud]

Thank you! I am not sure why everyone is missing that point - you absolutely can deal with separatist cities now before they switch, and this is exactly the point where you do it. The event denotes that this is the last chance of doing something to separatists without an all-out military intervention. When you get it, the city in question has already fallen into disorder and the population supports the secession.

The current system is excellent, but it's just not clear why we should secede, rather than force a civil war for a change of government. Obviously separatism as it currently exists would perhaps fit better into a historical scenario. I can understand the segregation that can arise after a war of conquest. For example, if you conquer half of France, after 50 turns it secedes, then I'd understand. It would also be nice if you conquer half of France and spawn a rebel leader with an army of 50 units, along with a great general with a historical French name, who then allies himself with what remains of France.

Of course, I understand that not everything you want is achievable. Realism Invictus remains the best mod of all time, even as it is now.on the other hand if I play civ 4 it is only for this mod.I think separatism is bound to happen when you conquer part of another nation, and I think fighting the separatists is the only way you can perhaps truly make those cities yours, if ever by first fighting a large army and then gradually fighting smaller and smaller armies over the course of 150 years.obviously the more civilizations you conquer, the more separatist movements you have at home, and so on, making the conquest a little more difficult, thus penalizing the aggressive nations a little more, which always end up prevailing over the more peaceful ones.

Furthermore, this would eliminate the problem of creating new nations from scratch which only slows down the game.the separatist movement would either represent a disappeared nation, or a nation that still exists but is halved. you start with 20 civilizations and only those can be regenerated if necessary. in fact the system would be more streamlined than the current one, and perhaps historically more plausible and realistic. It would be nice if when you have a high percentage of separatism, when you fight you have a good % to generate instead of a great general of your own, a rebel with an army following, with a variable percentage.

In my last game with the latest svn, small zombie nations continued to be generated, useless for the gameplay, except for slowing down the civilization from which they separate, and used as a glitch to take cities from a strong nation with small wars without risk, the system that I propose instead can really impact the gameplay, leading to victory a civilization subjugated for two centuries.

imagine your civilization has two cities conquered by another nation, when the rebels are about to wake up, a message 5 or 10 turns before, warns you that city x is ready to rebel and to prepare for war, since the rebels will have the same nationality as you, you will be the one to command them

 

[LeanArcticWolf]

I missed this post before, and I'm not going to discuss the more specific points from it, but overall, the developments you describe is more or less exactly what happened in Western Europe anyway under Charlemagne, which is exactly my point - it wouldn't have made a major difference in the long run. There would be minor discrepancies, sure, but nothing would go materially different. And yes, I totally agree with the point that Justinian's ambitions didn't exactly correspond to the means the empire had at the time - but that again circles back to the point that from the contemporary perspective, there was no "fall of Rome", he thought of himself as another Aurelian fixing a temporary crisis, so there was no reason for him to behave as modestly as you described.

I'm curious about Justinian's ambitions...like did his generals tell him that it wouldn't be a good idea to conquer Italy? Or did everyone overestimate how easy it would be? It reminds me how Putin thought it would take 3 days to take Kiev and yet look where we are now.

There was certainly a tone shift in how the Romans viewed Theodoric. Initially, contemporaries didn't think Rome fell when Odoacer overthrew Romulus Augustus and Romans later invited Theodoric to replace him (they fought a war to do so, but still) and viewed him as continuing Roman rule in Italy. During the course of Theodoric's reign did the opinion that Rome fell with Romulus Augustus start to take hold. Not sure about the exact court politics in Constantinople in how that view became dominant, very least Justinian had that view. I think you could find Roman elite who still viewed Italy as Roman, it's just their opinion didn't matter to Justinian. It's not that opinions/perspectives are set in stone. Justinian could have been persuaded to keep the traditional view that Italy was still "Roman" in a sense. Just take Sicely and Corsica and Sardina from Theodoric and call it day. The very least, we (hehe), I mean Romans could have avoided the disastrous Roman-Gothic war. History is a like a river, just a different perspective could have changed it. No doubt that Justian viewed himself as an Aurelian, but I think that was the wrong view and he should have kept the initial view that Italy was still Roman (a more nuanced universal view of what it meant to be Roman)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for the life of me I can't find the previous discussion on how colonies should be treated but from what I remember that even faraway cities on the same landmass wouldn't be considered a colony and cultural continuity was deemed to difficult as a remedy?
Potential solution, what if it was just by movement points from one city to the next? Two checks, one by land movement and one by water movement points; it takes both (if applicable) to meet colony threshold. So, a coastal city that may be considered a colony based on land movement points but is not considered one by water movement points will be considered not a colony. The number of movement points considered to be a colony would increase as the eras advanced? Normal city settling should generally not cause your cities to be colonies but if you do faraway cities (like the classic taking a good chokepoint) then likely it'll be considered a colony. Hopefully, this may be more doable of a solution?

