Realism Invictus

[Walter Hawkwood]

That’s why even today I still prefer 3.4 — because the challenge is truly prohibitive, even when playing the way I like, aiming for a cultural or technological victory.

Oh is it that time of the month already for you to tell us that again? How time flies!

In all seriousness though, yeah, you nailed it - "challenge seeker" is exactly the kind of player I am not catering to. I never made a single change in RI with the intent of "making it more challenging for the player". And it would actually be quite easy. On the contrary, I indeed made quite a few changes over time that made life less annoying for players and less "challenging".

If it's the challenge you crave so much, why don't you simply increase the difficulty level?

 

[globosud]

Oh is it that time of the month already for you to tell us that again? How time flies!

In all seriousness though, yeah, you nailed it - "challenge seeker" is exactly the kind of player I am not catering to. I never made a single change in RI with the intent of "making it more challenging for the player". And it would actually be quite easy. On the contrary, I indeed made quite a few changes over time that made life less annoying for players and less "challenging".

If it's the challenge you crave so much, why don't you simply increase the difficulty level?

So, considering how things were before — maybe during testing, before release — you were looking for something else. But what I really wanted to point out is that the A.I. itself used to play much better. The point isn’t just the challenge, because as you said the difficulty level can always be lowered. The real difference is that the latest versions are much easier, and the A.I. is very passive.
I highlighted how, after only 20% of the turns under the same conditions, I faced several naval incursions in 3.4, while in the latest version everyone is pleased, borders are always open, and civilizations are constantly friendly — making it possible to drain money from them whenever you want. And you’ve taught me this: raising the difficulty level doesn’t actually improve the mechanics. A mod that instead forces you to lower the level is, intrinsically, already the best version. I think that’s undeniable.

If today you like it that way, that’s fine, but for me it’s different. Here’s the announcement of Realism Invictus 3.4:

"Dear friends, I am very glad to present yet another version of our mod. After over a decade of development, we can say that, in terms of features, content and balance, we have something that is close to final version of Realism Invictus."

I see version 3.4 exactly like that — just as you wrote 10 years ago.
I know you don’t really like it when I talk about old versions — and I don’t understand why, since it’s still your work and should be a source of pride for you. Unfortunately, there aren’t many nostalgics who enjoy playing the older versions anymore, so I don’t have anyone to compare experiences with.
But I’ll repeat: I don’t know what exactly “broke” over time, yet if it was your choice, then so be it. For my taste, the masterpiece already exists — and it’s version 3.4.And then again, consider this: anyone still playing Civ IV is already a nostalgic at heart. I’m even worse — a nostalgic who’s also nostalgic about the old versions of the mod itself.
Of course, I’m always happy to try and test the new versions. But if that’s the direction things are going, then I personally prefer the old balance that was reached in 2018 — because that’s the one I truly love. Still, this is obviously a matter of taste. And naturally, I’ll adapt all the graphical improvements possible to 3.4, because from a visual standpoint you’ve achieved an outstanding level today.

 

[[Y]]

I don’t know what exactly “broke” over time, yet if it was your choice, then so be it.

AI had been made to act more within its own interests instead of against the other players' interests. While you enjoyed having Britain and Ireland launch naval invasions against you, that doesn't mean it was in their long-term interests to do so. The code at the time was focused on aggression and warfare. The code now focuses on leader advantages and progression.

I like the challenge as well. But for me the challenge isn't an AI that's constantly trying to stop me, even through multiple naval invasions in the BC era. It's an AI that's trying to win in its own right, an AI that I have to proactively stop or surpass. I raise the difficulty level to force myself into having to make optimal long-term plays and prioritization. Not to be triumphant in classical era wars, but to remain relevant in the Renaissance and beyond, and to avoid becoming overshadowed by the AI's various bonuses and discounts.

The changes since 3.4 have done a great job of making the game more challenging. The difference is that it used to be that the player could sit idling as the AIs wasted their resources in attacks, a strategy that kept both them and the player down, and requiring little to no agency from the player. Now the player won't be invaded as much, but if the player isn't actively trying to surpass the AI economically or keep the AI down militarily, the player will lose. To me that's much more rewarding form of challenge.

And while it's true the AIs are much more willing to aid and support now, that's valid. On the one hand, that's part of the game, so it's a shame for the AI to frequently decline it. But maybe there's room to tweak the numbers here and make the diplomatic gradients better felt.

Regarding wonders, which you've mentioned: There have been various changes made to make wonders less appealing to people that don't actually benefit from them. It used to be that wonders would be scooped up and hoarded by advanced civs, but now they tend to sit around waiting for someone who'll actually apply their bonuses. So the difference there is probably less a matter of challenge and more the AI not wasting hammers on a wonder that won't improve its position. Maybe they should have less score value now, since they aren't meant to be hoarded and pursued so actively as they used to be.

 

[globosud]

rio come hai scritto 10 anni fa.
Quindi che non ti piace molto quando parlo del

L'IA era stata progettata per agire più nel proprio interesse che contro gli interessi degli altri giocatori. Anche se ti piaceva che Gran Bretagna e Irlanda lanciassero invasioni navali contro di te, ciò non significava che fosse nel loro interesse a lungo termine farlo. Il codice all'epoca era incentrato sull'aggressione e sulla guerra. Il codice ora si concentra sui vantaggi e sulla progressione dei leader.

