4.0 docs are up!

[debux]

1) Probably due to your settings, I haven't had that issue myself. Are the weird looking agents from a specific faction, or in general?

2) Can you specify what units? There could be a good reason behind it, but it's hard to say if we don't know what unit it is.

3) Probably due to some issue with armies merging, or some rebelling settlement. Glad to see you got through it.

[GraaEminense]

Regarding 1), they're not as "weird looking" as "really anonymous". They just don't show up well, especially not when wearing green in the forest but all could use a bit of a polish. My spies aren't much help spotting enemy spies if I can't see them on the map.

Regarding 2), My Avernii start out with 2 "Warband" and a "Skirmisher Warband", all suspiciously similar to their faction units "Warband" and "Celtic Skirmishers" (same stats, same picture, same name for one of them) except they don't count as the same units for retraining/merging purposes. The same is the case for the Avernii "Barbarian Light Cavalry".

On the other hand, the "Gallic Swordsmen" and "Noble Cavalry" mercenaries are mergable with the faction versions. I haven't tested the Gallic Slingers yet.

I like my mercs, but this is rather annoying. Same picture should mean same unit for all purposes, I've been wasting quite a bit of time moving the wrong units around.

Edit: Since I've pushed into Iberia, I've found 2 identical units of Caetrati Cavalry in the merc pool. Exactly the same, except one costs a bit more.

3) is not disastrous as the autosave works, but just thought I'd give the heads-up anyway.

[debux]

1) Well, I don't recall having much trouble finding my spy when I tried starting an Arverni campaign (I realized after like 10 turns that I had forgotten to turn off the script from a previous campaign, being unable to save my progress). I usually just find them due to their high LoS (just look for agents/characters wherever there is no FoW).

2) It mostly because the mod is still beta, I'd believe. I just find it odd that they aren't the same unit, when they should be. I'm guessing that you're given AoR units at the beginning, and you were trying to recruit them in a city that doesn't allow you to recruit AoR units (which I guess should be corrected for the full, complete release). But it's mostly because many units are still lacking appropriate unit cards and such.

Oh, and the more expensive merc caetrati cav should have more experience, methinks.

[Carados]

Great mod, minor annoyances:

1) Agents don't show up well on the strategic map, but that may be because of visual settings? I use a pretty low-end computer. Took me several turns to find out the beta still gave me starting agents...

They are a bit awkward, I have missed them myself sometimes
Not sure what I can do about that, they aren't out models/skins so it could be a design issue that's the problem, but I'll see about trying to make them easier to see.

Unless someone else wants to do it for us?

2) Mercenary unit with the same picture, stats and nearly same name as faction units. Especially when they are part of your starting army. Why do I start with mercs instead of an identical faction unit, and why can't the mercs just be the same unit (and thus mergeable/retrainable)? Whyyyy?

Two reason. We've had to do a lot of shuffling around to try and work around the white unit card problem that we're getting. And we forgot...

A list of the suspect units would be very helpful though! Since you're very passionate about this issue, do you want to start a new thread up and list the ones you aren't happy about?

3) Random "RTW has stopped working" when cycling through the AI factions. No idea why, runs fine on reloading autosave.

Eh, there's a rogue CTD going around that no one has managed to pin down yet, but it seems to occur during the Seleucids turn more than anything else. They've probably got either a bogus recruitment option or there is a name issue knocking about. Both of which I haven't looked into yet because it will take too long and we've both been on an extended break from modding these past couple of months. Since it isn't usually terminal (as you've discovered), it hasn't been a top priority for me.

[GraaEminense]

Two reason. We've had to do a lot of shuffling around to try and work around the white unit card problem that we're getting. And we forgot...

A list of the suspect units would be very helpful though! Since you're very passionate about this issue, do you want to start a new thread up and list the ones you aren't happy about?

Fair enough

I'll get on it. Expect updates as I progress further and try out different factions.

[Garensterz]

Any updates? Is it even possible for this mod to be released? This is truly one of my most anticipated mods in my list.

[debux]

I wish... the mod members that I remember of, Carados and Quinn, haven't logged on for a while. There might be hope of them coming back at some point, but it won't be for a while.

I had done a few balance changes, not much, but never finished them. Sadly, I don't have the computer where I made those changes, so I can't contribute for now. Hopefully some has rebalanced cav for it to actually do its job

[Quinn Inuit]

This is a belated "thank you" for these suggestions. I'll work them in. +Rep!

