Realism Invictus

[JDCP]

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

haha I can feel very identified with this analogy and I tend to use it a lot for this kind of topics where "no more, no less, just the enough" applies, you don't know how many times this has happened to me, both in the game and cooking "What the hell was I thinking???" And yes, proper balance is certainly the pinnacle of everything. You can do without it and have fun, but in the long run everything crumbles.

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

Yes indeed, but still difficulty is something we all look forward to. Of course, not always as the main scope of our games, but something that must be there otherwise it happens what you said: The game gets boring, it stales.

I've been playing many CIV4 games in high difficulties for the past months, but decided to switch back to lower difficulties (Prince, to be precise) after feeling a bit exhausted. It's pretty nice, specially because I'm pretty bad lol, but I can see why someone wouldn't want to play this way as it might feel a bit too easy, rather forgettable. It's not the sense of accomplishment at all but rather, the struggle to get there... makes it memorable. Still, it's not what interests me the most, specilly when talking about old games, I prefer diversity (hehe there's a CIV4 mod called like that) and content. You could put me alone in a map just fighting barbarians and I'd still have fun, for an hour at least

If there is a reason for me to play games this old, hell some even older than me, it's simply because there is no present equivalent to them. Some nearly 30 year old games somehow manage to give me more freedom to play than 2025 games. Besides, trying out a new game and mastering it takes a hell lot of time, and if it turns out to be a disappointment then it feels like I wasted all my time. I'm already comfortable and enjoying CIV4, or to name something else: HOI2, so I prefer that to say CIV7 or HOI4, they're probably good games that can be enjoyed if given the effort... But I already have a nice crib, why buy another?

 

[[Y]]

When viewing the civics/finance advisers, the civic maintenance costs there already reflect the savings from Legislator, yeah? Is there any chance of showing the exact savings, or making a note on those pages that Legislator (or Populist) is affecting the civic costs?

I've been playing Phillip II a lot lately to test out Legislator (and see how it compares to Seafarer for scalability). Some thoughts on France:

• Cultivating grapes feels like it comes pretty late relative to what it allows. It's a very similar feature to Carthage cultivating Dye, but Carthage can cultivate Dye as soon as it researches Water Pump in late classical, whereas France (and Ethiopia with Coffee) has to wait until Pharmacy and Botany in the late Medieval. Carthage's and France's unique improvements are almost identical: both can cultivate a resource and build a unique improvement on that resource that gives extra commerce and +1 happiness in nearby cities. Dye is actually better than wine (+1 happiness with no building requirement, additional +1 with theater, an early classical building, while wine requires an early classical building for any benefit, and requires two wine to produce alcohol for a second happiness, starting in the late medieval). Is this difference intentional? Should France and Ethiopia be allowed to cultivate at the same time as Carthage? Should Carthage similarly be delayed until Pharmacy and Botany?
• The Carolingian Paladin national unit also feels pretty late for its use (targeting cavalry when attacking). I like the unit, but it arrives at a time when cavalry are at a low point, so the utility is somewhat wasted. Cataphracts dominate the field in the mid classical when they first arrive, but by medieval era we start seeing 7-strength swordsman, crossbowmen, pikemen, and longbowman, which largely reduce the cataphract to an aid-granting unit, since the (non-civic locked) upgrade doesn't come until much, much later. It might be handy against the Feudal cavalry unit, but I don't see them often in games. Paladins would be much more impactful if they unlocked earlier, or maybe had 9 strength, allowing them to be a powerhouse throughout the early medieval.

 

[JDCP]

• The Carolingian Paladin national unit also feels pretty late for its use (targeting cavalry when attacking). I like the unit, but it arrives at a time when cavalry are at a low point, so the utility is somewhat wasted. Cataphracts dominate the field in the mid classical when they first arrive, but by medieval era we start seeing 7-strength swordsman, crossbowmen, pikemen, and longbowman, which largely reduce the cataphract to an aid-granting unit, since the (non-civic locked) upgrade doesn't come until much, much later. It might be handy against the Feudal cavalry unit, but I don't see them often in games. Paladins would be much more impactful if they unlocked earlier, or maybe had 9 strength, allowing them to be a powerhouse throughout the early medieval.

I don't agree, before the inclusion of the new UU the paladins were MY favorite heavy cavalry UU by far (still are as I haven't tried the new one, but I'm confident they will be as they seem to be no more than a better Paladin), I've been saying it since I played this mod for the first time (I'm a big France fan, go figure). I use them in EVERY game I play as France with ridiculously good success. No, seriously, it's right when I train them that my world conquest really starts. Until then it's all little skirmishes here and there with little gains.

F*ck I'd go as far as to say they are a bit too overpowered. combat and flank for free is a HUGEEEE bonus, just get stables+traditional customs (actually ditch that, get the doctrine [Art of War it was?] that grants +1 XP or just find someone to kill)+that one religious civic that grants extra XP (sorry, can't remember it now)+proper aids, and you got an excellent cavalry with flank 3 that WILL withdraw from most, if not all, fights while dealing MASSIVE damage They are without doubt one of the pillars of all my France strategies in the medieval period, no ****, two full stacks of them can bring down ANY city given you provide the necessary assets (siege, skirmisher aid bonus and a few shocktroops), no matter how well defended it is. I take good care of my Paladins, specially with their special aid that gives me enough confidence to charge in battle. Couple that with the cavalry tradition and doctrine and well, what the f*ck else should I say? Game over man, game over.