Anche a me piace la sfida. Ma per me la sfida non è un'IA che cerca costantemente di fermarmi, anche durante le molteplici invasioni navali nell'era a.C. È un'IA che cerca di vincere per conto proprio, un'IA che devo fermare o superare in modo proattivo. Aumento il livello di difficoltà per costringermi a fare giocate e priorità a lungo termine ottimali. Non per trionfare nelle guerre dell'era classica, ma per rimanere rilevante nel Rinascimento e oltre, ed evitare di essere messo in ombra dai vari bonus e sconti dell'IA.

Le modifiche apportate dalla versione 3.4 hanno contribuito notevolmente a rendere il gioco più impegnativo. La differenza è che prima il giocatore poteva starsene inerte mentre le IA sprecavano le loro risorse in attacchi, una strategia che teneva sotto controllo sia loro che il giocatore, e che richiedeva poca o nessuna azione da parte del giocatore. Ora il giocatore non sarà invaso così spesso, ma se non cerca attivamente di superare l'IA economicamente o di tenerla sotto controllo militarmente, perderà. Per me questa è una forma di sfida molto più gratificante.

E sebbene sia vero che ora le IA sono molto più disposte ad aiutare e supportare, questo è valido. Da un lato, fa parte del gioco, quindi è un peccato che l'IA lo rifiuti spesso. Ma forse c'è margine per modificare i numeri e far sì che i gradienti diplomatici siano più percepiti.

Per quanto riguarda le meraviglie, che hai menzionato: sono state apportate varie modifiche per renderle meno appetibili per chi non ne trae effettivamente beneficio. In passato, le meraviglie venivano raccolte e accumulate dalle civiltà più avanzate, ma ora tendono a restare in attesa di qualcuno che ne applichi effettivamente i bonus. Quindi la differenza probabilmente non è tanto una questione di sfida, quanto piuttosto del fatto che l'IA non sprechi martelli su una meraviglia che non ne migliorerà la posizione. Forse ora dovrebbero avere un valore di punteggio inferiore, dato che non sono pensate per essere accumulate e ricercate così attivamente come in passato.

AI had been made to act more within its own interests instead of against the other players' interests. While you enjoyed having Britain and Ireland launch naval invasions against you, that doesn't mean it was in their long-term interests to do so. The code at the time was focused on aggression and warfare. The code now focuses on leader advantages and progression.

I like the challenge as well. But for me the challenge isn't an AI that's constantly trying to stop me, even through multiple naval invasions in the BC era. It's an AI that's trying to win in its own right, an AI that I have to proactively stop or surpass. I raise the difficulty level to force myself into having to make optimal long-term plays and prioritization. Not to be triumphant in classical era wars, but to remain relevant in the Renaissance and beyond, and to avoid becoming overshadowed by the AI's various bonuses and discounts.

The changes since 3.4 have done a great job of making the game more challenging. The difference is that it used to be that the player could sit idling as the AIs wasted their resources in attacks, a strategy that kept both them and the player down, and requiring little to no agency from the player. Now the player won't be invaded as much, but if the player isn't actively trying to surpass the AI economically or keep the AI down militarily, the player will lose. To me that's much more rewarding form of challenge.

And while it's true the AIs are much more willing to aid and support now, that's valid. On the one hand, that's part of the game, so it's a shame for the AI to frequently decline it. But maybe there's room to tweak the numbers here and make the diplomatic gradients better felt.

Regarding wonders, which you've mentioned: There have been various changes made to make wonders less appealing to people that don't actually benefit from them. It used to be that wonders would be scooped up and hoarded by advanced civs, but now they tend to sit around waiting for someone who'll actually apply their bonuses. So the difference there is probably less a matter of challenge and more the AI not wasting hammers on a wonder that won't improve its position. Maybe they should have less score value now, since they aren't meant to be hoarded and pursued so actively as they used to be.

You talk about potential, but even today there’s still no trace of it. If you hope that the A.I. can compete with a human in terms of mechanics and strategy, I can assure you that not even Civilization VII has managed that yet. Simply fearing an attack changes everything. If you don’t fear war, the experience becomes much easier.
Of course, we’d all love a game where the A.I. truly knows what’s best for itself — but unfortunately, not even Civilization VII has reached that level. In the current versions, without meaning to offend, you don’t even feel the weight of the economy anymore: just contact a friendly civ (and usually there are plenty of them) and get money as a gift.
And do you know what it means for me to actually have to defend my coastal cities? It means being forced to deal with every single aspect of the game — economy, technology, diplomacy with potential enemies, and more. Not having to fear that at all ends up impoverishing the game in every way.
Civ 4, just like Civ 3, is fundamentally centered around war. In the end, everything revolves around units — there’s no point denying it. Civilization’s mechanics are rather simple compared to other strategy games: it’s all about the economy of war, and for war.
In the older versions, the A.I. managed this aspect much better; today, trying to strip Civ 4 of that feels like a titanic task. Civ 4, just like Civ 3, has an unmistakable axiom: the more troops you have, the better you’ve managed your economy, and the higher your chances of winning. There is no other way.
Of course, you can balance with defensive troops to protect your territory against enemy attacks, especially if you are pursuing other types of victories. But if you take this aspect away, to me, you simply strip Civ 4 of its very essence.
I’ll be more than happy to welcome the improvements you mentioned, but only when I actually encounter them in the game.

