Realism Invictus

[tebriz]

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

Update: I tested this game till 19th century (when my France was screwed) and I want to say that everything runs very good. That one fix when AI doesn’t try to upgrade irregular troop is a huge step in improving AI. AI research pace is much faster and smoother now. This is a big step forward for the mod!

 

[globosud]

So here’s some feedback of the 3,4 version, emperor level , just the points I can actually demonstrate — there would be many more.
Joao, first place in the rankings, with only one city and a small army, at just 20% into the game, already leading in technology. It’s interesting to see how the first place (Joao) and the third-to-last (Mongolia) have armies of the same size — something rare, because in 3.72 you only reach first place if you have the largest army or at least one of the largest (see screenshot 1).
After a few more turns, Joao is still first in the rankings, first in technology, with a single city. Robert the Bruce is in third place with just three cities. All civilizations remain hyper-active from the first to the last. Look at how civilizations with little territory and small armies are among the top spots in technology (screenshot 2).
After another 200 turns, Joao is still second, still with just one city, still first in technology, only surpassed by Zara. Notice how Hannibal is very advanced in technology and among the leaders, as are the Khmer — both still fully in the game even as vassals.
Pericles, for example, is small in numbers, but still competitive for victory — second in technology ranking even with a small army. No zombie civilizations: look at Ashoka or Frederick, both vassals but still technologically advanced, making them very useful in war, both for defense and offense.
Even Genghis Khan, under attack, has a very high technological level.
Look at Hammurabi — a true city-state back in 3.4, competing with a single city . In 3.72, after 600 turns, he would already have disappeared or been “zombified” long ago.
I’m showing two statistics: score and power screen 5. Later I’ll provide more feedback.
the A.I. is no longer just “annoying,” it simply plays better. For example: slaves spawned and started moving toward my city, but there was a river between me and them. What did they do? Instead of attacking directly, they crossed the river, entered a fort that I use as a canal, and attacked me from the fort.
I don’t show this to “prove” anything, but simply to contribute something useful for the development of future versions.I don’t want to create any controversy, and I have no interest in “cheering” for one version over another. For me, 3.4 or any of the 3.x versions are the same — the author is the same — and I gain nothing by saying that one version is better than another. So please, no fanboy talk. I’m only doing this out of love for the mod and for Civ 4.


edit: Here it happens: on turn 631, the leader in both score and technology decides to become a vassal of the Spanish (screen 7), So João, who at the moment would be winning in a technological race and is first in score if we exclude Ethiopia’s vassals, decides to become a vassal of a civilization that is clearly inferior in many respects—except for military strength.This is a very smart move, one that would never happen from version 3.6 onwards but one that would actually allow Portugal to win the game.This is an example of what a useful vassalage system means — exactly how a human player would use it in a technological race if they were weaker in terms of military units, and this is why, for me, version 3.4 represents the very peak of all Civilization IV mods.
This is also why, for the next versions, I would recommend starting from 3.4 — because I would never lose such a balance; as I’ve already said, it’s an extremely precious asset.

edit 1: Spain declares war on France (screen 8).With a vassal like Portugal, Spain will definitely have an easy time. Look, after only 2 turns, Portugal, with a technologically superior army, is already ready to cooperate with Spain. It’s going to be very tough times for France (screen 9)
edit 2: Poor France — Portugal conquers one of its cities (screen 10), but it was obvious: Portugal is too technologically advanced. And it returns to first place or near in the score rankings, even as a vassal — but it will surely break away from Spain when the time comes.

edit 3:
As I anticipated, Portugal has broken away from Spain and is once again leading on its own ((screen 12 ).
Portugal, with a strength comparable to Hannibal in third-to-last place, is in first — executing what I would call a perfect strategy.

 

[AspiringScholar]

@globosud, if you haven't already, could you link your modified world map with Europe enlarged? I thought you were just playing the Europe scenario at first until looking at the mini map and remembering that you'd done that.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

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.

Heh, I was just about to write to you to be patient when you edited the post!

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)

For that I'll need:

• Several programmers much more competent than me, to write a whole new game from scratch basically
• Several 2D and 3D artists much more competent than me, to recreate all the assets from scratch (we wouldn't want to be sued by Firaxis for using theirs, don't we)
• Several years
• Several million dollars to pay the above people over said years (we wouldn't expect a team that's basically an indie game studio at that point to work for free).

