I have moved on to The Trial, now I am pagan Nomads

- Relic trading seems to be pretty much impossible with the AI, they are only willing to trade if you have a part of a set they want to complete in exchange. Just wish they would do stuff like... trade for a piece of a relic set that another civ wants so that they can in turn get a piece they want from them (ie act as middleman) or to hold that piece to keep their worst enemy from completing a set (sabotage). And also be more willing to trade if you're friendly

- If an AI is friendly with me, they should cut it out with the spy actions... same thing with AI sabotaging its AI allies... it doesn't happen too often but its very annoying when it does

- I got Embarking innovation, but I cannot make any of the units or buildings... I can't even embark my units. This is bad because the map im on has me alone on a smallish continent with only two city states nearby. I went to I'm just going to restart from start of trial scenario to choose a different culture type... its a shame, im playing Mongolia so nomads would be perfect fit for me =(

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1CAdK5su7ZB8bhhd-PZObVM6s60fFw78Y?usp=drive_link
Genghis Khan_nomads1 is the first turn save of this (i didn't save anything further). could u edit it so I can build naval units and embark land units? Im stuck on my island otherwise

Thanks for the feedback!

I attached Mongolian save file here:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gamepedia-pdf-and-faq.682455/#post-16423224
Optics is required to embark. Rewards from innovations are not applied properly if technology is acquired with FireTuner.

Most importantly, fix for Frigates spawning is in Changelogs.
...Sid Meier's Civilization 5\MODS\Scenario Generator (v 32)\GameInit\ITGSG_Pirates.lua
Go to line 176.
Right now it will run in all 5 scenarios instead New World. Thanks for reporting! Eh, happens.

It alters my plans, I will try to release v33 faster and delay queued stuff towards v34.

Wonder progress is lost if player is not in the race.

I will look into AI espionage, I will try to add temporary negative votes if agent is caught by friend.

Players will be able to choose from 3 wonders. I just need to write some AI evaluation. It will eventually be implemented (but not in next update).

AI considers friendship when evaluating relics' exchange. Sometimes they will agree to a "bad" deal if they need Meritocracy. However their usual behaviour is not too cooperative (simplifying: you need a relic they want, request relic they do not need, and after exchange you should both have similar progress towards full set). If they see you will have 3/4 of the set after an exchange while they will have a shiny 1 piece of the set then in 99% cases they will deny a deal (even with friendly relations). Maybe I will link it somehow to leagues (spend 5 votes to 'enforce" exchange).

Alright, thanks for the help and will def use that fix for the time travelling pirates on my end.

This is when the fun begins... though I have no plans for my mongol navy to get caught by the kamikaze.

Update:I am pillaging the hell outta China

Also, I wish there was an counselor option that would remind you to take actions in leagues and also one that reminds you to take actions with your spies. Currently I sometimes forget about one or the other for a few turns

I know you dropped plans for Atomic-Information/Future Era scenario, but might a scenario taking place in the gap between Light of Hope and Sleep of Reason be in the cards eventually?

An example problem I have with Light of Hope, that caused me to ask for unit obsoleting and upgrade costs to be lowered, is that there are three tiers of unit upgrades stuffed into one scenario. There can be the possibility that you haven't even got Rifling / Military Science yet and then someone gets Modern Warfare innovation and now you'll have to upgrade twice! If the Modern Warfare innovation's units were instead the early-game units of a Industrial-Modern scenario it'd make Light of Hope less packed.

still in The Trial

Claim Ownership: can it be made so this action can be done via happiness as well as legal power? I'd much rather fight rioters to integrate my conquests rather than wait sitting on a time bomb while my legal power ticks up. I wanna punch away my problems, not legislate them!!

In similar vein also allow happiness to be used in action change official Religion

I wish I could know what other members of my culture type are gonna choose in terms of social developments so I can vote strategically if I have low national unity

It seems that the +2 cultural presence from Cultural Heritage process continues to be applied even i the city cannot work (like if it is rioting) which player can exploit to limited extent

I can't assign my great generals to units with ally stacking (f- type). Which is a problem now that my army is composed largely of Keshiks. Oh well, ones that I assigned to them when they were horsemen still stay so whatever

That was epic, now I move on to New World
I've got an error
\GameInit\ITGSG_GovernorsTraits.lua:772: attempt to index local 'iCity' (a nil value)

this may have been caused by me savescumming when i got a city from a barbarian encampment in a bad spot

broken save is newest file in here
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1CAdK5su7ZB8bhhd-PZObVM6s60fFw78Y?usp=drive_link

Btw I want to move on as Tropical culture type please!!! Mongol pirates

Indeed, an error is looking for a city that is not existing (for some reason). Just set some process to unwanted cities and be safe. This mod is not friendly towards IGE / FireTuner modifications. New world save file:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gamepedia-pdf-and-faq.682455/#post-16423224

Anyway, glad to know that nobody expected mongolian navy.
I will try to make some counselors' options to block end turn if there is an unassigned spy (and some indicator for leagues).

Oh! Processes were indeed firing even for 0 production and therefore non-production bonuses like cultural presence were applied. Fixed.

I try to make every scenario unique. The need of army modernization was/is quite unique to Light of Hope (that innovation used to be in 100% of games). Scenario between LoH and SoR would be much less unique than futuristic one therefore it has even smaller chance of ever happening. Full game (5 scenarios) is already very long which is an another reason I never bothered with adding 6th scenario. v33 will slightly reduce cost of unit upgrading.