 

[[Y]]

just contact a friendly civ (and usually there are plenty of them) and get money as a gift.

This is valid feedback and something for Walter to consider. I don't know how much access there is to the code around this, but it's possible that it can be tweaked so that the AI is less willing to provide gifts, and making even making more of a diplomatic penalty for asking. But it's more conducive to offer these things a feedback on what can be improved rather than make a blanket statement that things today are too easy.

If you don’t fear war, the experience becomes much easier.

I definitely fear war, and much of my gameplay revolves around discouraging it. But not all players want this experience of being constantly afraid and being threatened with extinction. Many enjoy a more lax game that revolves around diplomacy and empire management. That's why the difficulty levels exist, so the base game (in this case, I think, balanced for monarch) offers a relatively tame and balanced experience, and it can become more difficult/threatening as you raise the difficulty level.

You've said you lowered your difficulty settings, but I don't know what you lowered them from and what you lowered them to. I ask that you be considerate to other players wants, and consider that the baseline difficulty is trying to meet those wants. If you're playing the baseline difficulty and not finding it difficult, then it's not fair to say the game is too easy and the AI too passive. Up the difficulty.

I think you're also playing the world map. I don't ever play it. Is it the case that most leaders on the world map simply aren't warmongering leaders? Could changing the leaders, even if it's something you did locally for your own game, give you more of the experience you want?

I’ll be more than happy to welcome the improvements you mentioned, but only when I actually encounter them in the game.

Part of providing feedback on ongoing development is offering actionable advice. "I liked 3.4 better" isn't actionable. Saying "it's too easy to abuse the AI's willingness to gift gold" is very actionable, and I'm glad you brought that up. If you want to see improvements encountered in the game, focus less on the nostalgia, and more on pointing fingers to the specific experiences you've had that made the game too easy/unfun for you.

 

[globosud]

rio come hai scritto 10 anni fa.
Quindi che non ti piace molto quando parlo del

AI had been made to act more within its own interests instead of against the other players' interests. While you enjoyed having Britain and Ireland launch naval invasions against you, that doesn't mean it was in their long-term interests to do so. The code at the time was focused on aggression and warfare. The code now focuses on leader advantages and progression.

I like the challenge as well. But for me the challenge isn't an AI that's constantly trying to stop me, even through multiple naval invasions in the BC era. It's an AI that's trying to win in its own right, an AI that I have to proactively stop or surpass. I raise the difficulty level to force myself into having to make optimal long-term plays and prioritization. Not to be triumphant in classical era wars, but to remain relevant in the Renaissance and beyond, and to avoid becoming overshadowed by the AI's various bonuses and discounts.

The changes since 3.4 have done a great job of making the game more challenging. The difference is that it used to be that the player could sit idling as the AIs wasted their resources in attacks, a strategy that kept both them and the player down, and requiring little to no agency from the player. Now the player won't be invaded as much, but if the player isn't actively trying to surpass the AI economically or keep the AI down militarily, the player will lose. To me that's much more rewarding form of challenge.

And while it's true the AIs are much more willing to aid and support now, that's valid. On the one hand, that's part of the game, so it's a shame for the AI to frequently decline it. But maybe there's room to tweak the numbers here and make the diplomatic gradients better felt.

Regarding wonders, which you've mentioned: There have been various changes made to make wonders less appealing to people that don't actually benefit from them. It used to be that wonders would be scooped up and hoarded by advanced civs, but now they tend to sit around waiting for someone who'll actually apply their bonuses. So the difference there is probably less a matter of challenge and more the AI not wasting hammers on a wonder that won't improve its position. Maybe they should have less score value now, since they aren't meant to be hoarded and pursued so actively as they used to be.

I usually play from Emperor level upwards, and I’ve been actively enjoying this mod for more than 10 years. I really appreciate many of the new features that have been added since 3.55, and since I’m also a modder myself, whenever I want something very specific I often make my own adjustments.
That said, from version 3.6 onward I personally find the gameplay noticeably easier at higher levels (Emperor and above). In many cases civs feel overly friendly, sometimes without a clear reason. For example, I’ve seen situations where I declared war, made peace soon after, and still found the same civ surprisingly friendly. In my experience, this didn’t really happen in versions 3.4 or 3.5.
There are also some behaviors that stand out: civilizations with 40 cities still managing to lead in technology; A.I. armies sitting next to an undefended enemy city without attacking; or cities left completely without defense. These things did happen before too, but now I notice them more often. Another example: if I create a colony and later discover oil, the colony civ doesn’t always upgrade the improvement, and I have to step in through WorldBuilder.
I mention these not just as issues of “aggressiveness,” but more as examples of how certain mechanics might feel less consistent. If reducing aggressiveness leads to more of these situations, then in my view the older balance worked a little better. For example, the changes to the vassalage system partly came from my feedback, which Walter also shared. This shows that I’m always trying to be constructive — but for the sake of the game, I can’t just say “everything is fine” if I notice problems, even if I know it might cause some disagreement. Otherwise, testing wouldn’t really make sense. Finding the right balance in a mod like this is probably the hardest part of all, since everything is interconnected. It can take months, even years of testing to really see if the chosen direction is the right one. That’s why, once a good balance has been reached, I believe it should be treated like something precious — because there’s no guarantee it will be found again in the future.Of course, I’ll be glad to keep testing the new versions and giving feedback, because I think the progress you’ve made overall is very impressive.

