Discussion in 'Civ4 - Rise of Mankind' started by zappara, Oct 24, 2009.
Yes. If you play w/o revolutions, there aren't any real negative effects from unhappiness or unhealthiness. Revolutions force players to build infrastructure.
I don't let my cities get unhappy or unhealthy - there is a button to stop growth and I use it. I also build infrastructure - that is what the game is about, it is called civilization not war craft
He has a point. War isn't everything.
Your point? I never disagreed with that statement.
Revolutions don't mean more wars, or more fighting. It means more depth and gameplay. It just reveals which players have a poor strategy when it comes to Empire-Stability.
I love revolutions.
I would like to see:
Flavours for each civilization for all buildings/units.
Slightly different stats for those buildings/units.
Different traits for the leadheads, differing slightly from each other not just the current 'scientific' standard bonusses.
Stack aid bonusses & the crowded negative bonus for army's
The above is actually what Total Realism provided but because of CTD's MAF's & the fact it's a mod for Warlords made me look further. Would love to see a collaborative effort from the Total Realism team & RoM team to make one ultimate mod!
I would like to see a list with compatible add-ons to enhance my game, currently waiting for Affores to complete his 1.4 modmod pack. I want to use blue marble too, is it compatible?
I prefer to keep my game as stable as possible!
And thanks for all the work!
I strongly disagree. That statement is just not true.
If it was I wouldn't need to build every Health and Happiness building or wonder to keep my cities growing or producing. I could just build production and military and therefore play at a higher level. Which in turn would make me more dissatisfied because I would be claiming the AI is too weak. Or that the game is sooo unbalanced.
Sorry afforess but I have to call you out on that one.
Unhappiness causes one citizen not to work, unhealthiness costs 1 , whoop-dee-doo. It doesn't even start to get detrimental until you get in the neighborhood of 10-20 unhealthiness or 3-5 unhappy.
Try doing that in the real world...
I love playing RoM because of Revolutions. In fact, there are a couple of larger Earth maps that don't have Revolutions in RoM, so I just don't play them.
I like the dynamics of it. States fracture and crumble and split--that's history.
Afforess, I agree 100% with your comment. Without any real threat to growth, you can deal some unhappiness and some unhealthiness. I don't tolerate either, personally.
As for civics, it should be said that your Civ and your leader traits go a long way in determining how you play your civics. There sacrifice in every choice on one hand, and on the other, there is no perfect set of civics to choose.
It sucks that if you don't use Slavery, for example, you're stuck with Barter until you get Mercantilism. But thems the breaks. Likewise, if you don't found a religion, you may have a better time with some of the other religion civics that favor multi-religion Civs.
I'm sure every one has their own "pet" religion they go for--mine is Judaism because it helps so much with the cash flow.
Anyway, long story short, Revolutions is an enhancement for me. It demands more disciplined play, and it creates more opportunities.
As far as being "boxed in and overun", you have 1) enemy cities to take rather than build your own and 2) build the right defensive units and buildings to withstand an assault. Yeah, it sucks to be underseige, but look at the last few hundred years of the Byzantine Empire before the Turks took Constantiniople.
That's history, brother.
What!??? We must be playing an entirely Different RoM then! Unhealthiness costs only 1 food? I know we are playing different Mods now. "Unhappiness causes one citizen not to work", even 1 red citizen can be critical in a competitive game.
Again What!?? Exaggeration is now creeping in. It only takes a few of each to cause major production slowdowns. Multiply that by several cities and the race against the AI is seriously compromised.
What does this have to do with any of this?
Look you love REV, I know that. I don't, and you know that. But don't dis me with whoop-dee-doo statements. That's just unthoughtful. I think better of you than that.
I'm not sure what's wrong with those statements. RoM never changed the way it worked, unhappiness costs 1 citizen, unhealthiness 1 food. Now, if you are playing with Revolutions, then it's a different game.
I wish I was. I've played games without revolutions, and basically could ignore 2-3 unhappiness. Only if the city started starving did I finally wander over and fix the problem. After all, it's not like it mattered.
Also, in revolutions, you can't just be satisified by no unhappiness. That's not good enough. Often, you need 3-5 excess happiness in each city, or the cities negative modifiers, at least in the early game, can really weigh them down.
What would take to be able to work out a "timber" resource? I'd like to try, but I think I need to research the mechanics a bit.
I would need it to not only act as a resource, but to be a requirement for seige units and for wooden ships in the medieval era.
I'm thinking that every five or so tiles of forest could equal one timber resource. My reasoning is that some areas either have no forest, or if they did, they cut them all down. The area of modern Russia on the Demographica map has a ton of forests, and historically Russia was a major supplier of timber for ship building. I imagine they are still an importnat source today, but it's not something I've looked into.
As for revolutions:
I tried to use them in previous versions and got in extreme trouble. It seemed to me that it was very difficult to manage my not so big empire. Not to mention that when one of my best cities finally revolted, it became all of a sudden huge military power (respectively to my defense) with numerous units which started to spawn across my country in a blitz war.
I realize that my opinion may not be justified. I played many games since then and gained some experience in RoM, so maybe I will try revolutions again. Anyway I see this option as an important addition, but mostly for best players. Before I try it again I would like to play few games to check the new AI and its power. I just started a new game and I see that barbarians are so active (land and see) that it keeps me busy very much (especially the protection of my water installations). So I don't want to make the game even more difficult at this moment.