As an aside, I find it a great idea how this was specifically a game setting in Troy: Total War. How fantasy do you want your interpretation of the events to be? Was a "minotaur" an actual giant monster with a bull's head? An epic hero using a bull's skull as a helmet decoration, able to go alone against formations of lesser opponents Homer-style? Or simply a bigger-than-average warlord from Crete using culturally significant bull symbolism and leading a unit of Cretans? One could play the game as anything between ancient Greek-themed Warhammer Fantasy Battles and a relatively accurate Bronze Age warfare simulator.

Total war is doing an amazing job to keep the wide breath of their fans happy. Firaxis seems to be struggling-they should have a Civ Realism lnvictus series

I see zero evidence of that. If anything, the Western style of warfare was dead since the advent of tanks and aviation, turning all major militaries into "cavalry-based" Eastern-style forces, and post-WW2 developments (man-portable missiles being the chief one) are trying to bring it back. So far, mass drone warfare in Ukraine has shown the exact opposite - a regression to Western-style warfare, which, in the modern era, was epitomised by WW1. WW1 was essentially Hellenic-style warfare on a different scale; Verdun would be strategically very familiar to Hellenic generals, if on a much grander scale, obviously - whose "formation" would break first? Who would run out of fresh infantry first?

Hmmm, I think it depends on how you view Western style of warfare? I see symmetrical vs asymmetrical as the broad defining line, less than static vs mobility. Western style is more about having openly declared wars, soldiers in uniform, professional and disciplined, and fighting for clear military objectives to ensure a quick military victory as according to Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things (which I have read probably a half a dozen times, is that a good thing?). What I foresee with drones, is that drones are a lot less dependent on having standing militaries, no need for soldiers when you can have ordinary civilian. Also, it'll be increasingly hard to determine whose drones attacked who. A drone swarm out of Iraq striking Turkey doesn't mean the Iraqi government did it, it could have been the Kurds. Drone strikes allow the use of sudden attacks, undeclared wars, more room for ambiguity.

A Mongolian horse archer (a typical nomad taking care of horse) has a lot more in common with a gamer turned drone operator than he does with a knight. A knight would be more akin to a tank crew-professional, high level of training. Mongolian horse archer and gamer drone operator is more like the war is an extension of their skills, not professionally trained in the sense of a knight or a tank crew.

In this sense, this is what I mean with the Western way of war is ending. WWI would be the prime example of the Western way of war. And certainly no doubt that post WWII that it was under attack given all the guerilla wars, like the man pads you mentioned, but I think that drones are going to accelerate this trend beyond what nations may be able to cope. Any seperatist/terrorist group getting supplied with drones can now wage asymmetrical warfare on a scale not previously seen. The age of industrialized asymmetrical warfare is here. Consider this, symmetrical warfare was industrialized during the 1800s and look at the horrors of WWI and WWII it brought. Are we ready what horrors industrialized asymmetrical warfare would bring? Everyone's infrastructure was not built with this in mind.
-Best current example is the Houthis and we just entered the age of the drones and the Houthis I have heard been described as one of the most incompetent terrorist group ever-yet look at how they can shut down maritime traffic. 5,10, 20 years from now?
-Sudan War also a good example where frontlines don't matter as much anymore, both sides are lobbying drones at each other's infrastructure

 

[Ahnarras]

Side note : I'm slowly progressing into the Renaissance and, as my military is finally modernized and upgraded/rebuild, I'm seeing myself lacking in stuff to build. It's great, that means I can switch towards more economic/research.
So I opened the doctrine pannel again after having the same ones for a few centuries, aiming to switch the focus from production towards gold.

God, what an headache. I felt completly overhelmed.
It was already a chore to find what to do for production, between the flat %, the slavery boosting mine and the others boosting craftmans, but I did managed.

But gold ? I spent way too many hours on it
They are all really fine roleplay wise, but trying to decide if I want to focus on Town, or if the +gold from the Slave Market on my many plantations is better, or if I just want a flat + (that I had to learn to differenciate between +...), but wait ! The seems to be dependant on the base total so I need to anticipate how much it will changes and...