 

[AspiringScholar]

This is valid feedback and something for Walter to consider. I don't know how much access there is to the code around this, but it's possible that it can be tweaked so that the AI is less willing to provide gifts, and making even making more of a diplomatic penalty for asking. But it's more conducive to offer these things a feedback on what can be improved rather than make a blanket statement that things today are too easy.

If my perspective is of any value here, I used to dislike this mildly and saw it as a cheap exploit to "fix" (that is, that you can simply fleece pleased/friendly Civs for money or resources and there is no penalty or drawback for doing so), but these days I don't see it that way. For one thing, you actually have to have good relations with said Civ in the first place, and with the several maluses to relations incurred both passively and actively which the player is routinely confronted with (for declaring war on friends, not joining in declaring war on enemies, following a different religion, refusing to adopt a preferred civic, etc.) this is not so easily achieved, and careless diplomacy often results in cautious and annoyed relations with most of the world, making this action a demand with a further penalty rather than a request without one. Secondly, there is also a small opportunity cost in the form of requesting too large a gift being refused, and some kind of hidden timer where they won't accept these back to back anyway. (For instance, if a pleased Civ has 600 gold and I request all of it, they will almost always refuse this, and it will be some time before they will give me anything at all, going forward.)

I actually quite like the passive and "consequential" modifiers to relations, but if anything could be fixed, the direct solicitations to immediately declare war, change governments or stop trading with major partners carte blanche should be removed. They're annoying and seldom offer the player any interesting choices: instead, it's almost never in your interest to oblige these, and they simply constitute a further drain on relations without a positive counterpart. Some other mods had a "Please leave us alone" option you could apply which would block this, so I wonder if it is something that could be incorporated into RI?

I definitely fear war, and much of my gameplay revolves around discouraging it. But not all players want this experience of being constantly afraid and being threatened with extinction. Many enjoy a more lax game that revolves around diplomacy and empire management. That's why the difficulty levels exist, so the base game (in this case, I think, balanced for monarch) offers a relatively tame and balanced experience, and it can become more difficult/threatening as you raise the difficulty level.

Some level of challenge where I feel rewarded for succeeding is desirable, and where I will be punished for careless or lazy playing, but that's (subjectively) very much a "sweet spot" and I don't want it to feel brutal, especially in a game where I enjoy playing through the full timeline and which takes tens of hours to complete. At this difficulty level, I often am at or near the top for most of the game, but it's not uncommon to be knocked off the high-horse, and surprise invasions of weak points of my empire are satisfyingly not uncommon. (Curiously, these invasions often happen even in the ancient era, right up to the current version, so I am missing what is so magical about 3.4 in this regard - and I've been playing RI extensively since 3.55 )

Aside from the matrix of "winning and losing" itself, it's also fun to see how the game develops organically. I like to see how and in what way the land gets settled: who takes the especially good land and how borders seal up; what regions become intense battlefields for centuries, and just generally how the political geography manifests dynamically from game to game. It makes it feel like I'm in some kind of historically plausible alternate world which is fun simply to participate in as its shape and character unfolds, with the challenge and desire to win layered over it. The aspect of the rich and beautiful art and flavor adds significantly to this feeling of immersion, as do the several ways in which this mod tailors towards a more authentic experience of real empire building without changing its core as an abstracted 4X game.

--

Unrelated question, but how do you all feel about reloading saves to salvage a mistake? I absolutely cannot do it... I rolled an excellent map in a new game, and DoWd Arabia for a second city location that they were about to take, but I hadn't seen that they had an archer two tiles away from my capital just after moving my garrison one tempo away, so that I would have effectively lost the game without a reload. I reloaded it, and everything else was fine and the war otherwise was sensible, but now I just feel like that game is ruined and I can't go back to it with proper enjoyment anymore. The only time I ever reload is when there is a crash outside of my control, or for a legitimate misclick, but never from a deliberate decision I made. Does anyone else feel this way?

 

[globosud]

This is valid feedback and something for Walter to consider. I don't know how much access there is to the code around this, but it's possible that it can be tweaked so that the AI is less willing to provide gifts, and making even making more of a diplomatic penalty for asking. But it's more conducive to offer these things a feedback on what can be improved rather than make a blanket statement that things today are too easy.


I definitely fear war, and much of my gameplay revolves around discouraging it. But not all players want this experience of being constantly afraid and being threatened with extinction. Many enjoy a more lax game that revolves around diplomacy and empire management. That's why the difficulty levels exist, so the base game (in this case, I think, balanced for monarch) offers a relatively tame and balanced experience, and it can become more difficult/threatening as you raise the difficulty level.

You've said you lowered your difficulty settings, but I don't know what you lowered them from and what you lowered them to. I ask that you be considerate to other players wants, and consider that the baseline difficulty is trying to meet those wants. If you're playing the baseline difficulty and not finding it difficult, then it's not fair to say the game is too easy and the AI too passive. Up the difficulty.

I think you're also playing the world map. I don't ever play it. Is it the case that most leaders on the world map simply aren't warmongering leaders? Could changing the leaders, even if it's something you did locally for your own game, give you more of the experience you want?