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.

I am seriously considering providing loose files as an official download option at this point for the next version.

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.

I am of the same opinion as you - unfortunately, from my tests, AI isn't. AI value placed on espionage makes it so that if buffed any higher (or if any additional effect is added to an already reasonably popular option), it becomes overwhelmingly the most popular option with the AI - and as the evaluation it undergoes is a generic one for all buildings, I don't (or at least didn't at that point) want to mess with the values. But come to think of that, AI does tend to overvalue espionage-related buildings, at least in no-separatism games.

So here’s some feedback of the 3,4 version, emperor level , just the points I can actually demonstrate — there would be many more.

Thanks for that! Generally speaking, I believe we've learned much more about each others' respective positions over the last week. Please see below for my answers that show that yes, lots of stuff you're highlighting below I was consciously fighting against.

After a few more turns, Joao is still first in the rankings, first in technology, with a single city. Robert the Bruce is in third place with just three cities. All civilizations remain hyper-active from the first to the last. Look at how civilizations with little territory and small armies are among the top spots in technology (screenshot 2).

Back in the day, he was still a designated city-state, wasn't he. Which means a) he got massive bonuses, and b) he got to sit on his butt unable to expand for a long while - which led to c) hoarding all the wonders he could get his hands on, reliably, each game. Which is exactly why his score was that high. Wonder hoarding is one of the major things I was trying to prevent throughout the years, though I didn't specifically try counteracting it by introducing penalties, restrictions and such (the thought crossed my mind more than once, but ultimately I saw that kind of restrictions as gameplay-hostile and instead tried to ensure that happened more organically). Stripping additional bonuses from formerly one-city civs and making them expand normally was a major part of giving everyone else a stab at building wonders (which you, to my great pleasure, confirm yourself, reporting you were able to grab a couple in the latest version).

the A.I. is no longer just “annoying,” it simply plays better. For example: slaves spawned and started moving toward my city, but there was a river between me and them. What did they do? Instead of attacking directly, they crossed the river, entered a fort that I use as a canal, and attacked me from the fort.

This is one of the changes I deliberately - and with quite a lot of effort, going through several iterations - brought about. Rebel slave stacks nowadays directly attack the nearest city no matter what. They used to play smart - pillaging the countryside, trying to gather a big enough stack to attack your cities, etc. And it made them incredibly annoying to chase down, to the point that I found myself avoiding slavery altogether specifically because of that. So again, your definition of "better" directly translates to "causing more trouble for players".

This is an example of what a useful vassalage system means — exactly how a human player would use it in a technological race if they were weaker in terms of military units, and this is why, for me, version 3.4 represents the very peak of all Civilization IV mods.

All in all, your reports reinforce my view that I was doing the right things all the time - as mostly you highlight as "good gameplay" the things I was fighting against, seemingly successfully, as I considered those to be unfun and/or player-hostile. And yes, there were some changes over the years where I deliberately made AI make worse decisions for the sake of better gameplay, but those are relatively few - the only two major ones I can recall are the slave stack AI you mentioned already and a relatively recent change where AI leader research decisions are influenced by their personality (this one is actually avoidable with "AI plays to win" for those who want a more calculating AI over a more flavourful one).

I will treat this as a compliment to my effort across the years, as you made me actually recall 3.4 and the things I hated about it back then - and the extent to which I managed to deal with those. When all players do is report issues, it is easy to lose sight of the gradual progress over the years - but a brief look at a version from 2017 made me realize the long way I actually brought RI since.

Also, from now on, so that new players aren't confused, every time you make a new "3.4 is superior" post I'll indicate that this is a minority opinion not generally shared by other players (notice how little sympathy your posts got with others?) and only pertaining to a very specific views on what Civ 4 gameplay should be. This doesn't mean that some of the issues you're highlighting aren't legit (for instance, I have some ideas on helping "hurt" civs recover), but given that we get new people in this thread all the time, anytime I see the "3.4 better" posts from you rather than discussions of specific issues, I'll be sure to reply. Thanks again for explaining, it was very educational for me!