Omygod. I wasn't so close to stop my games since... beginning of Medieval, where I had to manage the beginning of new doctrines, too.

Is it just a "me" thing ? Am I thinking too much into it, trying to optimize it ? Is the consensus over here to just "take what looks okayish" and rolls with it ?
Or is it the Huge World Map again that screws me over, with too much plantations because it's overcrownded with ressources + too many desertic tiles screwing the balance by lacking a point in the basic bonus ?

I tends to like it better when it's more simple, like the distinction between Civic Service (aimed towards production) and Plutocray (aimed towards gold).
When trying to decide between Slavery and Free Commoners, both doctrines grants a production & gold bonus at the same time, but on different kind of tiles/specialist, and managing to find what's best for your empire is... complicated

 

[Takofloppa]

I see a big number = I build it But more seriously, I don't really super optimize things, except let's say the first 100 turns, I just take the one that feels like it makes sense, even if it's not really the best choice at the moment. There's a lot going on in the mid/late game on larger maps so some compromises must be made to finish the game in a reasonable time (I usually have motivation for 2 weeks of continuous play, more than that becomes a bit tiring).

 

[globosud]

An idea for the world scenario: I created a faction representing two canals, the Suez and Panama, plus Istanbul to ensure the Black Sea doesn't remain a lake. These three cities can only change owners, they can't be destroyed, they don't generate culture, and their borders are always open. They have a port guard, which not only defends them but also ensures their stability. This is the only way to ensure a canal that the AI interprets well, so it can see it as both a route for land and sea troops. then to make sure that the AI actually sees the oases as a place to found a city, I created a modification, without modifying any realism files, for the oases as you can see in image 2 and 3

 

[Ahnarras]

I see a big number = I build it But more seriously, I don't really super optimize things, except let's say the first 100 turns, I just take the one that feels like it makes sense, even if it's not really the best choice at the moment. There's a lot going on in the mid/late game on larger maps so some compromises must be made to finish the game in a reasonable time (I usually have motivation for 2 weeks of continuous play, more than that becomes a bit tiring).

Thanks but my comment was about doctrine choices.
For building I'm doing pretty okay, I've got enough production to just build everything that the Tech Tree feeds me

On the same topic : I see that the Colosseum becomes obsolete with Social Contract.
But the Gladiator School, one of the main perk of this wonder, does not.
Is it intended, or an oversight ?

An idea for the world scenario: I created a faction representing two canals, the Suez and Panama, plus Istanbul to ensure the Black Sea doesn't remain a lake.

Couldn't the same be done with a simple fort ? Aren't navy units able to "navigate" throught them, as they count as a city ?

 

[globosud]

Thanks but my comment was about doctrine choices.
For building I'm doing pretty okay, I've got enough production to just build everything that the Tech Tree feeds me

On the same topic : I see that the Colosseum becomes obsolete with Social Contract.
But the Gladiator School, one of the main perk of this wonder, does not.
Is it intended, or an oversight ?




Couldn't the same be done with a simple fort ? Aren't navy units able to "navigate" throught them, as they count as a city ?

the fort allows passage only to the owning civilization, even if you have open borders. This is the only way without modifying the DLL, which makes the AI's path through the channel, a possible path.I also like it, because in reality there is no channel that does not have an owner. They are also thinking of charging for the use of the passage, to make the owner city richer, but I would also have to explain it to the AI and things would probably get a little more complicated.

 

[Ahnarras]

Hmm, I didn't knew about that. Seeing my own units able to cross forts, I was assuming that the units from friendly Civ could, too. Thanks, it now makes sense why you did it that way.

 

[RezerCuid]

You can add +1 happiness, if your health level is 4 points higher than normal
But this will only work after the pool is built. (Tech Sanitation)
With the message "We have good health and live long lives." In this case, it makes sense to build aqueducts and swimming pools.
There are studies that show that a diverse diet can lead to longer life, this pleases the residents,and people like swimming pools too)

 

[JDCP]

Finally got to play the latest SVN and I must say aesthetically this is the best unit (or should I say units? whatever) I've seen so far in the mod. I wonder, what is the source for this design? It's amusing to look at, really beautiful with a very pleasant color scheme. For just some "technical rather than visual" change this is quite a game changer to me . Walter, will you also update the foot knights to look like this? And do you have plans for the Roman knights?