And that's just an UU, a meager part of your army, your actually supposed to be using the Capetian cavalry for this task but NO, the paladins are just too good to leave them at home.

For reference, most of my games are in Monarch, so it's not a matter of difficulty either btw Phillip II great leader, my fav after De Gaulle .

Maybe it's just that we have different approaches with cavalry, I rarely use heavy cavalry to achieve direct success in a fight, that's the role of foot soldiers and cavalry's lighter, more agile counterpart. For me heavy cavalry is a means to disorganize and find weaknesses in enemy stacks making best use of collateral damage. Sure, you can use them to beat enemies easily (in fact the paladins are pretty good at this task, remember the free combat I?) but even then that's not what I specialize them for. Under that definition cavalry is never at a low point for me, it's always useful as long as you use it as intended.

But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong in that regard, hopefully you prove me wrong... There's always a new thing to learn in the war room that this forum is

 

[[Y]]

Spoiler :

I don't agree, before the inclusion of the new UU the paladins were MY favorite heavy cavalry UU by far (still are as I haven't tried the new one, but I'm confident they will be as they seem to be no more than a better Paladin), I've been saying it since I played this mod for the first time (I'm a big France fan, go figure). I use them in EVERY game I play as France with ridiculously good success. No, seriously, it's right when I train them that my world conquest really starts. Until then it's all little skirmishes here and there with little gains.

F*ck I'd go as far as to say they are a bit too overpowered. combat and flank for free is a HUGEEEE bonus, just get stables+traditional customs (actually ditch that, get the doctrine [Art of War it was?] that grants +1 XP or just find someone to kill)+that one religious civic that grants extra XP (sorry, can't remember it now)+proper aids, and you got an excellent cavalry with flank 3 that WILL withdraw from most, if not all, fights while dealing MASSIVE damage They are without doubt one of the pillars of all my France strategies in the medieval period, no ****, two full stacks of them can bring down ANY city given you provide the necessary assets (siege, skirmisher aid bonus and a few shocktroops), no matter how well defended it is. I take good care of my Paladins, specially with their special aid that gives me enough confidence to charge in battle. Couple that with the cavalry tradition and doctrine and well, what the f*ck else should I say? Game over man, game over.

And that's just an UU, a meager part of your army, your actually supposed to be using the Capetian cavalry for this task but NO, the paladins are just too good to leave them at home.

For reference, most of my games are in Monarch, so it's not a matter of difficulty either btw Phillip II great leader, my fav after De Gaulle .

Maybe it's just that we have different approaches with cavalry, I rarely use heavy cavalry to achieve direct success in a fight, that's the role of foot soldiers and cavalry's lighter, more agile counterpart. For me heavy cavalry is a means to disorganize and find weaknesses in enemy stacks making best use of collateral damage. Sure, you can use them to beat enemies easily (in fact the paladins are pretty good at this task, remember the free combat I?) but even then that's not what I specialize them for. Under that definition cavalry is never at a low point for me, it's always useful as long as you use it as intended.

But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong in that regard, hopefully you prove me wrong... There's always a new thing to learn in the war room that this forum is

I've only got the few games with France, so I'll defer to your opinion! The above was my experience, but I'm likely not optimizing their utility.

A few other considerations:

Archery units and gunpowder units sharing increased costs (Ranged Support) is a serious handicap to civs without longbowmen. Once you secure access to black powder and research Arquebus, the arquebuesiers can immediately have astronomical hammer costs, and there's no option to upgrade any existing units to the arquebusier. Not a big deal for civs with longbowmen, who have decent defenses, but for other civs, they've already been at a military disadvantage for most of medieval era (worse city defenses and lesser power rating), and are now stuck with those weak defenses while having an extremely slow process to build modern defenses for their cities. If I were to do it again, I would avoid building crossbowmen in the first place and simply rely on pikeman for all my defenses, so that when I get arquebusier access and I can train them rapidly. Crossbowmen simply don't offer enough utility to be worth the hassle. Will you consider giving archery ranged support and gunpower ranged support distinct categories? Seems appropriate since the former can't be upgraded to the latter (except through irregulars, which I won't consider a real option).

