Realism Invictus
- Thread starter bill2505
- Start date
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
this mod has many flavor units why dont you ask them to include some
I think we grabbed some units already such as the ancient sea vessels.
Also did this really need a new topic? We already have a bunch of these already ...
Integrating Mods - Incorporating / Exploring Ideas from other mods.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439576
Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=377892
C2C - New Unit Ideas
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=446219
Plus there are already a bunch of flavor units in the mod, they just do not have unique names, just unique graphics.
Personally it would be nice it have used based on your tech and cultures you have. But that's a bit complex to do at the moment. Also how would you make hybrid culture units?
Personally, I've tried Realism Invictus, and I find the flavor units to be REALLY confusing. I see some of them have small differences, but it seems every civilization has a unique unit to replace every basic unit. I'd save the different units for the National Units.
i see your point but historically every nation has different unit and even the same units were not the same
Hydromancerx i thing this mod is very special and has some things that will make this great mod even greater.for example
leader drawbacks
Leader drawbacks
In addition to two positive leader traits, each leader now has a drawback, reflecting his/her weaknesses. Just as ordinary traits, these can dramatically affect your playing style – and you will find that most AIs keep them in mind when formulating their strategies as well… Most of drawbacks act as direct opposites to certain positive traits. Note that, in rare cases, it is possible for a leader to have both a positive trait and its anti-trait! The leader drawbacks in RI are as follows:
 Anti-clerical: -1 happiness from temples. Local clergy offers no support to these leaders. Temples are mostly useless for them.
 Barbaric: -25% culture. This leader never got any formal education, and sees little point in all this fancy stuff “civilized” people do.
 Arrogant: -20% espionage. This ruler sees other rulers and civilizations as vastly inferior to him, and often dismisses spy reports that show otherwise.
 Cruel: +20% XP needed for unit promotion. This ruler often treats his subjects as his little playthings, especially at times of war – much less soldiers survive to actually see the promotions for ridiculous feats he demands from them.
 Excessive: -10% gold. The extravagant lifestyle of this leader and his court puts a real strain on the state budget.
 Fanatical: -25% Great Person birth rate. This leader judges the people based on their piety first, and their other merits later. Some of the more controversial but talented people choose to avoid his court.
11
 Foreign: -25% worker speed and worker production. This leader rules a people different from his own. While the higher classes in the society are more open-minded, this can be a problem for simpler folks.
 Idealistic: -20% production for all military buildings. This leader doesn’t believe in violent means of solving the conflicts, with obvious implications on his military.
 Isolationist: -25% foreign trade route income. This leader believes in self-sufficiency up to the point of shutting off his borders to outside influences.
 Megalomaniac: -20% wonder production. Why settle for second best, if you can have it all? This leader already sees himself as the ruler of the world, and spends additional effort to commemorate himself with ridiculously huge projects.
 Populist: +25% civic upkeep. This leader owes his success to popular support, and he has to spend extra to keep it.
 Revolutionary: -2 relations with other leaders. This leader came to power violently and thus lacks legitimacy in the eyes of other world leaders.
 Schemer: -40% Great General emergence. This leader can’t stop himself from trying to stab every back turned to him, and views everyone else with inherent mistrust as well. This often leads to purges in officer corps in an effort to put out the conspiracies to overthrow him – real or imaginary.
 Temperamental: -50% great general emergence inside civ borders. This leader will sack any general he sees as overly cautious. He is a firm believer of “offense is the best defense” dogma.
Leader Drawbacks are one thing that I really liked about RI. We should probably come up with some more possibilities for leader drawbacks. I think my problem with the multitude of flavor unique units is that C2C has tried to move away from the "unique stuff based on your starting civilization draw" in favor of letting your civilization develop into particular cultures based on your terrain and available resources. For example, why should a nominally Russian civilization in the middle of a desert be able to train Cossacks? Just my two cents.
I do want to take another look at RI and see what can be pulled out without causing too much confusion. There is a very nice Crystal Palace wonder that I think should be included (with different stats, just borrow the model), and there are probably a few others. I also want to look at the Tech Tree.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@bill2505
One major difference from C2C and Realism Invictus is that like Civ4 Vanilla the civs are set for Realism Invictus at the begining of your game. C2C is in the process of having your civ start out regionally and then specify into your own unique civilization.