I was very fond of the models we had before, but this is in a completely different level even if it's just a bit of retexturing with some tweaks! Excellent work, haven't checked the Germans yet, but hopefully I get to see them in action soon I am glad to carry the same opinion about the new French cataphract model and the Cuirassiers! The first looks amazing with that cloak and the later has an surprisingly high quality model. The old cataphract model wasn't any bad, just a bit too bareboness so to speak, this one has so many details I could stare at it for quite a long time!

Graphics aside, I noticed a damn lot of new content, the most I'm interested on trying out now is the noble families (yep, finally noticed the memo, I'm very excited for it!!!!) because I always pick this civic just for the knights, but now I look forward new strategies with these! Also, I noticed the French also have an unique family! Haven't checked if other civs do too... but I hope so!

Also I noticed some new UUs too... That Gendarme looks AMAZING
The fully armoured horse, that pristine looking ornamented armor with the bleu plume in the helmet, that gigantic spear... EVERYTHING about this damn thing is simply perfect! What is it based on? I loved seeing the origin of the new english knight graphics, would love to see more about these too because it's very interesting yet I didn't knew anything about these gendarmes until know (besides the modern Gendarmerie, which I believe doesn't have much to do with knights anyway... but I might be wrong )

Now we could say France has the best mounted units right? I mean the paladins were already perfect for me but this is something else... mindblowing, I'll be flanking all day and night with these.

All of you who have finally tried the noble families, what are your thoughts on it? You like the system?

 

[globosud]

Finally got to play the latest SVN and I must say aesthetically this is the best unit (or should I say units? whatever) I've seen so far in the mod. I wonder, what is the source for this design? It's amusing to look at, really beautiful with a very pleasant color scheme. For just some "technical rather than visual" change this is quite a game changer to me . Walter, will you also update the foot knights to look like this? And do you have plans for the Roman knights?
View attachment 737574 View attachment 737575
I was very fond of the models we had before, but this is in a completely different level even if it's just a bit of retexturing with some tweaks! Excellent work, haven't checked the Germans yet, but hopefully I get to see them in action soon I am glad to carry the same opinion about the new French cataphract model and the Cuirassiers! The first looks amazing with that cloak and the later has an surprisingly high quality model. The old cataphract model wasn't any bad, just a bit too bareboness so to speak, this one has so many details I could stare at it for quite a long time!

Graphics aside, I noticed a damn lot of new content, the most I'm interested on trying out now is the noble families (yep, finally noticed the memo, I'm very excited for it!!!!) because I always pick this civic just for the knights, but now I look forward new strategies with these! Also, I noticed the French also have an unique family! Haven't checked if other civs do too... but I hope so!
View attachment 737573
Also I noticed some new UUs too... That Gendarme looks AMAZING
The fully armoured horse, that pristine looking ornamented armor with the bleu plume in the helmet, that gigantic spear... EVERYTHING about this damn thing is simply perfect! What is it based on? I loved seeing the origin of the new english knight graphics, would love to see more about these too because it's very interesting yet I didn't knew anything about these gendarmes until know (besides the modern Gendarmerie, which I believe doesn't have much to do with knights anyway... but I might be wrong )
View attachment 737576
Now we could say France has the best mounted units right? I mean the paladins were already perfect for me but this is something else... mindblowing, I'll be flanking all day and night with these.

All of you who have finally tried the noble families, what are your thoughts on it? You like the system?

yes but I noticed that in order to enjoy all the content, I had to reduce the production costs of all the buildings by 30%, it gave me like 50 turns to build a noble house

 

[Ahnarras]

besides the modern Gendarmerie, which I believe doesn't have much to do with knights anyway... but I might be wrong

Well, you would be surprise then

Gendarme is a french word coming from "Gens d'Armes" which means "Man-at-Arms", just like our beloved unit in R:I.
Even if they look like Police troopers for the foreigners, they are not : the modern Gendarmes are a special branch of the french military, and are more "soliders for domestic troubles" than your common police officer, who is employed by the city as a peacekeeper.
They have better training, being from the military, and were for a long time the only ones allowed to have a weapon/gun while working. The police had to do with sticks and pepper spray, usually.
Obviously all that has changed since the 2000 and the start of the many terrorists attacks on french soil, but it's still really rare for a police officer to use his gun, whereas the gendarmes have way more training with them and are the one that are call for the biggest crimes.

So even if they were never "knight", at least not in my knowledge, the origin of the word still means that they were always a kind of soldier who were "a bit more" than your common guard with a pike.
Perhaps even they were a priviledge of the state in medieval age, but that's beyond my area of expertise