 

[Ahnarras]

For that I'll need:

• Several programmers much more competent than me, to write a whole new game from scratch basically
• Several 2D and 3D artists much more competent than me, to recreate all the assets from scratch (we wouldn't want to be sued by Firaxis for using theirs, don't we)
• Several years
• Several million dollars to pay the above people over said years (we wouldn't expect a team that's basically an indie game studio at that point to work for free).

So.... Next Christmas, right ?

 

[tebriz]

AI leader research decisions are influenced by their personality (this one is actually avoidable with "AI plays to win" for those who want a more calculating AI over a more flavourful one).

If I play with “AI plays to win” option on, from which point is it valid? Right from the beginning of the game or closer to the end-game when AI tries to achieve a specific kind of victory?
And is it valid only for research preferences or also for building choices?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

If I play with “AI plays to win” option on, from which point is it valid? Right from the beginning of the game or closer to the end-game when AI tries to achieve a specific kind of victory?
And is it valid only for research preferences or also for building choices?

From the beginning - it's an on/off switch whether AI personality factors into tech evaluation. And only for research, for buildings it's always a part of the evaluation.

 

[tebriz]

I’ve always played with the ‘AI plays to win’ option enabled, but I’m curious how different the game is without it—just to make sure I’m not missing anything and don’t need to run tests with the option turned off.

So, in general, does the AI actually play better and smarter with this option on—not just when it’s trying to win, but throughout the entire game?

Also, since I am enabling only Conquest, Domination, and Diplomatic victory conditions, does that theoretically make the AI more aggressive from the start because it knows that Cultural and Space victories are disabled? Or does it only become more aggressive later in the game, once it’s close to achieving a Domination victory?

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

So, in general, does the AI actually play better and smarter with this option on—not just when it’s trying to win, but throughout the entire game?

Kind of. It definitely plays more boring, as that change was made specifically due to a complaint all AIs were researching essentially the same sequence of techs. And going by flavours isn't necessarily worse - a culture-oriented leader might actually make better use of a cultural tech, or an aggressive leader of a military one.

Also, since I am enabling only Conquest, Domination, and Diplomatic victory conditions, does that theoretically make the AI more aggressive from the start because it knows that Cultural and Space victories are disabled? Or does it only become more aggressive later in the game, once it’s close to achieving a Domination victory?

From what I saw in the code, most AI stuff specific to "AI plays to win" only kicks in when they are relatively late on their respective victory paths.

 

[Alekseyev_]

I am of the same opinion as you - unfortunately, from my tests, AI isn't. AI value placed on espionage makes it so that if buffed any higher (or if any additional effect is added to an already reasonably popular option), it becomes overwhelmingly the most popular option with the AI - and as the evaluation it undergoes is a generic one for all buildings, I don't (or at least didn't at that point) want to mess with the values. But come to think of that, AI does tend to overvalue espionage-related buildings, at least in no-separatism games.

I see. Well, for me it's no big issue since XML stuff like that I can just change locally (and using the SVN now with its merges actually makes it nicely maintainable compared to re-doing it every update), but of course if AI evaluation could be improved and the building buffed afterwards then that'd be great to have for everyone.

This is one of the changes I deliberately - and with quite a lot of effort, going through several iterations - brought about. Rebel slave stacks nowadays directly attack the nearest city no matter what. They used to play smart - pillaging the countryside, trying to gather a big enough stack to attack your cities, etc. And it made them incredibly annoying to chase down, to the point that I found myself avoiding slavery altogether specifically because of that. So again, your definition of "better" directly translates to "causing more trouble for players".

Thank you so much for this!! I've always thought that it would be such an insane pain if they were pillaging the countryside and am very thankful that they do not. You can still use some micromanagement (like a quick response cavalry stack placed between major cities) to soften the slave/serf attacks, but it is not necessary. I can only imagine how annoying it would be if this would be the only way of dealing with them.

Back in the day, he was still a designated city-state, wasn't he. Which means a) he got massive bonuses

Just out of curiosity, what kind of effects did they receive back then? Aside from some dabbling with the mod in 2012 or so I only really got back into it in 3.57.

 

[globosud]

Heh, I was just about to write to you to be patient when you edited the post!

For that I'll need:

• Several programmers much more competent than me, to write a whole new game from scratch basically
• Several 2D and 3D artists much more competent than me, to recreate all the assets from scratch (we wouldn't want to be sued by Firaxis for using theirs, don't we)
• Several years
• Several million dollars to pay the above people over said years (we wouldn't expect a team that's basically an indie game studio at that point to work for free).