I also suggest reconsidering this France flag... or at least turning it upside down (spoilered to keep SFW):

Spoiler :

 

[JDCP]

I also suggest reconsidering this France flag... or at least turning it upside down (spoilered to keep SFW):

I love it.
My only problem with it is perhaps how polished it looks, I wonder where it comes from... I don't even know what it's supposed to portray. doesn't have anything to do with the discussion but I love how the confederacy flag for ancient/classical looks, that spiral is sooooo cool. Most French flags are so boring compared to others like Spanish, German or Russian flags. Just a thought, not that I really care much about it to be honest

but I'm likely not optimizing their utility.

yes, perhaps, see what you can use them for in the battlefield and look for new opportunities and strategies with them. Hopefully you find the right path, but the way I described I do it might be a good place to start. One of the tips in the loading screens mentions that UUs are meant to be used as precisely as possible, specialized and well thought, if you don't plan ahead what objectives they will fulfill then they won't be of much use than your average warrior

I've mentioned many times how frustrating it can be to siege and conquer cities in this mod, but when I look back at it it's a pretty well rounded system. It requires patience and a clever strategy, you can't just throw all your units to the gutter and expect an assured victory. Sure some exceptions exist, but it's not the norm

I used to feel fear and uncertainty when approaching enemy cities, usually because I didn't knew what was expecting me ahead or if even my army could take a city down. But as I learn more and more about combat that sensation has gone, and now I'm very confident on the capabilities of the many efficiently (or that I feel are efficient, being honest there are still some deficiences here and there, critical weakspots that I need to cover somehow) designed stacks I charge into war. And that sensation made me think that some units were absolute dogsh#t because I could never get the best out of them... after some thinking and practice/testing I eventually found their best approaches.

It's about that, you have to get to know better those men fighting for you, what they do best and they CAN'T do, or they won't give a damn about your desired outcomes when they fight leading to a defeat that could have been prevented. You surely knew all of this already, but I do enjoy saying it regardless of that haha!

Archery units and gunpowder units sharing increased costs (Ranged Support) is a serious handicap to civs without longbowmen.

Yes you're right, but I think that's the intended effect... irregulars and foreign units exist for this purpose I believe, to help weak civs not carry on the big expenses of a fully updated army, the cost is of course a sh*tty defense, but that might be enough if used well.

And come on it's supposed to be a serious handicap! You've fallen well behind everyone if you're so poor you still hold to composites when people are already rolling cannons around. Stop neglecting the military and get some crossbows at the very least!

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

When viewing the civics/finance advisers, the civic maintenance costs there already reflect the savings from Legislator, yeah? Is there any chance of showing the exact savings, or making a note on those pages that Legislator (or Populist) is affecting the civic costs?

I can't answer that off the top of my head - I'll have to check (and maybe change) that when I'm back.

Cultivating grapes feels like it comes pretty late relative to what it allows. It's a very similar feature to Carthage cultivating Dye, but Carthage can cultivate Dye as soon as it researches Water Pump in late classical, whereas France (and Ethiopia with Coffee) has to wait until Pharmacy and Botany in the late Medieval. Carthage's and France's unique improvements are almost identical: both can cultivate a resource and build a unique improvement on that resource that gives extra commerce and +1 happiness in nearby cities. Dye is actually better than wine (+1 happiness with no building requirement, additional +1 with theater, an early classical building, while wine requires an early classical building for any benefit, and requires two wine to produce alcohol for a second happiness, starting in the late medieval). Is this difference intentional? Should France and Ethiopia be allowed to cultivate at the same time as Carthage? Should Carthage similarly be delayed until Pharmacy and Botany?

France's unique stuff is purposefully relatively weak to compensate for the fact that the civ has no real weakness - its regular unit roster is among the strongest, and it's all in all a very "comfortable" civ to play, without any special hoops to jump through. Also, consider that wine is the only resource that can be significantly buffed via an early wonder.

Lastly, but equally importantly, for purely flavour reasons, I wouldn't want the French to have wine too early. In pre-Roman and Roman times, Gaul was a major net importer of wine, and within the Roman empire it wasn't considered a major winemaking province (even though overall Romans did introduce winemaking wherever they went). Same goes for Ethiopia - historically, coffee isn't that old of a beverage. I don't believe there's any mention of coffee in any sources before X CE.

The Carolingian Paladin national unit also feels pretty late for its use (targeting cavalry when attacking). I like the unit, but it arrives at a time when cavalry are at a low point, so the utility is somewhat wasted. Cataphracts dominate the field in the mid classical when they first arrive, but by medieval era we start seeing 7-strength swordsman, crossbowmen, pikemen, and longbowman, which largely reduce the cataphract to an aid-granting unit, since the (non-civic locked) upgrade doesn't come until much, much later. It might be handy against the Feudal cavalry unit, but I don't see them often in games. Paladins would be much more impactful if they unlocked earlier, or maybe had 9 strength, allowing them to be a powerhouse throughout the early medieval.

I feel this has been covered by JDCP rather colourfully, so I'll only add that they were, in my opinion, indirectly boosted by the (currently SVN-only) change to cavalry vs cities handling, and obviously got a bit of a longevity with a shiny new upgrade.

Archery units and gunpowder units sharing increased costs (Ranged Support) is a serious handicap to civs without longbowmen. Once you secure access to black powder and research Arquebus, the arquebuesiers can immediately have astronomical hammer costs, and there's no option to upgrade any existing units to the arquebusier. Not a big deal for civs with longbowmen, who have decent defenses, but for other civs, they've already been at a military disadvantage for most of medieval era (worse city defenses and lesser power rating), and are now stuck with those weak defenses while having an extremely slow process to build modern defenses for their cities. If I were to do it again, I would avoid building crossbowmen in the first place and simply rely on pikeman for all my defenses, so that when I get arquebusier access and I can train them rapidly. Crossbowmen simply don't offer enough utility to be worth the hassle. Will you consider giving archery ranged support and gunpower ranged support distinct categories? Seems appropriate since the former can't be upgraded to the latter (except through irregulars, which I won't consider a real option).