[debux]

HE LIVES! HE LIIIIIIIVEEEEEES

sorry, but I really thought all development was going to be stopped with the inactivity around here. It's nice to see that you're logging on again, at least (I'm trying hard not to expect progress from this mod). I hope everything has been okay on your side (not necessarily mod related)

Although, to be honest, I was unfaithful to my ExRM Ptolemaic campaign and have started dating XC openly... the economic balance they have achieved is remarkable!

[Quinn Inuit]

Heh, yeah, I had to get my head around some stuff. I'm alright, though.

Development has picked back up a bit. I've been polishing some stuff up. Hunted down one obscure CTD tonight.

I'm curious, how does XC handle its economy?

Also, let me know if you've any suggestions on how to handle hoplite formation/spacing. I've removed short_pike, but I'm concerned that they'll get out of formation without it.

[ahowl11]

It's actually a surprise to see you around debux..

[debux]

Heh, yeah, I had to get my head around some stuff. I'm alright, though.

Development has picked back up a bit. I've been polishing some stuff up. Hunted down one obscure CTD tonight.

I'm curious, how does XC handle its economy?

Also, let me know if you've any suggestions on how to handle hoplite formation/spacing. I've removed short_pike, but I'm concerned that they'll get out of formation without it.

Good to know! It's good to see that you've got your priorities straight at least, I'm still struggling with being able to leave gaming a side for the more important stuff.

Also good to see progress there I wish I could give you an immediate solution to the hoplite spacing/formation issue. It's been a while since I've fiddled around with unit attributes. And to be honest, I can't even remember what made hoplite spacing so weird in the latest official release! I might try to help you out, but I can't promise much, at least in the short term.

XC gives severe economic penalties to regional government buildings, that go descending in value the further you develop your local administration and you secure it, while giving you big public order bonuses to make up for it. It tries to simulate the progressive assimilation of a region as a process embodied in a building, so you have to pay extra (expressed in deductions of regional income) in order to maintain the extensive garrisoning (which is imaginary, expressed in law and entertainment bonuses) which helps you keep the recently conquered region under control. The longer you are able to hold and secure your administration, less is deducted from the regional income, but at the same time, you get less public order bonuses.

In the starting phase it's really extreme (I think it was like a 50% deduction from tax and trade income, alongside with a deduction to region growth, but for 100-80 bonus points of law and entertainment), but you can either choose to set the region as an allied tributary (a moderate reduction of 20% to trade and taxes, but takes a lot less time to establish, plus +40 bonus in public order) or to integrate the region into your own administration, which takes like 14 turns to complete (with three different phases, during which the penalties and the bonuses are progressively reduced and eliminated). This way, it's really hard for recently conquered regions to actually be economically efficient, unless you are willing to go the "easy" way, but having to loose part of the income the region generates, alongside not being able to build and train some of the factional buildings and troops. They also use the "culture"(/religion) feature from BI, which makes region assimilation even harder (although the religion feature in BI itself was already kind of wonky, sometimes I really have to make an effort in role-playing to give a reasonable explanation to some of the events that happen).

Somehow, 100 turns into my Roman campaign, I have never surpassed the 50k mark. I think they might have some scripts behind (also, I am trying to expand historically, so I'm barely holding italy, the islands of the western mediterranean, cisalpine and transalpine gaul, and southern and western greece, which explains a bit why I still haven't achieved the snowball moment of TW campaigns). But the fact that it really takes time to integrate a region into the factional economic system makes me believe that it plays a fundamental part in the economic balance they have achieved.

(sorry if this has been hard to read, last week was crazy and I'm still recovering )

@ahowl, it's really hard to stay away from TW and gaming, in general, for me. I'm really trying to do an effort, but I can't help popping in here every now and then to see if there to see what's going on (Exilian is too important for me to have such a casual posture towards that forum). Honestly, it feels good not to have so many internet responsibilities.

[Quinn Inuit]

Good to know! It's good to see that you've got your priorities straight at least, I'm still struggling with being able to leave gaming a side for the more important stuff.

I know what you mean, and wish you the best of luck.

The people are much harder to time-balance than actual gaming. I'm slowly working my way through Painkiller and the first couple of Arkham games, but those are a lot easier to pick up and put down than social roles.

