Vox Populi or Realism Invictus?

[Lumpyacidfish]

Hello!
I played Vox Populi some time ago.
But a few things bothered me, so I went back to good old Civ 4 Realism Invictus.
Now I wanted to ask again if some things have changed?
- It bothered me that enemy infrastructure could not be destroyed.
- Are there real alliances now like in Civ 4? In my memory there were only research agreements over certain times.
- Are there still those instant bonuses for one-time population growth?
- The happiness system still ensures that cities don't have to be specialized and every city basically has to build everything, right?
- RI has a stability system that makes it possible to harm competitors without having to declare war on them. Is there something similar in VOX Populi?
- In Realism invictus there is the possibility to process resources, is there something similar in Vox Populi?
- In Realism invictus there are resources that accelerate the construction of wonders of the world. This makes the competition for resources and the construction of wonders more satisfying. Is there anything like this in Vox Populi?
- What I missed in Civ 4 is the building of mines for resources, so that it is only possible to develop new resources by building nearby cities. Is this also the case in VOX Populi?
- And last but not least: Is there a good German translation for Vox Populi?

Thank you very much for your help

I prefer everything civ 4 does over 5 with it's systems but it is impossible to get into because unit stacking is inherently a bad mechanic
you can learn the rock paper scissors of combat but its just numbers on a screen, combat is nothing but constantly pumping out units depending on the counters you need and sending them to a spot it is not engaging
so for a game that is mainly about moving around units (unless you have fun watching numbers go up looking at cities produce stuff per turn) civ 5 is always the go to
vox populi does a good job of adding civ 4 mechanics into 5

 

[Tabris]

I prefer everything civ 4 does over 5 with it's systems but it is impossible to get into because unit stacking is inherently a bad mechanic
you can learn the rock paper scissors of combat but its just numbers on a screen, combat is nothing but constantly pumping out units depending on the counters you need and sending them to a spot it is not engaging
so for a game that is mainly about moving around units (unless you have fun watching numbers go up looking at cities produce stuff per turn) civ 5 is always the go to
vox populi does a good job of adding civ 4 mechanics into 5

Realism Invictus does somewhat limit the unit stacking thanks to it's supply mechanics. Essentially the more units you have in a tile the more you get penalized. This and the support system means that you will have several armies instead of a single doomstack. It's not the same as one unit per tile, if are more into that, however.

 

[Lumpyacidfish]

Realism Invictus does somewhat limit the unit stacking thanks to it's supply mechanics. Essentially the more units you have in a tile the more you get penalized. This and the support system means that you will have several armies instead of a single doomstack. It's not the same as one unit per tile, if are more into that, however.

I know that, Invictus realism actually makes the game more bearable for me. Problem is it still has stacked unit combat that fight with dice rolls it is really annoying and boring. I want to spend production to make things other than units but you are forced to keep spamming units still. Instead of giant stacks just make a **** ton of small ones. It is better but still not good.
I love having to make a bunch of each unit type to do the pokemon rock paper scissors counters on units. I love watching a 93% victory lose because 93% is not 100%. I love having to sacrifice a dozen catapults to take a city so when I have to take another one I need to crank out a dozen more for the meat grinder because you cant starve out a cities army only its population.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I know that, Invictus realism actually makes the game more bearable for me. Problem is it still has stacked unit combat that fight with dice rolls it is really annoying and boring. I want to spend production to make things other than units but you are forced to keep spamming units still. Instead of giant stacks just make a horsehocky ton of small ones. It is better but still not good.
I love having to make a bunch of each unit type to do the pokemon rock paper scissors counters on units. I love watching a 93% victory lose because 93% is not 100%. I love having to sacrifice a dozen catapults to take a city so when I have to take another one I need to crank out a dozen more for the meat grinder because you cant starve out a cities army only its population.

Have you actually played through a full campaign of Realism Invictus? You are absolutely doomed if you only build units and avoid the plethora of ultimately necessary buildings which don't exist in the base game, and your halved efficiency with wealth and research make those only situationally attractive alternatives against both. It seems that you're being sarcastic towards the end, but that's not how siege works in RI, and it tempts me to say that you probably also love how undefended cities can natively throw rocks hundreds of miles away to seriously check an unopposed attacker, and that hexagons offer greater tactical complexity of movement for the obvious reason that they have more sides than squares!

 

[Lumpyacidfish]

Have you actually played through a full campaign of Realism Invictus? You are absolutely doomed if you only build units and avoid the plethora of ultimately necessary buildings which don't exist in the base game, and your halved efficiency with wealth and research make those only situationally attractive alternatives against both. It seems that you're being sarcastic towards the end, but that's not how siege works in RI, and it tempts me to say that you probably also love how undefended cities can natively throw rocks hundreds of miles away to seriously check an unopposed attacker, and that hexagons offer greater tactical complexity of movement for the obvious reason that they have more sides than squares!

vox populi fixes the undefended cities
squares, hexigons, it really doesnt matter in civ 4 you could move diagonally
dice roll combat just isnt fun, the combat I want to see in civ is what you see in age of wonders

 

[Tabris]

vox populi fixes the undefended cities
squares, hexigons, it really doesnt matter in civ 4 you could move diagonally
dice roll combat just isnt fun, the combat I want to see in civ is what you see in age of wonders

So having a separate combat map? Would be nice but would require an entire new engine. Personally I would like either that or a system in which you command armies instead on single units per tile. Feels weird to me from a immersion standpoint considering the map sizes and how much a hex or square should be able to represent.

 

[Lumpyacidfish]

So having a separate combat map? Would be nice but would require an entire new engine. Personally I would like either that or a system in which you command armies instead on single units per tile. Feels weird to me from a immersion standpoint considering the map sizes and how much a hex or square should be able to represent

also weird considering how a long a turn is in the ancient era. the battle that took 500 years