Part of providing feedback on ongoing development is offering actionable advice. "I liked 3.4 better" isn't actionable. Saying "it's too easy to abuse the AI's willingness to gift gold" is very actionable, and I'm glad you brought that up. If you want to see improvements encountered in the game, focus less on the nostalgia, and more on pointing fingers to the specific experiences you've had that made the game too easy/unfun for you.

It depends: sometimes I reload a game when I’m busy doing other things in real life and I get distracted — in that case, I reload. But if I’m fully focused on the game, then I accept everything without cheating. If I lose, I just consider the game over and treat it as if a new one has begun.
As for version 3.4, I consider it the best mod ever made — not only for Civ 4, but among all the mods I’ve played across different Civ titles. A true milestone, a masterpiece. If there were a Hall of Fame for Civilization mods, I would definitely place it in first position. It’s a mod that can keep you glued to the game for months, offering a constant challenge. Of course, that’s just my personal taste — but many players see it the same way.At that time, Civ 4 was still very much alive, even though it was already at the beginning of its decline — because, like it or not, time was starting to take its toll.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

But what I really wanted to point out is that the A.I. itself used to play much better.

That's the crux here, really, the magical "better" that is at best a subjective thing. But as I'll try explaining below, your "better" as you understand it, isn't even on my "better/worse" scale at all.

I highlighted how, after only 20% of the turns under the same conditions, I faced several naval incursions in 3.4, while in the latest version everyone is pleased, borders are always open, and civilizations are constantly friendly — making it possible to drain money from them whenever you want.

During all this time, it's the best insight I currently have as to what you consider a "better AI" - it's the one that causes you most trouble. In my previous post I already alluded to that - coding AI to cause more trouble for the player is pretty simple, but that's something that I never had as my goal. And I agree with you, earlier versions' AI was generally far more annoying that the current one, and I take quite a bit of pride in making it less annoying.

And you’ve taught me this: raising the difficulty level doesn’t actually improve the mechanics. A mod that instead forces you to lower the level is, intrinsically, already the best version. I think that’s undeniable.

That's absolutely deniable, and I would never posit that. I always insisted that everyone should pick the difficulty that is most fun to them. That goes doubly for players seeking "challenge", as challenge comes from difficulty first and foremost.

I see version 3.4 exactly like that — just as you wrote 10 years ago.

And I see every subsequent version the same; I never added major new features since.

I know you don’t really like it when I talk about old versions — and I don’t understand why, since it’s still your work and should be a source of pride for you. Unfortunately, there aren’t many nostalgics who enjoy playing the older versions anymore, so I don’t have anyone to compare experiences with.

The emphasis here is not on "old versions" but on "you", as you tend to sound like a broken record, restating the same thing about 3.4 (usually not going past "better", see above) without providing much useful feedback.

In the current versions, without meaning to offend, you don’t even feel the weight of the economy anymore: just contact a friendly civ (and usually there are plenty of them) and get money as a gift.

That's an actively abusable mechanic indeed, if one so wants. I usually don't bother as it's not fun - but I can understand where one would be coming from with this one, and I'll try to make it more of a one-off thing that puts real strain on your relations.

If you hope that the A.I. can compete with a human in terms of mechanics and strategy, I can assure you that not even Civilization VII has managed that yet.

And here is another important insight into how you think about it fundamentally differently. You seem to view AI as something that "competes" against the player with an obvious goal to win. In my mind, AI rather "plays with" the player, with the main goal of said player having fun - if that means creating some tension or even winning, so be it, but that's never the ultimate goal. It's a game after all, not a training program.

And that comes down to the fundamental question: "why do you play?". I know that for a certain subset of players, the answer is "to win". I am not one of those players. I think I won a couple of Civ 4 games in my time, simply to see what it's like. But to me, I play to relax and have fun - as in, "have fun interactions with the game", which does not necessarily entail prevailing over other civs in war (though it certainly might, and wars can be fun). But no, I most definitely don't treat Civ as a wargame that I have to win.

Civ 4, just like Civ 3, is fundamentally centered around war. In the end, everything revolves around units — there’s no point denying it. Civilization’s mechanics are rather simple compared to other strategy games: it’s all about the economy of war, and for war.
In the older versions, the A.I. managed this aspect much better; today, trying to strip Civ 4 of that feels like a titanic task. Civ 4, just like Civ 3, has an unmistakable axiom: the more troops you have, the better you’ve managed your economy, and the higher your chances of winning. There is no other way.

That's true to an extent, but far too sweeping a statement to be unqualified true. That's the same as saying that wars IRL are decided by the available manpower of both sides - while it's true to a major extent, and a country with 100k population can't hope to win against a 100M one, IRL there are always nuances that ensure that biggest country isn't guaranteed to win. Likewise, in Civ 4, just like IRL, it's often about force multipliers rather than raw numbers. I would actually argue that Civ 4 is first and foremost a force multipliers game, and not nearly all of those cluster around war.

 

[Kellindil44]

I came back to this and wanted to update from the version I had (3.61 iirc) to the current 3.72c. If I use the full install from the download it does work, however I cannot get the SVN trunk to load as a mod. I can start BTS and it will see it in the "load mod" menu, but when I load it it never restarts, doesn't even show the xml loading screen. The civ4BTS.exe process is running, just doesn't show anything at all.