There is already a bit of an assumption on my part that non-longbow civs should use melee units as their defensive mainstay in the middle ages; crossbow is an ok all-rounder unit, not a dedicated city defender - and, TBH, neither is the arquebus.

I also suggest reconsidering this France flag... or at least turning it upside down (spoilered to keep SFW)

That's a Frankish bee, as good a symbol for pre-Carolingian Franks as I could dig up:

Even though these were pre-heraldic times, the Merovingians widely used the bee as their symbol. I may or may not opt for a less phallic version of the thing when I'm redoing the French flags (alphabetically, we're almost there).

Most French flags are so boring compared to others like Spanish, German or Russian flags.

That's on the French, not on me! Unlike some other civs, I don't even need to rely on obscure or tenuous designs - the French were always so excited about flag-waving (and regime changes) that there's a flag for almost any occasion in the French history.

 

[JDCP]

rather colourfully

hehe

That's a Frankish bee, as good a symbol for pre-Carolingian Franks as I could dig up

Like on some of their other flags? I've noticed bees here and there with those flags, albeit monoton designs I do agree they look "sophisticated" enough to be of my likeness, sometimes less is more I guess. I read those bees have their origins on the Merovingian dinasty, in fact isn't one of the French flags (I think monarchy or theocracy flag, but I might be mistaken) three bees with a red background? Or something like that, memory's failing me right now But I do remember something like that, where does that one come from?

That's on the French, not on me! Unlike some other civs, I don't even need to rely on obscure or tenuous designs - the French were always so excited about flag-waving (and regime changes) that there's a flag for almost any occasion in the French history.

hehe yes, sadly yes. It's impressive how far the French have gone in history. Talking about flags... where can I see the flag pictures and the settings file (if such exists) that adresses what civics/era you need to change them?

Don't know, maybe I'm seeing things where they aren't, but I'd never play with the flags off... they enhance the roleplaying for me everytime my flag design changes I feel like I'm doing something good, and that's refreshing.

 

[zhardan]

Hi,
I'm playing version 5512 of the mod with the Mayans on the RI Large World Map scenario, and there's a bug that makes it impossible to declare war on the Aztecs in any era (according to the commits, it was supposed to be possible in the Renaissance). Interestingly, it's also not possible even if they are vassalized.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Like on some of their other flags? I've noticed bees here and there with those flags, albeit monoton designs I do agree they look "sophisticated" enough to be of my likeness, sometimes less is more I guess. I read those bees have their origins on the Merovingian dinasty, in fact isn't one of the French flags (I think monarchy or theocracy flag, but I might be mistaken) three bees with a red background? Or something like that, memory's failing me right now But I do remember something like that, where does that one come from?

Yeah, I used bees on a couple of other early flags, but more stylised. As a fun heraldic fact, the fleur-de-lys used on lots of later French flags and coats of arms are considered to have been derived from the very same bees, just stylised even more. And of course later on, Napoleon straight up returned the bees as his heraldic motiff to replace the fleur-de-lys that was associated with the old regime.

Hi,
I'm playing version 5512 of the mod with the Mayans on the RI Large World Map scenario, and there's a bug that makes it impossible to declare war on the Aztecs in any era (according to the commits, it was supposed to be possible in the Renaissance). Interestingly, it's also not possible even if they are vassalized.

Hm, there are times when one looks back and wonders what one was doing. It's a wonder that was working at all, TBH, and it was only doing what I expected it to do by sheer luck. Should be fixed in the next revision; the effect shouldn't apply to human players at all, and lasts for AI (only AI on AI, so if you're Maya, Aztecs should be able to declare war on you) till turn 500, rather than any specific era. Unfortunately, the fix will not be retroactive, but I recommend against updating SVN in an ongoing game anyway.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Some more feedback from a couple of recent games:

Spoiler :

- Though I cannot remember if this was by design, the American ranch does not receive the equivalent buff that the pasture gets in being able to be built over a resource without the terrain-clearing improvement. In the case of the pasture, for instance, Woodworking is not necessary in order to build on a source of livestock even if there is forest or savannah on the tile, as well; so if the American unique improvement is supposed to be strictly better, it should plausibly retain this ability as well.

- Relatedly (and I legitimately am unsure on this one, so am just checking), the camp, by contrast, does not provide the resource at all, but rather, only the yield from the tile. Is this intentional, or was it supposed to only be a means of retaining the terrain feature with the improvement, if one desires?

- On the note of earlier flags, I particularly like how the ancient/classical "American Empire" flag looks, with its simplified design. It always felt strange seeing the modern and ornate federal seal when playing as the "Proto-Civ" for them, and this design looks clean, simple and plausible.