Also good to see progress there I wish I could give you an immediate solution to the hoplite spacing/formation issue. It's been a while since I've fiddled around with unit attributes. And to be honest, I can't even remember what made hoplite spacing so weird in the latest official release! I might try to help you out, but I can't promise much, at least in the short term.

OK, let me know if you have any suggestions for the next beta release.

XC gives severe economic penalties to regional government buildings, that go descending in value the further you develop your local administration and you secure it, while giving you big public order bonuses to make up for it. It tries to simulate the progressive assimilation of a region as a process embodied in a building, so you have to pay extra (expressed in deductions of regional income) in order to maintain the extensive garrisoning (which is imaginary, expressed in law and entertainment bonuses) which helps you keep the recently conquered region under control. The longer you are able to hold and secure your administration, less is deducted from the regional income, but at the same time, you get less public order bonuses.

In the starting phase it's really extreme (I think it was like a 50% deduction from tax and trade income, alongside with a deduction to region growth, but for 100-80 bonus points of law and entertainment), but you can either choose to set the region as an allied tributary (a moderate reduction of 20% to trade and taxes, but takes a lot less time to establish, plus +40 bonus in public order) or to integrate the region into your own administration, which takes like 14 turns to complete (with three different phases, during which the penalties and the bonuses are progressively reduced and eliminated). This way, it's really hard for recently conquered regions to actually be economically efficient, unless you are willing to go the "easy" way, but having to loose part of the income the region generates, alongside not being able to build and train some of the factional buildings and troops. They also use the "culture"(/religion) feature from BI, which makes region assimilation even harder (although the religion feature in BI itself was already kind of wonky, sometimes I really have to make an effort in role-playing to give a reasonable explanation to some of the events that happen).

Interesting! That's exactly how the version I have in dev right now works. The existing beta version works kind of like that, but the way we had the bonuses structured made it less obvious. The "overlord" or "client kingdom" tracks function exactly like "allied tributary," too. I get the impression they're doing something very different with law/entertainment, though.

Somehow, 100 turns into my Roman campaign, I have never surpassed the 50k mark. I think they might have some scripts behind (also, I am trying to expand historically, so I'm barely holding italy, the islands of the western mediterranean, cisalpine and transalpine gaul, and southern and western greece, which explains a bit why I still haven't achieved the snowball moment of TW campaigns). But the fact that it really takes time to integrate a region into the factional economic system makes me believe that it plays a fundamental part in the economic balance they have achieved.

(sorry if this has been hard to read, last week was crazy and I'm still recovering )

Quite alright. That makes perfect sense.

I'm curious, have you noticed it's easier to accumulate money in the ExRM v4? We've tried to handle everything without the use of scripts to bring down wealth accumulation. That takes away an option for us, but we thought it was fairer to the player.

If it is too easy to accumulate money, one option would be to increase the default happiness penalty in each settlement. That would require more troops or investment in buildings, either of which should act as an economic drain and brake on expansion.

I'm also considering making a formal recommendation to users to set their default strat map difficulty to "hard." If I did so, I'd probably provide a scripted money bonus to the player to even it out a bit. Any thoughts?

[debux]

Well, from my point of view, the fact that you can easily drop a game to resume a social role seems quite positive. I wish you good luck to you as well! Life really needs something similar to a debug console

Interesting! That's exactly how the version I have in dev right now works. The existing beta version works kind of like that, but the way we had the bonuses structured made it less obvious. The "overlord" or "client kingdom" tracks function exactly like "allied tributary," too. I get the impression they're doing something very different with law/entertainment, though.

I do remember the two choices being present in ExRM (I couldn't remember the names though), but I didn't remember the bonuses. I do remember that the bonuses weren't as big as they are in XC. Having a client kingdom (and the income penalties it imposes) really feels like your empire is being held back from the real capacity it can achieve, while at the same time, it feels like a viable option for a potentially troublesome region you have just conquered. Once it stops being potentially dangerous, you can start the full assimilation process, and reap the fruits of not having a local government diminishing your income.

After some pondering, I believe the law/entertainment bonuses are mostly due to the usage of the culture feature (especially, when you're switching from one to the other). But it is a really helpful tool to use, especially when unrest is high and there are high penalties to public order (like cultural differences, distance to capital, or simply high squalor), making settlement population exterminations something really rare. Also, the names and the descriptions they have used for the buildings that represent the integration phases ("Military Occupation", "Pacification", "Stationary Garrisoning" & "Factional Government", but for the client kingdom you jump straight from "Military Occupation") fit quite well with the process they try to simulate, which made me love their system quite a bit.