Is there any issue currently with the trunk? How would I go about debugging this (I do not know what to look for in the logs (C:\Users\<user>\Documents\My Games\Beyond the Sword\Logs ?))?

Welp... The time it took to give up on the process not doing anything, finding this thread back, digging around for my password, writing this message, and some cleaning up... and the game actually started. Guess I should have waited far longer for the mod to load up on the first start. Sorry about this.

Thanks

 

[Ahnarras]

I don't know how much access there is to the code around this, but it's possible that it can be tweaked so that the AI is less willing to provide gifts, and making even making more of a diplomatic penalty for asking.

I can go behind that, as it is indeed an easy exploit to do. I refrain from it, but having the "gift" comes with a malus to the relationship would be great.
I wouldn't feel like cheating when asking for a gift, it would be more a kind of trade : what I want VS the risk of loosing an ally.

I actually quite like the passive and "consequential" modifiers to relations, but if anything could be fixed, the direct solicitations to immediately declare war, change governments or stop trading with major partners carte blanche should be removed.

I love how those requests from the AI can shape your foreign diplomacy. If the AI insist enough, it can even outweight religion !
But it's true that it's a one-sided thing : the player is punish for refusing, but not rewarded by the third faction.

Would it be possible to have something like : CivA wants Player to stop trading with CivB.
If refused, CivA has a malus, as it's already the case, but CivB earns a bonus.

The same could go for war requests. As for governments/religions changes, the bonus could affect every known leaders with that specific doctrine/religion as a favorite ?

Just an idea, obviously, as I have no clue on how possible or not those changes would be

The only time I ever reload is when there is a crash outside of my control, or for a legitimate misclick, but never from a deliberate decision I made. Does anyone else feel this way?

I'm usually against savescumming in strategy games, but R:I is so big, and a game usually last for so many days/weeks, that I find myself often being okay with reloading for stuff that I should have done better if I were more focused.
Like forgetting to start a tile improvement after a population increase because the worker was sleeping in town, or failing a 96% win battle because I couldn't be ass to check the odds on every soldier in the area (and someone from another stack, with different supports, had a 98% and could have prevented loosing the battle).

And here is another important insight into how you think about it fundamentally differently. You seem to view AI as something that "competes" against the player with an obvious goal to win. In my mind, AI rather "plays with" the player, with the main goal of said player having fun - if that means creating some tension or even winning, so be it, but that's never the ultimate goal. It's a game after all, not a training program.

I won't enter to much into the debate, as it's clearly two opposite points of view clashing, but that reminds me of an interview of an Ubisoft dev speaking about how difficult balancing a game was. In short, he was saying that they have all the tools to make the game difficult and that it would be really easy to do so, but then a % of the players would be too frustrated to have fun (and one of the main point of video games are that it's one of the few hobby where the fun comes from succeeding against an obstacle).

And as the exact level of difficulty needed to present a challenge while still being doable is dependant on the skill level of the player and his attitude toward the game (min-maxing mentality or armchair casual), the perfect balance is almost impossible to reach, as it would be different from one player to another. Or even toward the same player, as one could want a challenge while having a few hours of calm on a Saturday afternoon, and the same guy could want a more relaxing experience the next Monday after coming back from work.

As always, I'm on the opinion that the guy spending hours of coding should have the right to decide in which direction his work should go

 

[globosud]

Dipende: a volte ricarico una partita quando sono impegnato a fare altre cose nella vita reale e mi distraggo – in quel caso, ricarico. Ma se sono completamente concentrato sul gioco, allora accetto tutto senza barare. Se perduto, considero semplicemente la partita finita e la tratto come se ne fosse iniziata una nuova.

Questo è il punto cruciale, in realtà, quel magico "meglio" che è, nella migliore delle ipotesi, una cosa soggettiva. Ma come cercherò di spiegare più avanti, il tuo "meglio", così come lo intendi tu, non rientra nemmeno nella mia scala "meglio/peggio".

In tutto questo tempo, è la migliore intuizione che ho avuto finora su cosa consideri un'"IA migliore": è quella che ti crea più problemi. Nel mio post precedente ne ho già accennato: programmare un'IA che crei più problemi al giocatore è piuttosto semplice, ma è qualcosa che non ho mai avuto come obiettivo. E sono d'accordo con te, l'IA delle versioni precedenti era generalmente molto più fastidiosa di quella attuale, e sono piuttosto orgoglioso di averla resa meno fastidiosa.

Questo è assolutamente innegabile, e non lo affermerei mai. Ho sempre insistito sul fatto che ognuno dovrebbe scegliere il livello di difficoltà che più gli piace. Questo vale doppiamente per i giocatori che cercano la "sfida", perché la sfida nasce prima di tutto dalla difficoltà.

E vedo ogni versione successiva uguale; da allora non ho mai aggiunto nuove funzionalità importanti.

Qui l'enfasi non è sulle "vecchie versioni" ma su "te", dato che tendi a sembrare un disco rotto, ripetendo sempre la stessa cosa sulla 3.4 (di solito senza andare oltre "migliore", vedi sopra) senza fornire molti feedback utili.

Questa è davvero una meccanica di cui si può abusare attivamente, se così si vuole. Di solito non ci faccio caso perché non è divertente, ma capisco cosa si potrebbe voler dire in questo caso, e cercherò di renderla più un'esperienza isolata che metta a dura prova i vostri rapporti.