- The tooltip for free barbarian wins seems to be geared towards offensive losses only, as it advised me that I had two remaining after having just died defensively and burned one of the mulligans a couple of turns before. (If this isn't easily reproducible, I can link a save, though I don't remember off-hand which SVN build it was under.)

- [Y] beat me to the punch on this already (even after I had already made a note to mention it) with respect to the French, but it's applicable to the Greeks as well: the Gymnasium, requiring Philosophy rather than Tolls and Taxes to build, effectively worsens it as a unique building inasmuch as it delays the happiness one can activate from having wine. While in the French case, the anecdote about classical wine importation is fascinating and apt, I don't think the Greeks should suffer the same, given the commodity's centrality to their culture easily as early as their archaic period, well before "philosophy" as such would have been researched. I would suggest moving their unique building back to the default for the Tavern which it replaces, or perhaps something even earlier, since ancient Greeks not making merry with their wine until Epicurus tells them to doesn't seem correct.

- Likewise, the Tenemos pagan temple for the Greeks shares an icon with the (if I am remembering correctly) default National Academy, before it was changed to the image of Plato and Aristotle from Raphael's School of Athens. Admittedly, only in writing this now did I realize that they aren't strictly the same, but perhaps something a little more toned down for the Greek temple would be a better fit? Several of these wouldn't have been as extravagant as the image makes them out to be, whereas we already have a "Great Greek Temple" wonder in the Parthenon, Temple of Artemis and Statue of Zeus, so the default temple could probably stand to appear more humble, in my opinion.

- In SVN 5512, I noticed that the Greek galley reproducibly retained cosmetic damage after returning to full strength. Save provided below.

- Is there a way to exclude barbarians from "Show Enemy Moves"? Large slave revolts can make viewing all of these tedious, even if it is often important to leave toggled when at war, otherwise.

- The Kitab-i Bahriye medieval great work of science currently doesn't require a coast to be built, but I believe that this should logically be a requirement since its bonus effect is strictly maritime in providing Navigation I to units built in the city, which becomes worthless when founded inland.

- It would be a small quality of life improvement if the tooltip for immunity from epidemics after having just sustained one in a city listed the turn count that this will last for. (I actually don't even know what the rule for this is, and it would be useful to see clearly.)

- I am enjoying the rebalanced calendar dates extending the nominal length of the late medieval/early modern eras, but it might be better if it could be slightly tweaked such that prior to the count being one year intervals, key dates wouldn't end on an odd number. As it is, you have 1BC rather than 1AD (which isn't such a big deal, of course, but it is an iconic date that is often used as a reference point for progress, so seeing it be something else appears a little dissonant), and otherwise, centuries and decades often end on the 9th year, which doesn't appear as clean or satisfying as even numbers and centuries beginning on their actual incipient year. Overall, I like this change, but if it could just be adjusted so that it fit my deeply-ingrained human desire to see clean numbers with even units when not a factor of five, it would be even better.

- Minor text error: the strategy entry for the National Stock Exchange references that merchants generate an additional two gold, but this must be a vestigial reference, as it is actually only one (plus an additional for great merchants).

- I believe this is the case that they do, but does the AI have full "fog-lift" at all times, or are is their intelligence of your units' positioning contingent on what they have nominal visibility for, as a player would? I know that in Civ 3, they did, and I am unsure if this was changed. A couple of times, they chased my ships out deep into the ocean and (presumably) far away from anything else that could have spotted them, which makes me think that they can see every unit on the map at all times; but on other occasions, I've been able to escape this way, so I remain not completely sure. The tactics are/would be a lot more fun if they can't see what's in the dark.

- Are land units supposed to be able to destroy ships using forts as canals/ports? In nearly twenty years of playing Civ IV, I don't think I've ever seen this happen, but I was able to destroy an enemy's ship this way. I can link a save if this is in fact some kind of revelatory mystery and not something well-known that I am simply very late to finding out.

- EDIT: One additional point that I hadn't written down but nevertheless made a mental note to recount: the tech pace in this Greece game (now closing in on the mid-industrial) was rather fast. (I was far from the first to line infantry, and got them myself in the 13th century, for instance.) Admittedly, in this game, there was something of a religious love fest under Islam lasting several centuries which bolstered trade and tech sharing, but not unequivocally, and there was still plenty of war and overextension going on for both the AI and myself. The change to the AI's build preference for units likely has some bearing on this (or the date shifting vis-a-vis the turn count), so I am just providing feedback. This game could have been an anomaly, but its rate of research has felt about 20-30% too fast relative to the calendar date, so if more games feel like this and others have a similar perception, a tech cost rebalance might be in order.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Some more feedback from a couple of recent games

Thanks, nice to have a lot of concrete observations! I always look forward to those "debrief sheets" from your games.

Though I cannot remember if this was by design, the American ranch does not receive the equivalent buff that the pasture gets in being able to be built over a resource without the terrain-clearing improvement. In the case of the pasture, for instance, Woodworking is not necessary in order to build on a source of livestock even if there is forest or savannah on the tile, as well; so if the American unique improvement is supposed to be strictly better, it should plausibly retain this ability as well.

I'll have a look and likely change, if only for consistency.