I'm not saying something like ExRM's system sucked and should be replaced, but I found their system brilliant... everything makes sense to me in it. Not that ExRM's doesn't, but maybe some of their elements could be imitated as you guys see fit.

I'm curious, have you noticed it's easier to accumulate money in the ExRM v4? We've tried to handle everything without the use of scripts to bring down wealth accumulation. That takes away an option for us, but we thought it was fairer to the player.

If it is too easy to accumulate money, one option would be to increase the default happiness penalty in each settlement. That would require more troops or investment in buildings, either of which should act as an economic drain and brake on expansion.

I'm also considering making a formal recommendation to users to set their default strat map difficulty to "hard." If I did so, I'd probably provide a scripted money bonus to the player to even it out a bit. Any thoughts?

I do remember you guys not using scripts at all, and I appreciate that. Now that I come to think about it, my experience came from my ptolemaic campaign, which isn't particularly hard (especially money-wise, once you get Petra and the Levant it's all really easy). And I think I'm getting to a similar phase in my Roman campaign (although it could be simply because I'm trying very hard not to overextend with my army upkeep, half of my cities are waiting to grow and I just sacked Macedon , but only time will tell if it's like so.

From what I've gathered, it is already quite hard enough to have good finances in ExRM, especially in the start. Adding more penalties would just make expansion harder (even more so for the AI). My ptolemaic campaign (on medium difficulty settings, if not easy) must be an exception.

At most, I'd recommend adding more income penalties for the starting phases of establishing your government in a recently conquered settlement, making expansion a little slower (in the sense of capturing region after region). This would also make you feel that it's hard to integrate your recently conquered regions into your "factional" economy. Although to be honest, I don't know much about economical history of this period, so I wouldn't be so sure to talk about economy in a region being disrupted after the conquest of another faction (it makes sense today though).

[Quinn Inuit]

Well, from my point of view, the fact that you can easily drop a game to resume a social role seems quite positive. I wish you good luck to you as well! Life really needs something similar to a debug console

Thanks! I completely agree about the need for a debug console for life. Not even for hacks, either...just figuring out why some stuff doesn't work, or why a relationship has bugged out all of a sudden.

I do remember the two choices being present in ExRM (I couldn't remember the names though), but I didn't remember the bonuses. I do remember that the bonuses weren't as big as they are in XC. Having a client kingdom (and the income penalties it imposes) really feels like your empire is being held back from the real capacity it can achieve, while at the same time, it feels like a viable option for a potentially troublesome region you have just conquered. Once it stops being potentially dangerous, you can start the full assimilation process, and reap the fruits of not having a local government diminishing your income.

I see. I think you'll find the difference between the two choices is a little starker in the next beta, but I'm not sure I want to take it to XC levels.

After some pondering, I believe the law/entertainment bonuses are mostly due to the usage of the culture feature (especially, when you're switching from one to the other).

Oh, right, I totally forgot about culture! Tells you how long I've been out of this.

We thought about using culture, but decided not to go for it. If we implemented it, then we'd be stuck with fewer cultures than we'd want, and we'd be forced to make assimilation either too easy (for regions of your own culture) or too hard (for regions that weren't). The former wouldn't be so bad if we could have functionally more cultures, but it just doesn't work.

But it is a really helpful tool to use, especially when unrest is high and there are high penalties to public order (like cultural differences, distance to capital, or simply high squalor), making settlement population exterminations something really rare. Also, the names and the descriptions they have used for the buildings that represent the integration phases ("Military Occupation", "Pacification", "Stationary Garrisoning" & "Factional Government", but for the client kingdom you jump straight from "Military Occupation") fit quite well with the process they try to simulate, which made me love their system quite a bit.

I'm not saying something like ExRM's system sucked and should be replaced, but I found their system brilliant... everything makes sense to me in it. Not that ExRM's doesn't, but maybe some of their elements could be imitated as you guys see fit.

OK. I'll check that out. Would you mind taking a look at what we do the next time you fire up a game, though, and letting me know if you see any places you might suggest integrating some of those concepts?

I do remember you guys not using scripts at all, and I appreciate that. Now that I come to think about it, my experience came from my ptolemaic campaign, which isn't particularly hard (especially money-wise, once you get Petra and the Levant it's all really easy). And I think I'm getting to a similar phase in my Roman campaign (although it could be simply because I'm trying very hard not to overextend with my army upkeep, half of my cities are waiting to grow and I just sacked Macedon , but only time will tell if it's like so.