I really want to change the names of playable civs so people do not get so confused about this. Just because you pick the Greek civ at the start doesn't mean your culture will end up Greek. In his next year I would really like to use some concepts from Fabula Terra and help grow your culture as you advance through the ages.
Mesoamerican (Aztec or Mayan civs)
Note that you don't have to switch cultures at each era, you can still keep playing the culture you have.
One major difference from C2C and Realism Invictus is that like Civ4 Vanilla the civs are set for Realism Invictus at the begining of your game. C2C is in the process of having your civ start out regionally and then specify into your own unique civilization.
I really want to change the names of playable civs so people do not get so confused about this. Just because you pick the Greek civ at the start doesn't mean your culture will end up Greek. In his next year I would really like to use some concepts from Fabula Terra and help grow your culture as you advance through the ages.
Mesoamerican (Aztec or Mayan civs)
Note that you don't have to switch cultures at each era, you can still keep playing the culture you have.
Attachments
Praetyre
King
Realism Invictus' seperate units don't really make sense in the context of C2C, since their main purpose is cosmetic differentiation, and C2C already does that with the unit styles. As such, you'd be adding a lot of excess units cluttering things up for a benefit you already had in the first place.
I so, so hope there's some way to create a unified naming system that combines Dynamic Civ Names for the "title" of a civ (Republic, Provisional Government, Empire, Khanate etc.) with the actual name of the civ proper altering in accordance with what cultures you possess and what era you are in. Thus, civ's would start off with really weird and esoteric names in the Prehistoric era, like "Haplogroup L1", "The Beaker People", "[City] Culture" and so on, while some combinations might get you more unique monikers (getting Anglo-Saxon, English, Irish, Norman, Pictish, Scottish and Welsh culture all in the same civ would earn it the "British" moniker, similarly for Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish and Viking culture for "Scandinavia", Athenian, Corinthian, Cretan, Macedonia (I've never been quite clear as to whether this is a Greek area or not, feel free to correct me) Minoan and Spartan for "Greece", and so forth.
One easy way to do this would be by making these nations new cultures that require the aforementioned culture to have been built, but grant big bonuses against war weariness and inefficiency in cities that possess the prerequisite culture. The "Nationalism" tech should play a major role in this, as the concept of a single national identity rather than a merely regional one unified as part of a larger political confederation is quite recent, at least in European history. So should civics; unification of this sort could, for example, nullify some of the penalties of civics like "Federation", and there could be corresponding penalties should you have "imperialistic" civics and certain cultures exist largely in your poorer or unhealthier cities. All cultures would be potential breakaway civs; giving much more logic and dynamism to Revolutions as opposed to, say, the Aztecs seceding from China when they've never even met an American civ.
A good historical parallel to this would be in the true meaning of "Deutschland Uber Alles"; that Germany should be a single nation, rather than the wide variety of feudal fiefdoms it had been before that (Bavaria, Brunswick, Prussia, Silesia and so forth).
I so, so hope there's some way to create a unified naming system that combines Dynamic Civ Names for the "title" of a civ (Republic, Provisional Government, Empire, Khanate etc.) with the actual name of the civ proper altering in accordance with what cultures you possess and what era you are in. Thus, civ's would start off with really weird and esoteric names in the Prehistoric era, like "Haplogroup L1", "The Beaker People", "[City] Culture" and so on, while some combinations might get you more unique monikers (getting Anglo-Saxon, English, Irish, Norman, Pictish, Scottish and Welsh culture all in the same civ would earn it the "British" moniker, similarly for Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish and Viking culture for "Scandinavia", Athenian, Corinthian, Cretan, Macedonia (I've never been quite clear as to whether this is a Greek area or not, feel free to correct me) Minoan and Spartan for "Greece", and so forth.
One easy way to do this would be by making these nations new cultures that require the aforementioned culture to have been built, but grant big bonuses against war weariness and inefficiency in cities that possess the prerequisite culture. The "Nationalism" tech should play a major role in this, as the concept of a single national identity rather than a merely regional one unified as part of a larger political confederation is quite recent, at least in European history. So should civics; unification of this sort could, for example, nullify some of the penalties of civics like "Federation", and there could be corresponding penalties should you have "imperialistic" civics and certain cultures exist largely in your poorer or unhealthier cities. All cultures would be potential breakaway civs; giving much more logic and dynamism to Revolutions as opposed to, say, the Aztecs seceding from China when they've never even met an American civ.