Relatedly (and I legitimately am unsure on this one, so am just checking), the camp, by contrast, does not provide the resource at all, but rather, only the yield from the tile. Is this intentional, or was it supposed to only be a means of retaining the terrain feature with the improvement, if one desires?

This is intentional.

On the note of earlier flags, I particularly like how the ancient/classical "American Empire" flag looks, with its simplified design. It always felt strange seeing the modern and ornate federal seal when playing as the "Proto-Civ" for them, and this design looks clean, simple and plausible.

Thanks, I had the exact same train of thought when reworking. Interestingly, both that one and the Monarchy one are still historical (though of course not ever used to represent any kind of monarchy to my knowledge), and come from earlier flags and ensigns that didn't have a standard design for eagle yet: https://www.loeser.us/flags/american_note_5.html (can't find the exact sources for both ATM, but the article contains many very similar ones).

The tooltip for free barbarian wins seems to be geared towards offensive losses only, as it advised me that I had two remaining after having just died defensively and burned one of the mulligans a couple of turns before. (If this isn't easily reproducible, I can link a save, though I don't remember off-hand which SVN build it was under.)

I'll check.

[Y] beat me to the punch on this already (even after I had already made a note to mention it) with respect to the French, but it's applicable to the Greeks as well: the Gymnasium, requiring Philosophy rather than Tolls and Taxes to build, effectively worsens it as a unique building inasmuch as it delays the happiness one can activate from having wine. While in the French case, the anecdote about classical wine importation is fascinating and apt, I don't think the Greeks should suffer the same, given the commodity's centrality to their culture easily as early as their archaic period, well before "philosophy" as such would have been researched. I would suggest moving their unique building back to the default for the Tavern which it replaces, or perhaps something even earlier, since ancient Greeks not making merry with their wine until Epicurus tells them to doesn't seem correct.

That one is definitely an oversight and stems simply from Philosophy having been moved much later in the tech tree. It used to come earlier than the actual thing! Will probably move it to Mysticism or something thereabouts.

Likewise, the Tenemos pagan temple for the Greeks shares an icon with the (if I am remembering correctly) default National Academy, before it was changed to the image of Plato and Aristotle from Raphael's School of Athens. Admittedly, only in writing this now did I realize that they aren't strictly the same, but perhaps something a little more toned down for the Greek temple would be a better fit? Several of these wouldn't have been as extravagant as the image makes them out to be, whereas we already have a "Great Greek Temple" wonder in the Parthenon, Temple of Artemis and Statue of Zeus, so the default temple could probably stand to appear more humble, in my opinion.

Agreed, will rework.

In SVN 5512, I noticed that the Greek galley reproducibly retained cosmetic damage after returning to full strength. Save provided below.

I fail to see that when loading your save; I suspect you won't either once you load it. Must be a graphical glitch that's cleared by save/load.

Is there a way to exclude barbarians from "Show Enemy Moves"? Large slave revolts can make viewing all of these tedious, even if it is often important to leave toggled when at war, otherwise.

I don't know the answer, and I'll probably check at some point - but it might well be hardcoded.

The Kitab-i Bahriye medieval great work of science currently doesn't require a coast to be built, but I believe that this should logically be a requirement since its bonus effect is strictly maritime in providing Navigation I to units built in the city, which becomes worthless when founded inland.

The main bonus is still a massive research bonus, and therefore it felt wrong to disqualify non-coastal cities from building it, especially given the limited number of works per era.

It would be a small quality of life improvement if the tooltip for immunity from epidemics after having just sustained one in a city listed the turn count that this will last for. (I actually don't even know what the rule for this is, and it would be useful to see clearly.)

Noted, goes on my to-do list.

I am enjoying the rebalanced calendar dates extending the nominal length of the late medieval/early modern eras, but it might be better if it could be slightly tweaked such that prior to the count being one year intervals, key dates wouldn't end on an odd number. As it is, you have 1BC rather than 1AD (which isn't such a big deal, of course, but it is an iconic date that is often used as a reference point for progress, so seeing it be something else appears a little dissonant), and otherwise, centuries and decades often end on the 9th year, which doesn't appear as clean or satisfying as even numbers and centuries beginning on their actual incipient year. Overall, I like this change, but if it could just be adjusted so that it fit my deeply-ingrained human desire to see clean numbers with even units when not a factor of five, it would be even better.

Shouldn't be too hard to do (then again, that's what I thought when moving one tech one row a couple of weeks before ).

Minor text error: the strategy entry for the National Stock Exchange references that merchants generate an additional two gold, but this must be a vestigial reference, as it is actually only one (plus an additional for great merchants).

Thanks, fixed. I hate those strategy entries as they have to be rewritten by hand each time something changes, so feel free to point out any other that are out of sync with reality.

I believe this is the case that they do, but does the AI have full "fog-lift" at all times, or are is their intelligence of your units' positioning contingent on what they have nominal visibility for, as a player would? I know that in Civ 3, they did, and I am unsure if this was changed. A couple of times, they chased my ships out deep into the ocean and (presumably) far away from anything else that could have spotted them, which makes me think that they can see every unit on the map at all times; but on other occasions, I've been able to escape this way, so I remain not completely sure. The tactics are/would be a lot more fun if they can't see what's in the dark.