Thanks.

Hmmm...the Ptollies are a tough faction to balance. On the one hand, they have a monster economy. On the other hand, their choice to use their Hellenes almost exclusively as part of the farming economy (instead of giving them much of a military role) made them much easier for even the weaker late Seleucid Empire to defeat. I just find it very difficult to use the game engine to replicate their weaknesses the way we've done with some other factions.

From what I've gathered, it is already quite hard enough to have good finances in ExRM, especially in the start. Adding more penalties would just make expansion harder (even more so for the AI). My ptolemaic campaign (on medium difficulty settings, if not easy) must be an exception.

At most, I'd recommend adding more income penalties for the starting phases of establishing your government in a recently conquered settlement, making expansion a little slower (in the sense of capturing region after region). This would also make you feel that it's hard to integrate your recently conquered regions into your "factional" economy. Although to be honest, I don't know much about economical history of this period, so I wouldn't be so sure to talk about economy in a region being disrupted after the conquest of another faction (it makes sense today though).

OK. I've actually done precisely that in dev. The original bonus/penalty structure for the colonization tree had a serious structural flaw that made the first building much more valuable than it should have been. (It resulted from the way the penalties were applied. I've literally flipped where the bonuses and penalties are applied in dev to avert the problem.) Economic growth is somewhat more difficult now, and the player isn't given unintended bonuses or incentives to play in an unrealistic manner from the colonization tree.

[sere]

I'm also considering making a formal recommendation to users to set their default strat map difficulty to "hard." If I did so, I'd probably provide a scripted money bonus to the player to even it out a bit. Any thoughts?

From what I've gathered, it is already quite hard enough to have good finances in ExRM, especially in the start. Adding more penalties would just make expansion harder (even more so for the AI). My ptolemaic campaign (on medium difficulty settings, if not easy) must be an exception.

I agree with debux. Nevertheless, a "hard" difficulty setting could make the game more interesting, if it enabled the AI to put up a better fight (i.e. giving it some economic boni) without giving additional economic penalties to the player. I don't know how the different difficulty settings work in detail. In "medium" the AI often seems to focus on recruiting cheap skirmisher units, as it looks like it cannot afford a lot of better units. The AI seems to be especially reluctant to recruit (heavy) cavalry. Then again, against me playing as Baktria, the Seleucid Empire took up a decent fight. But that might have only been the case because the Seleucid Empire is quite an economic powerhouse from the get-go, just because they own so much territory. In the hands of player, the Seleucids can develop into an economic--and therefore military--superpower in a relatively short amount of time, if the player is willing and able to carefully manage the whole Empire from turn #1 onwards... if not, the Seleucid economy might still roll quite fine. So Ptolemaic Egypt is not the only exception, as far as I can say. In contrast, the start of a Baktria campaign is considerably challenging from an economic standpoint.

[Quinn Inuit]

I agree with debux. Nevertheless, a "hard" difficulty setting could make the game more interesting, if it enabled the AI to put up a better fight (i.e. giving it some economic boni) without giving additional economic penalties to the player. I don't know how the different difficulty settings work in detail. In "medium" the AI often seems to focus on recruiting cheap skirmisher units, as it looks like it cannot afford a lot of better units. The AI seems to be especially reluctant to recruit (heavy) cavalry.

Yeah, I'm worried my economic changes are choking the AI, even with a money script to keep them out of the red.

I believe the "hard" campaign difficulty makes the AI much more aggressive, especially the rebels, and also gives all AI factions 5000/turn.

I don't want to disadvantage the player, but I do want them to take advantage of the tougher AI. That's why I was pondering a 5000/turn player bonus, too. That would help, but with multiple AIs going after you 1x5k wouldn't really make up for it. Still, we want to keep it reasonably fair. Hmmm...I could also take some money away from the AI every turn.

Then again, against me playing as Baktria, the Seleucid Empire took up a decent fight. But that might have only been the case because the Seleucid Empire is quite an economic powerhouse from the get-go, just because they own so much territory. In the hands of player, the Seleucids can develop into an economic--and therefore military--superpower in a relatively short amount of time, if the player is willing and able to carefully manage the whole Empire from turn #1 onwards... if not, the Seleucid economy might still roll quite fine. So Ptolemaic Egypt is not the only exception, as far as I can say. In contrast, the start of a Baktria campaign is considerably challenging from an economic standpoint.