I must agree with Afforess though when it comes to unhealthiness and unhappiness. It costs you one food or one person who is not working. And it is true that you may ignore it later in the game. Not in early stages though, when one citizen could decide, if the city is growing or shrinking. But as I remember from 2.71, my problem in XVI and XVII century was rather to make the restrict the city growth, since I got cities of +20 or +30 food each turn thank to various improvements and techs. Unhealthiness was kind of useful in that process but I must admit I don't like to see yellow smoke around my cities it makes me feel that I'm a bad leader who does not care about my citizens
Once you adopt to revolutions, it's easy. Just avoid certain combinations like revolution-supporting civics, too large empire too early on, not enough garrison troops in the cities, not enough money in your treasury, different religions etc. Once you know what to avoid, you don't have revolutions anymore. To build a world/national wonder, to capture a city now and then, having a religious capital, bribing rumoring cities once in a while etc. helps a lot. You should try revoultions, it's really fun to master it - maybe try to play with it enabled but on a bit lower difficulty level?
Thank you for advice, I'm really going to try it sooner or later. Due to lack of time, I never got a chance to REALLY learn all the flavours of RoM. I usually played a game ot two, and then newer version appeared Then I played one "introductionary" game (just to know the new features) and then.......... a newer version appeared. And so on
I know that revolutions make you keep a solid garrison, which may be good anyway since the AI seems to be improved in newest version. So I'm expecting more wars and attacks from AI than i.e. in 2.7.
Do the revolutions cause the game to run slower? It should, since revolutions are causing divisions and creations of new rebel civs, so i.e. you start with 10 and then all of a sudden you can have 15 or more.
Not a long time ago my style of playing became "imperial" - I usually started with creating as big army as possible (warriors and spearmen, at least 7-10 units) and then I always captured 3-4 closest civs on by one, and their capitals (usually great cities in the future since computer is choosing best locations for such cities) designated as the centers of my future huge empire. After that, I filled the space with tens of cities. I could ignore the costs by issuing caravans. I played 2-3 games like this and it was very boring as a result.
Recently I came to conclusion that caravans are the biggest cheat (OK, reloading the save is quite as bad ) in the game and I stopped to use it at all. I guess revolutions would not allow me to use my "genius" strategy at all, would it?
First of all, caravans seemed like a cheat to me as well and with new version 2.8 they only give 170 instead of 420/480 now as I experienced^^
Yeah and playing imperial like you described works with revolutions activated as well - as long as you can capture new cities...
Once the resupply with troops gets thinner you will have an imploding empire quite fast. New rule is: raze far away cities asp, sell their infastructure first, though (ctrl+a),
build new cities close to capital, the costs will be much lower. Try to have always one city less than you want as long as you can't afford to finance it without foreign incomes (pillaging/tribute/trades etc) - as those can always break up you have to be able to be independent of circumstances. Plan your economy ahead, try to improve it coin by coin in the beginning, this is essential---
I wish you a long and fascinating new game with 2.8!
I always thought that they give 220..... The change for 170 is no change for me so I'm not going to use them anyway.
Besides thank you again for your tips. I will definetely use revolutions in the next games,
so they may be helpful for me.
That depends on the speed level, I think - as it changes the production cost of units and buildings. I had 420 for a normal carvan mission at snail speed and 480 for overseas trade mission. Now, snail speed as well, both changed to 170.
I agree that the civics should be balanced, but it can be done in a modmod.
Some civics are simply too powerfull, especially if you have played the game a couple of times and know how to make a "set-up". Free Church is propably the best civic in the game. While secularism seems pointless. Why did most modern countries seperate the state and religion?
Here is a list of Civics I would never pick (While I mostly am a builder, I will do my conquering):
Despotism (A nasty -20% research in a time where you want to move forward, not backward. Besides it comes (for me) after monarchy.)
Bourgeois (useless compared to alternatives)
Marxist (underpowered compared to how late it is. Only usefull for "roleplaying")
Mercantile (Relatively close to Free Market which is a lot better. There was some talks about moving it and/or renaming it to guilds)
Planned and regulated are options I never consider due to their weakness compared to the others.
Religious civics : There seem to be only 1 usefull, and that is free church. While prophets can be a "must" if you get an early religion, and divine cult can help with happiness in the early times, state church, intolerant, secularism and especially atheism seems completely underpowered compared to the huge amount of bonuses that free church gives.
Welfare civics is propably the best balanced civic group, though I usually get "stuck" in the end on corporatism (but that is propably because I added Guilds and extra Corporations), so there is thousands of gold to be saved there) For other civplayers subsidized and socialised might be better choices. So I wouldnt touch anything in this group.
While this is my opinion I understand that others have different strategies, but to pick civics to simply roleplay is not an option for me. I will play the best of my abillity and wont starve my cities or delete my units based on my leader.
I have to agree to every single conclusion you make, they cover my experiences 100% (exept I usually change free church to atheism later on [or earlier if I have the pagoda wonder] but that may be a roleplaying/diplomatic [civs of different religion don't hate you so much anymore after having no state religion] part as well like you wrote about marxism...^^)
Separate names with a comma.