I am seriously considering providing loose files as an official download option at this point for the next version.

I am of the same opinion as you - unfortunately, from my tests, AI isn't. AI value placed on espionage makes it so that if buffed any higher (or if any additional effect is added to an already reasonably popular option), it becomes overwhelmingly the most popular option with the AI - and as the evaluation it undergoes is a generic one for all buildings, I don't (or at least didn't at that point) want to mess with the values. But come to think of that, AI does tend to overvalue espionage-related buildings, at least in no-separatism games.

Thanks for that! Generally speaking, I believe we've learned much more about each others' respective positions over the last week. Please see below for my answers that show that yes, lots of stuff you're highlighting below I was consciously fighting against.

Back in the day, he was still a designated city-state, wasn't he. Which means a) he got massive bonuses, and b) he got to sit on his butt unable to expand for a long while - which led to c) hoarding all the wonders he could get his hands on, reliably, each game. Which is exactly why his score was that high. Wonder hoarding is one of the major things I was trying to prevent throughout the years, though I didn't specifically try counteracting it by introducing penalties, restrictions and such (the thought crossed my mind more than once, but ultimately I saw that kind of restrictions as gameplay-hostile and instead tried to ensure that happened more organically). Stripping additional bonuses from formerly one-city civs and making them expand normally was a major part of giving everyone else a stab at building wonders (which you, to my great pleasure, confirm yourself, reporting you were able to grab a couple in the latest version).

This is one of the changes I deliberately - and with quite a lot of effort, going through several iterations - brought about. Rebel slave stacks nowadays directly attack the nearest city no matter what. They used to play smart - pillaging the countryside, trying to gather a big enough stack to attack your cities, etc. And it made them incredibly annoying to chase down, to the point that I found myself avoiding slavery altogether specifically because of that. So again, your definition of "better" directly translates to "causing more trouble for players".

All in all, your reports reinforce my view that I was doing the right things all the time - as mostly you highlight as "good gameplay" the things I was fighting against, seemingly successfully, as I considered those to be unfun and/or player-hostile. And yes, there were some changes over the years where I deliberately made AI make worse decisions for the sake of better gameplay, but those are relatively few - the only two major ones I can recall are the slave stack AI you mentioned already and a relatively recent change where AI leader research decisions are influenced by their personality (this one is actually avoidable with "AI plays to win" for those who want a more calculating AI over a more flavourful one).

I will treat this as a compliment to my effort across the years, as you made me actually recall 3.4 and the things I hated about it back then - and the extent to which I managed to deal with those. When all players do is report issues, it is easy to lose sight of the gradual progress over the years - but a brief look at a version from 2017 made me realize the long way I actually brought RI since.

Also, from now on, so that new players aren't confused, every time you make a new "3.4 is superior" post I'll indicate that this is a minority opinion not generally shared by other players (notice how little sympathy your posts got with others?) and only pertaining to a very specific views on what Civ 4 gameplay should be. This doesn't mean that some of the issues you're highlighting aren't legit (for instance, I have some ideas on helping "hurt" civs recover), but given that we get new people in this thread all the time, anytime I see the "3.4 better" posts from you rather than discussions of specific issues, I'll be sure to reply. Thanks again for explaining, it was very educational for me!

Rebel slaves, just to clarify, already didn’t pillage anymore in 3.4 — maybe only very rarely — but they also spawn very rarely.
I just shared some feedback since you asked for it. Consider that making slaves too predictable flattens the choice between slavery and serfdom for a very long stretch of the game. From my point of view, the way it worked in 3.4 was better—since they would still head straight for the city, but spawned much more rarely and in larger numbers, and only rarely could they pillage or attack units (based on my own testing ). Right now it might be a bit too convenient, as it lets you increase the experience of your units without too much risk.
There’s also one important aspect to always keep in mind: longevity. Longevity is something you don’t always notice at the start or after just a few games, but in the long run it makes a big difference. If the challenge is too easy, players eventually drift away because they get bored quickly. That’s why having things a bit tougher—at least at the higher difficulty levels—can actually help keep the game engaging in the long term.But this is just my point of view, which may very well not be shared.
I promise I won’t bring up version 3.4 again. At most, I’ll just share my own ideas, but without referencing previous versions, so that there’s no confusion. I really look forward to seeing how the mod evolves.
Honestly, from my point of view, you’re moving in the right direction, and if my feedback helped even a little along the way, that already makes me really happy