From what I gather, it is neither a full "yes" nor a full "no" - AI sees a bit into the FOW as it is a computationally cheap way for AI to "remember" where your units were in order to chase them (or the whole map layout from the previous turn would need to be stored and analysed for that), but it doesn't have a full fog lift, so for instance when exploring the map, it genuinely explores the map.

Are land units supposed to be able to destroy ships using forts as canals/ports? In nearly twenty years of playing Civ IV, I don't think I've ever seen this happen, but I was able to destroy an enemy's ship this way. I can link a save if this is in fact some kind of revelatory mystery and not something well-known that I am simply very late to finding out.

Yes, same as when stationed in cities. If you think about it, there are no better ways to handle it.

EDIT: One additional point that I hadn't written down but nevertheless made a mental note to recount: the tech pace in this Greece game (now closing in on the mid-industrial) was rather fast. (I was far from the first to line infantry, and got them myself in the 13th century, for instance.) Admittedly, in this game, there was something of a religious love fest under Islam lasting several centuries which bolstered trade and tech sharing, but not unequivocally, and there was still plenty of war and overextension going on for both the AI and myself. The change to the AI's build preference for units likely has some bearing on this (or the date shifting vis-a-vis the turn count), so I am just providing feedback. This game could have been an anomaly, but its rate of research has felt about 20-30% too fast relative to the calendar date, so if more games feel like this and others have a similar perception, a tech cost rebalance might be in order.

Still a WIP obviously, but it does depend heavily on leader makeup and geopolitical situation these days, it seems. In some of my hands-off test games, all the world is at future tech by turn 2200 (time victory), whereas in some others, it barely reaches WW1-era tech levels.

 

[Brackenspore]

Hello, I can't find dds files of this type (Buttons): Art/interface/Buttons. The full version is installed. Where can these files be located? The path Art/interface/ contains only Classical Main Menu dds file.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Hello, I can't find dds files of this type (Buttons): Art/interface/Buttons. The full version is installed. Where can these files be located? The path Art/interface/ contains only Classical Main Menu dds file.

In the release version, most art assets are packed in the .fpk files. You can use PakBuild utility from here to unpack those: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/pakbuild.2384/

 

[arizzi]

Couple suggestions-

1. logistics penalty on large stacks should get a debuff to first strikes.

2. Federalist constitution maybe a bit weak compared to centralist. Maybe give take away a happiness from centralist?

3. Inclusivity feels very weak. (Maybe because culture in general can be pretty weak). Would it be easy to have culture influence relations or decrease unit maintenance/increase combat strength in high culture areas?

4. I feel like too much production in general, maybe increase 20% across the board to buildings and units. I think that would increase strategic depth as you have to choose what to prioritize instead of being able to build everything you want. I have a script I could provide to make that change.

5. Captured cities should lose more buildings upon capture. They should also lose great people turned specialists and wonders should also have a higher chance of being destroyed. Warmongering is too good. Currently its far better to attack and capture other people's good cities than develop your own.

6. Increase cost to having troops in enemy territory.

Happy to discuss pros and cons

 

[Alekseyev_]

2. Federalist constitution maybe a bit weak compared to centralist. Maybe give take away a happiness from centralist?

I think it is fine. Before the last update, centralist was really outclassed by federal, now it is a tradeoff.

3. Inclusivity feels very weak. (Maybe because culture in general can be pretty weak). Would it be easy to have culture influence relations or decrease unit maintenance/increase combat strength in high culture areas?

I think a bit of the appeal comes from the +25% golden age lenght from universal suffrage. But yeah, not the strongest - I usually find myself in a Democracy-Representation combo in the later game due to the Statue of Freedom.

4. I feel like too much production in general, maybe increase 20% across the board to buildings and units. I think that would increase strategic depth as you have to choose what to prioritize instead of being able to build everything you want. I have a script I could provide to make that change.

Nooo I think you're already struggling to build units even now if you have a decently sized force due to the % increases. It'd also make every building pay back slower.

5. Captured cities should lose more buildings upon capture. They should also lose great people turned specialists and wonders should also have a higher chance of being destroyed. Warmongering is too good. Currently its far better to attack and capture other people's good cities than develop your own.

Even more noooo! :S
I think the fact that in RI you actually get a few buildings when taking a city is very nice. Much of the time in Civ4 a city is propelled back to the stone if it's taken by force once or twice, no matter how little fighting there was involved, and the city won't be productive for your empire for hundreds of years afterwards.
I much prefer it as it is here.

 

[sazhdapec]

1. logistics penalty on large stacks should get a debuff to first strikes.

And nerf computer player stacks? Why?

2. Federalist constitution maybe a bit weak compared to centralist. Maybe give take away a happiness from centralist?

What Alekseyev_ said.

3. Inclusivity feels very weak. (Maybe because culture in general can be pretty weak). Would it be easy to have culture influence relations or decrease unit maintenance/increase combat strength in high culture areas?