A good historical parallel to this would be in the true meaning of "Deutschland Uber Alles"; that Germany should be a single nation, rather than the wide variety of feudal fiefdoms it had been before that (Bavaria, Brunswick, Prussia, Silesia and so forth).
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Praetyre
What we seem to need is some sort of "Culture Tree" where new cultures can branch off of previous cultures or hybridize with other cultures (ex. Spain + Aztec = Mexican).
I also see a problem of real life cultures vs game cultures. For instance what if the Europeans never took over the Americas? How would say the Mesoamerican cultures like the Aztecs or Mayan progressed? What cultures could have developed in later eras? Likewise what about if Asian civs acted like the Colonial Europeans and spread their colonies all over the world? What would say Asian Colonial Australian or American culture look like?
What we seem to need is some sort of "Culture Tree" where new cultures can branch off of previous cultures or hybridize with other cultures (ex. Spain + Aztec = Mexican).
I also see a problem of real life cultures vs game cultures. For instance what if the Europeans never took over the Americas? How would say the Mesoamerican cultures like the Aztecs or Mayan progressed? What cultures could have developed in later eras? Likewise what about if Asian civs acted like the Colonial Europeans and spread their colonies all over the world? What would say Asian Colonial Australian or American culture look like?
Praetyre
King
In the case of the Americas, you might as well ask yourself whether they need to progress (in the sense of developing entirely new cultures and peoples); English culture has existed for about as long as Aztec or Inca culture, and much longer (in terms of how long they lasted) than Maya culture. The youngest culture (AFAIK) is American, and that's at least two centuries old, if not three or four. As for Asiatic colonialism; well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm picturing a giant Chinatown, though there will undoubtedly be some architectural evolution and divergence (compare Australian and American cities to British cities; the outlay and architecture shares common roots, but in many cases has significant divergences architecturally). You also need to look at terrain and resources (as is the very root of our culture system); Chinese-Australians are going to look a lot more like Xiongnu and Mongols than Yangtze, while Chinese-Americans are going to resemble the Han if they choose to settle in the Pacific Midwest or the East Coast. This applies to both art and culture.
Wouldn't this be a good place for the alternate history bits to take root? I mean it is all educated guesses and opinions what could have happened
The easiest way to go about it might even be to ask the community for ideas for divergent paths after the core historical tree is put together so that the ideas could be given place and purpose, and then cull the suggestions for the good/useable ones, it would give a wider-view on the topic at least, but it could also take more time depending on how much the community contributes.
But on the other hand, many people knowing different things about different cultures might be easier then looking up all the cultures and theorizing how they could have turned out.
rightfuture
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,649
bump for continued discussion of integrating the parts that make sense from Realism Invictus.
GiuseppeIII
The Third Giuseppe
I personally don't like the way cultures are right now and would like this way aton better@bill2505
One major difference from C2C and Realism Invictus is that like Civ4 Vanilla the civs are set for Realism Invictus at the begining of your game. C2C is in the process of having your civ start out regionally and then specify into your own unique civilization.
I really want to change the names of playable civs so people do not get so confused about this. Just because you pick the Greek civ at the start doesn't mean your culture will end up Greek. In his next year I would really like to use some concepts from Fabula Terra and help grow your culture as you advance through the ages.
Mesoamerican (Aztec or Mayan civs)
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
There are some plans on the books that will create some new dynamics here but they're still a bit off. It'd build on the method in place so it'd be nice if that doesn't change between now and then.
Besides, I think Hydro's had enough of trying to rework THIS system.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
There was a good leaderhead system proposed that changed over time. Combine that with the dynamic trait system and then throw in the cultural heritage and I think we will eventually get to a point were you can "build your own civ" as you play and the name of the civ will not really matter anymore.
Some related topics ...
- Cultural Heritage
- Dynamic Trait System
- Progenitors
Some related topics ...
- Cultural Heritage
- Dynamic Trait System
- Progenitors
GiuseppeIII
The Third Giuseppe
Just another reason to love and keep playing c2c
Also to bad the progenitors forum was closed. I wonder what happened there
Similar threads