Ed ecco un altro spunto importante per capire come la pensi in modo fondamentalmente diverso. Sembri considerare l'IA come qualcosa che "compete" contro il giocatore con l'obiettivo ovvio di vincere. A mio avviso, l'IA piuttosto "gioca con" il giocatore, con l'obiettivo principale di farlo divertire - se questo significa creare tensione o addirittura vincere, pazienza, ma non è mai l'obiettivo finale. Dopotutto è un gioco, non un programma di allenamento.

E questo si riduce alla domanda fondamentale: "perché giochi?". So che per una certa parte di giocatori la risposta è "per vincere". Io non sono uno di quei giocatori. Credo di aver vinto un paio di partite a Civilization 4, semplicemente per vedere com'è. Ma per me, gioco per rilassarmi e divertirmi, nel senso di "interagire divertendomi con il gioco", il che non implica necessariamente prevalere sulle altre civiltà in guerra (anche se potrebbe certamente esserlo, e le guerre possono essere divertenti). Ma no, non considero Civilization un wargame che devo vincere per forza.

Questo è vero fino a un certo punto, ma è un'affermazione troppo generica per essere vera in assoluto. È come dire che le guerre nella vita reale sono decise dalla forza lavoro disponibile di entrambe le parti: sebbene sia vero in larga misura, e un paese con 100.000 abitanti non può sperare di vincere contro uno con 100 milioni, nella vita reale ci sono sempre delle sfumature che fanno sì che la vittoria del paese più grande non sia garantita. Allo stesso modo, in Civilization 4, proprio come nella vita reale, spesso si tratta di moltiplicatori di forza piuttosto che di numeri puri. In realtà, direi che Civilization 4 è prima di tutto un gioco basato sui moltiplicatori di forza, e non tutti questi ruotano attorno alla guerra.

That's the crux here, really, the magical "better" that is at best a subjective thing. But as I'll try explaining below, your "better" as you understand it, isn't even on my "better/worse" scale at all.

During all this time, it's the best insight I currently have as to what you consider a "better AI" - it's the one that causes you most trouble. In my previous post I already alluded to that - coding AI to cause more trouble for the player is pretty simple, but that's something that I never had as my goal. And I agree with you, earlier versions' AI was generally far more annoying that the current one, and I take quite a bit of pride in making it less annoying.

That's absolutely deniable, and I would never posit that. I always insisted that everyone should pick the difficulty that is most fun to them. That goes doubly for players seeking "challenge", as challenge comes from difficulty first and foremost.

And I see every subsequent version the same; I never added major new features since.

The emphasis here is not on "old versions" but on "you", as you tend to sound like a broken record, restating the same thing about 3.4 (usually not going past "better", see above) without providing much useful feedback.

That's an actively abusable mechanic indeed, if one so wants. I usually don't bother as it's not fun - but I can understand where one would be coming from with this one, and I'll try to make it more of a one-off thing that puts real strain on your relations.

And here is another important insight into how you think about it fundamentally differently. You seem to view AI as something that "competes" against the player with an obvious goal to win. In my mind, AI rather "plays with" the player, with the main goal of said player having fun - if that means creating some tension or even winning, so be it, but that's never the ultimate goal. It's a game after all, not a training program.

And that comes down to the fundamental question: "why do you play?". I know that for a certain subset of players, the answer is "to win". I am not one of those players. I think I won a couple of Civ 4 games in my time, simply to see what it's like. But to me, I play to relax and have fun - as in, "have fun interactions with the game", which does not necessarily entail prevailing over other civs in war (though it certainly might, and wars can be fun). But no, I most definitely don't treat Civ as a wargame that I have to win.

That's true to an extent, but far too sweeping a statement to be unqualified true. That's the same as saying that wars IRL are decided by the available manpower of both sides - while it's true to a major extent, and a country with 100k population can't hope to win against a 100M one, IRL there are always nuances that ensure that biggest country isn't guaranteed to win. Likewise, in Civ 4, just like IRL, it's often about force multipliers rather than raw numbers. I would actually argue that Civ 4 is first and foremost a force multipliers game, and not nearly all of those cluster around war.

I may see things differently from you. Over time, I’ve shared a lot of feedback on why I find 3.4 stronger in many aspects. For example, the way vassals worked (and you agreed with me on that), the fact that even a civ with just a few cities — or even a vassal — could still win a space race or a cultural victory, how borders and naval battles were handled more effectively, how there were no “zombie civilizations,” and several other points. These differences are quite evident to me, and playing a full game of 3.4 is often enough to notice them. Of course, without comparing the two versions side by side, it’s easy to miss some of these aspects.
It’s true that the A.I. used to be more aggressive — but that’s a matter of personal taste. Personally, I enjoy the challenge of losing, but I understand that for those who prefer a more relaxed experience, the current versions are probably more enjoyable. So, I can now see more clearly the direction the mod has taken since 3.5. And as I said before: if this is the vision you want for the mod, then that’s perfectly fine — after all, the mod is yours.
It’s paradoxical that what first drew me to this mod — the difficulty of winning — I later discovered wasn’t intentional at all, and that the direction the mod was actually heading was the opposite!