On the contrary. It is incredibly influential. It gobbles up foreign tiles like crazy. I hate this civic with my whole heart. It makes peaceful relations in the lategame with neighbors pretty much impossible.

4. I feel like too much production in general, maybe increase 20% across the board to buildings and units. I think that would increase strategic depth as you have to choose what to prioritize instead of being able to build everything you want. I have a script I could provide to make that change.

I think it's a pretty good indicator that it's time to up the difficulty.

5. Captured cities should lose more buildings upon capture. They should also lose great people turned specialists and wonders should also have a higher chance of being destroyed. Warmongering is too good. Currently its far better to attack and capture other people's good cities than develop your own.

I disagree. There is already little point to capture computer cities since they are often poorly placed. And with the whole separatism package it's extremely costly using enemy cities instead of developing your own.

6. Increase cost to having troops in enemy territory.

I think the best (and more realistic) way to make harder to warmonger is to inflict damage in enemy territory just from being there.

 

[[Y]]

In pre-Roman and Roman times, Gaul was a major net importer of wine, and within the Roman empire it wasn't considered a major winemaking province (even though overall Romans did introduce winemaking wherever they went).

Okay, so the celts don't get to cultivate, but what about the Franks? I'm guessing the wine situation in Germania Inferior wasn't much different.

There is already a bit of an assumption on my part that non-longbow civs should use melee units as their defensive mainstay in the middle ages; crossbow is an ok all-rounder unit, not a dedicated city defender - and, TBH, neither is the arquebus.

True, I probably shouldn't be building crossbowmen or arquebusiers for defense, I'll have to change that habit.

Do you feel this creates an imbalance when factoring in increasing hammer costs? It's not as though these civs have a melee unit category dedicated to defending cities that they can build. If every unit that would have been a longbowman is now a melee unit taking it's place, that's a huge increase in hammer costs for the melee unit lines, and they also have cities less protected than they would be with longbowmen. Is there a balancing factor that I'm overlooking?

For what it's worth, I like the flavor of having this unit line deviations. My play experience has just led me to avoid the civs that don't have longbowmen, and maybe that's a me thing, but maybe a sign that there's something missing to make the deviations hold better.

4. I feel like too much production in general, maybe increase 20% across the board to buildings and units. I think that would increase strategic depth as you have to choose what to prioritize instead of being able to build everything you want. I have a script I could provide to make that change.

I agree with this somewhat. At least, with the problem. Unit costs are fine, I think, but there have been multiple times where units were so expensive to build that it was cheaper to construct two buildings, and long term those two buildings were more useful than that unit would be anyway. So I end up building every building in every city, even when it doesn't make sense for that city, because I may as well do it, and the alternative units aren't a good investment of hammers.

5. Captured cities should lose more buildings upon capture. They should also lose great people turned specialists and wonders should also have a higher chance of being destroyed. Warmongering is too good. Currently its far better to attack and capture other people's good cities than develop your own.

I agree with this as well. Maybe it doesn't have to be as extreme as it used to be, but it's very easy co take a city and have it be highly productive in a short time.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Absolutely lovely discussion going on here! Unironically, this is exactly how I know something is well-balanced at the moment. As arizzi posted, I already wanted to comment that I've recently seen opposite suggestions for most of those - but thanks everyone who commented for illustrating the point I was going to make even clearer. And no, before you argue, the fact that I get conflicting suggestions on something doesn't automatically mean it's in the right place balance-wise, but it's a great indication.

 

[Major Tom]

Captured cities should lose more buildings upon capture. They should also lose great people turned specialists and wonders should also have a higher chance of being destroyed. Warmongering is too good. Currently its far better to attack and capture other people's good cities than develop your own

I agree, but on the other hand, I think they will be razed, at least by me. Maybe city defence could be buffed up somehow. Or warmongering worse for attacking side.

Historically warmongering has been profitable though, with a few exceptions.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Okay, so the celts don't get to cultivate, but what about the Franks? I'm guessing the wine situation in Germania Inferior wasn't much different.

Forgot to address this specifically. Of course, in post-Roman France, winemaking continued to a certain extent (as I mentioned earlier Romans cultivated vine almost wherever they went, so the vineyards were there when they left), but was almost exclusively confined to monasteries for a long while, and as such should be treated as a pan-Christian rather than French cultural phenomenon. Secular vineyards are first attested from Carolingian times, so no earlier than the 9th century CE.

And of course, pre-Roman Germanic tribes were also major wine importers; it's one of the "prestige goods" chieftains would use to prop up their authority, and a very popular one at that, since it a) kept very well, and b) could be used in feasts, which were a major element of tribal-era social status.

Do you feel this creates an imbalance when factoring in increasing hammer costs? It's not as though these civs have a melee unit category dedicated to defending cities that they can build. If every unit that would have been a longbowman is now a melee unit taking it's place, that's a huge increase in hammer costs for the melee unit lines, and they also have cities less protected than they would be with longbowmen. Is there a balancing factor that I'm overlooking?

I wouldn't say it's a major imbalance. The number of hammers invested in either case would be roughly the same (you likely need fewer longbowmen than pikemen and other contemporary defensive units, but they are individually more expensive)