Good point. I wish I had enough factions to give the Seleucids a shadow faction show the rampant disloyalty problems they had with that huge empire IRL.

As for Bactria, you found it difficult? I thought it would be pretty easy given how isolated it is from other major factions and how easy it is to snag Maracanda and Alexandria Eschate from the Seleucids. Was it just a lack of money that gave you trouble?

[sere]

I don't want to disadvantage the player, but I do want them to take advantage of the tougher AI. That's why I was pondering a 5000/turn player bonus, too. That would help, but with multiple AIs going after you 1x5k wouldn't really make up for it. Still, we want to keep it reasonably fair. Hmmm...I could also take some money away from the AI every turn.

Hard difficulty with a reduced monetary bonus for the AI (so that the +5000 per turn are, let's say, halfened) sounds like a reasonable idea; it would be worth testing indeed, imho.

Good point. I wish I had enough factions to give the Seleucids a shadow faction show the rampant disloyalty problems they had with that huge empire IRL.

Yeah, but I like that you added culture penalties to the upper satrapies. It does make it much harder to control these cities at the beginning of the game, at least until they grow and become more "hellenised", which can take quite some time. Maybe you could go further down this route. (First idea: increase city levels in Rhagai, Saramana (?; prov: Hyrcania) without increasing population -> longer time needed until they reach the next level; see Ekabatana for example)

As for Bactria, you found it difficult? I thought it would be pretty easy given how isolated it is from other major factions and how easy it is to snag Maracanda and Alexandria Eschate from the Seleucids. Was it just a lack of money that gave you trouble?

The first few turns were challenging because Baktria has negative income until you capture one or two settlements. Further, I decided to expand towards India first; also, the Seleucids did not lose their cities in the Far East, they even attacked me while I was still busy in India and before my economy was quite ready to deal with fighting on two fronts.
Plus, it was my first campaign in ExRM

[Quinn Inuit]

Hard difficulty with a reduced monetary bonus for the AI (so that the +5000 per turn are, let's say, halfened) sounds like a reasonable idea; it would be worth testing indeed, imho.

OK, I put together a fairly complicated money script that will keep the AI mostly out of the red even if it's operating at a massive deficit, as well as penalize it progressively if it's in the black. Even if this script runs on Medium, it's not going to cripple the AI, and on Hard it will only reach full power if the AI doesn't really need the money. I think this is worth testing.

Yeah, but I like that you added culture penalties to the upper satrapies. It does make it much harder to control these cities at the beginning of the game, at least until they grow and become more "hellenised", which can take quite some time. Maybe you could go further down this route. (First idea: increase city levels in Rhagai, Saramana (?; prov: Hyrcania) without increasing population -> longer time needed until they reach the next level; see Ekabatana for example)

I think you have a solid idea there, but instead of increasing the population I cut it by 3000 for each city. It will be a long time before users make it to the next level at that size and with the relatively limited growth in this mod. Prior to the cut, each city was within a few hundred of the next level.

The first few turns were challenging because Baktria has negative income until you capture one or two settlements. Further, I decided to expand towards India first; also, the Seleucids did not lose their cities in the Far East, they even attacked me while I was still busy in India and before my economy was quite ready to deal with fighting on two fronts.
Plus, it was my first campaign in ExRM

Gotcha. It's interesting that the Seleucids didn't lose their cities in that game, and even more interesting that they actually attacked you. I don't usually see them trek out in that direction, and I've started a few games as Bactria.

[sere]

OK, I put together a fairly complicated money script that will keep the AI mostly out of the red even if it's operating at a massive deficit, as well as penalize it progressively if it's in the black. Even if this script runs on Medium, it's not going to cripple the AI, and on Hard it will only reach full power if the AI doesn't really need the money. I think this is worth testing.

That's a wonderful way to help the AI, especially because it does not depend on a certain difficulty setting, or does it?! I really hope it works, so that the AI can put up a better fight, even in Medium.

I think you have a solid idea there, but instead of increasing the population I cut it by 3000 for each city. It will be a long time before users make it to the next level at that size and with the relatively limited growth in this mod. Prior to the cut, each city was within a few hundred of the next level.

Nice. If necessary, the next step could be to decrease the level of default government buildings (where still possible).