 

[[Y]]

Spoiler :

So here’s some feedback of the 3,4 version, emperor level , just the points I can actually demonstrate — there would be many more.
Joao, first place in the rankings, with only one city and a small army, at just 20% into the game, already leading in technology. It’s interesting to see how the first place (Joao) and the third-to-last (Mongolia) have armies of the same size — something rare, because in 3.72 you only reach first place if you have the largest army or at least one of the largest (see screenshot 1).
After a few more turns, Joao is still first in the rankings, first in technology, with a single city. Robert the Bruce is in third place with just three cities. All civilizations remain hyper-active from the first to the last. Look at how civilizations with little territory and small armies are among the top spots in technology (screenshot 2).
After another 200 turns, Joao is still second, still with just one city, still first in technology, only surpassed by Zara. Notice how Hannibal is very advanced in technology and among the leaders, as are the Khmer — both still fully in the game even as vassals.
Pericles, for example, is small in numbers, but still competitive for victory — second in technology ranking even with a small army. No zombie civilizations: look at Ashoka or Frederick, both vassals but still technologically advanced, making them very useful in war, both for defense and offense.
Even Genghis Khan, under attack, has a very high technological level.
Look at Hammurabi — a true city-state back in 3.4, competing with a single city . In 3.72, after 600 turns, he would already have disappeared or been “zombified” long ago.
I’m showing two statistics: score and power screen 5. Later I’ll provide more feedback.
the A.I. is no longer just “annoying,” it simply plays better. For example: slaves spawned and started moving toward my city, but there was a river between me and them. What did they do? Instead of attacking directly, they crossed the river, entered a fort that I use as a canal, and attacked me from the fort.
I don’t show this to “prove” anything, but simply to contribute something useful for the development of future versions.I don’t want to create any controversy, and I have no interest in “cheering” for one version over another. For me, 3.4 or any of the 3.x versions are the same — the author is the same — and I gain nothing by saying that one version is better than another. So please, no fanboy talk. I’m only doing this out of love for the mod and for Civ 4.


edit: Here it happens: on turn 631, the leader in both score and technology decides to become a vassal of the Spanish (screen 7), So João, who at the moment would be winning in a technological race and is first in score if we exclude Ethiopia’s vassals, decides to become a vassal of a civilization that is clearly inferior in many respects—except for military strength.This is a very smart move, one that would never happen from version 3.6 onwards but one that would actually allow Portugal to win the game.This is an example of what a useful vassalage system means — exactly how a human player would use it in a technological race if they were weaker in terms of military units, and this is why, for me, version 3.4 represents the very peak of all Civilization IV mods.
This is also why, for the next versions, I would recommend starting from 3.4 — because I would never lose such a balance; as I’ve already said, it’s an extremely precious asset.

edit 1: Spain declares war on France (screen 8).With a vassal like Portugal, Spain will definitely have an easy time. Look, after only 2 turns, Portugal, with a technologically superior army, is already ready to cooperate with Spain. It’s going to be very tough times for France (screen 9)
edit 2: Poor France — Portugal conquers one of its cities (screen 10), but it was obvious: Portugal is too technologically advanced. And it returns to first place or near in the score rankings, even as a vassal — but it will surely break away from Spain when the time comes.

edit 3:
As I anticipated, Portugal has broken away from Spain and is once again leading on its own ((screen 12 ).
Portugal, with a strength comparable to Hannibal in third-to-last place, is in first — executing what I would call a perfect strategy.

Sorry to skip over the body of the post but I have to ask: did you get to the medieval era on the world map without ever exploring beyond Scandinavia?

and a relatively recent change where AI leader research decisions are influenced by their personality (this one is actually avoidable with "AI plays to win" for those who want a more calculating AI over a more flavourful one).

I wouldn't call it worse so much as riskier. With the old system it felt like the AI was taking the safe bet, and often pursuing the techs with the most tech transfer benefit. But that meant they weren't often spearheading technologies or trying to get ahead--they were just comfortably sitting in 3rd or 4th or 5th place and relying on military action or revolutions to disrupt whoever was ahead of them. In the current, non-ai-plays-to-win situation, civs are more likely to branch off on their own and be the first to discover a certain branch of tech and reap its benefits. Sometimes that doesn't yield much, sometimes it opens them up to a meaningful advantage.