 

[Typek]

Insted of a penalty to the relationship with the AI, Why not make the AI get a "favor owed" affect? And make it ask you for a favor down the line. Make this favor always just alitle more than what you asked (you took 50g = you owe 75g) like IRL loan intrest
Maybe if you ask for something big like 250g the AI will ask you to attack a enemy
Or maybe ask you to raise/give them a specific city of his, so that its not a non consequential Sitzkreig

I think that this will make the game more "alive" and fun especialy when if you consider making it dependent on leader personality

Oh and if you refuse a favor you owe the AI should feal betrayed and drop down 2/3/4 levels depending on the severity of the situation

Also if players try to abuse this by spending all their gold make the AI demand GPT or border cities

Anyway what do you guys think?

 

[tebriz]

Or you can start a new one

I started a new game, and everything is running perfectly—no crash this time! I’ve only played up to 250 AD so far, but I’m very happy with how things are going after the latest changes.

First of all, the research rate feels optimal—everything aligns well with the historical timeline: Christianity is founded in 13 BC, and Islam hasn’t appeared yet. I’m also playing with a few of my own tweaks: basic research is increased by 8% and tech transfer rate from each additional partners is just 2% (considering that I’m playing with many starting civs (with all 34 actually ). And by the way, I also increased tech transfer from a master civ to a vassal from 15% to 50%—at least a little reward for being a vassal (maybe in this way they still have a chance for something meaningful in future )

And most importantly, after all these changes and fixes, the game feels much more dynamic! Early wars happen at a good pace—not too many, not too few, just the right amount (but take into consideration that I’m playing with the Aggressive AI option on). For example, the Incas were second in leaderboard , but now they’ve dropped to the bottom. This isn’t an isolated case—the scoreboard is very dynamic as outsider civs launch wars and conquer significant territory from leaders.

I can’t wait to continue playing tomorrow

 

[genealogyxie]

can you guys make RI into an open-source standalone game? that would allow more freedom like being able to use 64-bit RAM, so fast computers in 2025 could potentially use 100GB of RAM (provided the CPU/GPU is fast enough, of course) for huge maps and better AI, as well as support for Retina displays (I love my 5k LG/Apple display)

 

[JDCP]

can you guys make RI into an open-source standalone game? that would allow more freedom like being able to use 64-bit RAM, so fast computers in 2025 could potentially use 100GB of RAM (provided the CPU/GPU is fast enough, of course) for huge maps and better AI, as well as support for Retina displays (I love my 5k LG/Apple display)

Super excellent idea friend, and I'd love that too! Sadly this has already been discussed and it "can't" be done, not by the same person behind RI right now. I too wished we had something like that just imagine, no more out of memory errors! What rests is simply enjoying it as it is. Still, I guess you could say RI content is open source to a certain extent, as you can do as many modifications to the mod as you'd like, it's not much but hey if any day you feel creative you can go ahead and give it a try.

I know how it feels to play 32-bit games in such a modern system, it's a pain in the ass (seriously, my computer is like 20 billion times better than anything I've ever used and it still runs late game turns like ****), one I wished none of us had to pass through So much potential held by very tight limitations, certainly makes it more impressive what CIV4 modders manage to do with it

 

[TheBirdMan]

Super excellent idea friend, and I'd love that too! Sadly this has already been discussed and it "can't" be done, not by the same person behind RI right now. I too wished we had something like that just imagine, no more out of memory errors! What rests is simply enjoying it as it is

I guess you know about this - maybe some of you youngsters some day will see something working: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/mini-engine-progress.691873/

 

[tebriz]

Super excellent idea friend, and I'd love that too! Sadly this has already been discussed and it "can't" be done, not by the same person behind RI right now. I too wished we had something like that just imagine, no more out of memory errors! What rests is simply enjoying it as it is. Still, I guess you could say RI content is open source to a certain extent, as you can do as many modifications to the mod as you'd like, it's not much but hey if any day you feel creative you can go ahead and give it a try.

I know how it feels to play 32-bit games in such a modern system, it's a pain in the ass (seriously, my computer is like 20 billion times better than anything I've ever used and it still runs late game turns like ****), one I wished none of us had to pass through So much potential held by very tight limitations, certainly makes it more impressive what CIV4 modders manage to do with it

I think memory allocation errors disappear if you play SVN version.

 

[Ahnarras]

I think memory allocation errors disappear if you play SVN version.

I can confirm, at least I've done more than 50% of the game and the save file would have crashed a long time ago with SVN.
But without it, it's running just fine.

+ with all the recents change and a modern PC, it doesn't even take more than a few minutes to load, so it's totally doable if you aim to play on a big map.

 

[Alekseyev_]

I think the "spider" generic noble family is a bit weak. Consider before this change you could have +25% espionage in every city while running Feudal Aristocracy, including the capital that gets +4 base from the palace. Now, you can have +25% in one non-capital city and get +2 flat in it. Assuming taverns are built and running 0% espionage slider, instead of getting +1.25 in the capital and +0.25 in every other city, you now get +2.75 in one city. With any commerce % invested into espionage, the constables were miles ahead of the spider family. It's also a lot more expensive than several constables. But even barring that comparison, +25% espionage in a single city isn't exactly great. I think you can easily double the espionage, both flat points and the modifier, from this family.

Now the unique great families are of course better, but because of their non-espionage parts. I'm sure receiving the same buff to their espionage wouldn't hurt them.