So, in general, does the AI actually play better and smarter with this option on—not just when it’s trying to win, but throughout the entire game?

I've found game quality to be much higher, though it does lead to some weirdness. For example, there have been games where a civ didn't research Early Metalworking until the late ancient/early classical era. You'd think that would be a death sentence, but oddly, those civs tend to dominate the ancient era in both points and flaunting their military.

 

[globosud]

Sorry to skip over the body of the post but I have to ask: did you get to the medieval era on the world map without ever exploring beyond Scandinavia?


I wouldn't call it worse so much as riskier. With the old system it felt like the AI was taking the safe bet, and often pursuing the techs with the most tech transfer benefit. But that meant they weren't often spearheading technologies or trying to get ahead--they were just comfortably sitting in 3rd or 4th or 5th place and relying on military action or revolutions to disrupt whoever was ahead of them. In the current, non-ai-plays-to-win situation, civs are more likely to branch off on their own and be the first to discover a certain branch of tech and reap its benefits. Sometimes that doesn't yield much, sometimes it opens them up to a meaningful advantage.


I've found game quality to be much higher, though it does lead to some weirdness. For example, there have been games where a civ didn't research Early Metalworking until the late ancient/early classical era. You'd think that would be a death sentence, but oddly, those civs tend to dominate the ancient era in both points and flaunting their military.

I never really explore scenario maps in any version. I only start exploring after discovering Astronomy, or if I’m playing on random maps. I prefer it this way, even though I know it will slow down my technological progress.I don’t waste time building scouts, since I already know the map, but on random maps I change my strategy and explore as much as possible right away.Making contact too quickly can sometimes make you a target for war, or they might start building near your city. Of course, it also depends a lot on the difficulty level and your play style.I usually try to consolidate my borders first. in the case of Scandinavia, for example, if you meet England or the Celts too early, it’s easy to find them just a few turns later sending a settler to build a city on the peninsula. So it’s better to avoid early contact, even though in 3.72 this happens less often.also, the less of the map you explore, the faster your turns will be.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of effects did they receive back then? Aside from some dabbling with the mod in 2012 or so I only really got back into it in 3.57

They were unable to build settlers until Renaissance, but were provided copper, horses and IIRC iron for free, and given a large happiness/health bonus.

Rebel slaves, just to clarify, already didn’t pillage anymore in 3.4 — maybe only very rarely — but they also spawn very rarely.

I just went to 3.4 and checked, and they still had all three of

                <UnitAI>
                    <UnitAIType>UNITAI_ATTACK</UnitAIType>
                    <bUnitAI>1</bUnitAI>
                </UnitAI>
                <UnitAI>
                    <UnitAIType>UNITAI_ATTACK_CITY</UnitAIType>
                    <bUnitAI>1</bUnitAI>
                </UnitAI>
                <UnitAI>
                    <UnitAIType>UNITAI_PILLAGE</UnitAIType>
                    <bUnitAI>1</bUnitAI>
                </UnitAI>

So they were still definitely able to pillage in 3.4 even if it wasn't their main behaviour. It took several more versions and AI adjustments to make them as straightforward as they are now.

Consider that making slaves too predictable flattens the choice between slavery and serfdom for a very long stretch of the game.

How so if rebel slaves and rebel serfs were exactly the same until very recently? If anything, they only got substantially different post-3.72. Before that they were the exact clones of each other with a visual difference.

If the challenge is too easy, players eventually drift away because they get bored quickly. That’s why having things a bit tougher—at least at the higher difficulty levels—can actually help keep the game engaging in the long term.But this is just my point of view, which may very well not be shared.

Yep, I'd dare say that you're the only one who tends to believe challenge is the main component of engagement, and that it is inadequate in recent versions - and I believe we both already said our parts in this discussion. But to make a counterpoint, I never saw player feedback along the lines that RI wasn't challenging enough and that's why they dropped it - but back around 3.4-ish era (definitely in the early BtS days), I saw several Youtube videos and forum posts from people who started RI, got obliterated by either barbarians or AI civs, gave up and never went back.

For example, there have been games where a civ didn't research Early Metalworking until the late ancient/early classical era. You'd think that would be a death sentence, but oddly, those civs tend to dominate the ancient era in both points and flaunting their military.

IRL, that what the major New World civilizations did basically. Despite Incas sitting on what is IIRC the largest copper deposits in the world, they only began working copper shortly (several generations) before the contact with the Spanish. Likewise, sub-Saharan Africa seems to have jumped straight into iron working around 1000 BCE without experiencing a Bronze Age.

 

[[Y]]

Likewise, sub-Saharan Africa seems to have jumped straight into iron working around 1000 BCE without experiencing a Bronze Age.

Good strategy, completely avoids a bronze age collapse!

 

[globosud]

Yep, I'd dare say that you're the only one who tends to believe challenge is the main component of engagement, and that it is inadequate in recent versions - and I believe we both already said our parts in this discussion. But to make a counterpoint, I never saw player feedback along the lines that RI wasn't challenging enough and that's why they dropped it - but back around 3.4-ish era (definitely in the early BtS days), I saw several Youtube videos and forum posts from people who started RI, got obliterated by either barbarians or AI civs, gave up and never went back.

I’m not referring to your mod specifically, but in general. It’s precisely because of this type of player that most of today’s games tend to be too easy and not very long-lasting. It’s also why many of us still prefer to play games from 20 years ago. I enjoy challenges because, as a kid in the ’80s and early ’90s, I used to play in arcades, and games back then were extremely difficult. Perhaps that’s when I developed a taste for competitiveness and challenges that were almost impossible.
That’s why my personal history leads me to prefer extremely difficult games — where just surviving gives me satisfaction, and simply making it to the last turn feels like a victory. Keep in mind that when the challenge is very demanding, it’s also enjoyable to lose. Even a small improvement or a step forward compared to the previous game feels like a victory. This is why those other players drifted away from Realism Invictus, and why I chose it over a multitude of other mods Even today, with your latest versions, it still offers the best challenge out there. Although back then, it was perhaps extreme

 

[JDCP]

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

I still get some if I push the engine far enough, memory allocations issues are not something you can fix in 32bit software I think, you can try to avoid it, but not at all. Maybe I'm wrong But I'm yet to play an old game full of mods that doesn't completely break due to memory limitations.

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/

I should look more into this, looks very interesting! Is development still going?

PS oh yeah @Walter Hawkwood I checked the neck of the German Medieval Swordsman was fixed, I never mentioned it because I thought it was trivial and probably already in your mind, but I gotta mention it now that because that thing bugged me so much also idk if I'm not remembering it well... but they somehow look nicer now!

 

[Alekseyev_]

I’m not referring to your mod specifically, but in general. It’s precisely because of this type of player that most of today’s games tend to be too easy and not very long-lasting. It’s also why many of us still prefer to play games from 20 years ago. I enjoy challenges because, as a kid in the ’80s and early ’90s, I used to play in arcades, and games back then were extremely difficult. Perhaps that’s when I developed a taste for competitiveness and challenges that were almost impossible.
That’s why my personal history leads me to prefer extremely difficult games — where just surviving gives me satisfaction, and simply making it to the last turn feels like a victory. Keep in mind that when the challenge is very demanding, it’s also enjoyable to lose. Even a small improvement or a step forward compared to the previous game feels like a victory. This is why those other players drifted away from Realism Invictus, and why I chose it over a multitude of other mods Even today, with your latest versions, it still offers the best challenge out there. Although back then, it was perhaps extreme

I can't agree at all. I play old games for many reasons but none of them are the difficulty.

 

[globosud]

I can't agree at all. I play old games for many reasons but none of them are the difficulty.

Of course, there’s no one-size-fits-all — everyone looks for something different in games, that’s pretty obvious It was just a thought of mine, I definitely didn’t mean to start a poll

 

[AspiringScholar]

Personally, I like to read of everyone's different playstyles and preferences (even if I've found the soapbox about 3.4 specifically to be somewhat amusingly puzzling, given what are to my mind a litany of enormous quality of life improvements even since I've started playing over the last handful of years) and to each their own. To my mind:

Challenge is a nice seasoning for a game, but as with food, overwhelming amounts of it can ruin the dish.