About legal/happiness costs of action. In general it is very easy to cheese out some positive happiness (especially when player has 1 city) and therefore I keep many actions as legal only to add some weight to decisions on how to spend this yield (and balance out conquest with a "legal tax").

About social development idea: yeah, it would be another handicap for a human player. I try to make all rules as "fair" as possible to AI (which is medicore anyway). Player is supposed to be penalized for low national unity (to choose their favoured development he usually have to use cultural bonus). Same with Ideology, players with low national unity choose later in the queue.

Uh, this Keshiks' issue... Hmm, General can be only assigned to stacking type Land 1. I think the reason was to have usually max 1 great general on a tile. For Nomads it is quite an issue because their army at one point can be just Keshiks. (Assign great generals to units obtained from City-States?). I have some ideas how to fix this issue. I leave it for v34.

As usual, thanks for feedback. It is extremely useful.

In that case I think both Light of Hope and Sleep of Reason could be made so it is extra incentivized to do army modernization. I see v33 plan is to make it cost only 3 legal / happiness. But I think the industrial and modern scenarios should get "march of progress" aspect which makes obsoleting a unit cost only 1 or 2 legal/happiness and provide 83% rather than 33% XP to its upgrade (gold cost to upgrade remains the same)

In The Trial I only upgraded my Horsemen to Keshiks because they were massively better (more than double the CS, spear throw and ally stacking). Otherwise I just produce the new units from scratch and leave the old ones unupgraded because its not worth spending precious legal power just to spend gold and lose a ton of unitclass XP so I can upgrade to a marginally stronger unit.

Alright, New World

- When I'm out on the high seas plundering me enemies, it takes too long to turn around and come home. I think it'd be cool if naval vessels of Tropical culture would heal gradually if at full movement stopped on an unclaimed Atoll tile. Consider it as leaving my ships at anchor on island hideouts. Maybe have this ability to heal your units on Atolls be counteracted by being unable to settle new cities until later tech rather than from the start of the scenario?

- Step Forward should trigger more often in some cases... too frequently it triggers for a first column tech. Idea: make it so there can be a fallback step forward tech a column away that gets acquired only if a civ already has the main step forward tech. if a civ has both, they get nothing (or idk, maybe a small non-science related congratulatory reward yield)

- Itd be neat to see Cultural Presence be more important by having it carry over from scenario to scenario (only partially of course)

- this currents mechanic is so cool i wonder if it could be in other scenarios

not much else to add so far, I've just spent the first half the game zooming around the oceans in every direction with my ships, stopping once in a while if there's any low-population coastal city to extort.

I think ive said it before but this mod is amazing its what I hoped civ 7 was gonna be like!

having it split up into 100 turn scenarios makes it so i can play thru a whole scenario in less than a day, feel accomplished and able to save moving to next era for another day- rather than staying up into the early hours of next morning barely thru the renaissance era and still wanting one more turn (which is also fun in its own respect, but definitely wastes more of my precious time). Dividing the eras with loading screens makes it so I can actually quit and get some sleep lol

having the split scenarios combined with the dynamic ai handicap finally makes it feel somewhat close-fought- while in vanilla civ its (when on low difficulty) human player immediately blasting past all the competition making it feel like a solo clicker game, or (on higher difficulty) blasting after AIs that got a head start on you, pulling out all the stops until you finally are equal to them (at which point u can up and quit because your victory is guaranteed)

finally, you've put enough cracks in the "maximize Production and Science" meta that playing the game in other ways can be just as effective, which is most impressive.
so ye, this mod is the best!! keep it up!!

I think I am looking at the upgrading from different point of view.
I do not loose XP. In fact I pay Legal/Happiness and an ability to train an obsolete units for an extra XP for new unit class (the old class does not loose XP).
It is up to player to decide if XP reward is worthy (and potential gold cost of upgrading VS just training new units). It was never supposed to be "must do action". It is obviously not worthy to upgrade 2-3 units or even 4-5. At one point however player with gold would prefer upgrading over producing, and 150 XP can be an instant 2 unitclass promotions.
Sometimes player can decide to keep slingers with 5 upgrades as a core of an army (instead upgrading to atlatlists). That's okay.
I will obviously try to keep an eye on it during my playthroughs (like try to keep musketmans against line infantry). However my personal feelings are that upgrading is not in "never do" cathegory.

Step Forward is granting a technology known by the most players (and at least 1 player must not know it). Those are usually techs at the left column and very few players are rewarded. It does not happen to human player very often (though I remember getting Radio in modern scenario).

If you play with map modifications, oceans should be populated with small islands. Founding a new city or creating Feitoria can be a spot to heal naval units. On top of that you have an unitclass promotion to heal in neutral territory (and currents can speed up travelling). I am bit against idea of healing in neutral territory because I don't want to rework unitclass promotions right now.

I think currents could be somehow added in Light of Hope or to Belem Tower wonder. However sometimes it is fine for single scenario to keep some cool exclusive mechanics. Ultimately it gives each scenario an unique theme.

I know you may feel that I am not acting accordingly or fast enough to your feedback. Sometimes I have my own opinions on the matter, sometimes I simply lack time to prioritize an issue. Well, there is usually one update every 3-4 months and I cannot do everything.
However I put a lot of stuff on queue (auto-management options like "min price in auction house" are especially cool). I plan to give a player an option to nickname ideological leagues in modern scenario (yet it needs interface and testing).

I am glad you enjoy the mod and once again, I appreciate all the feedback. I also believe that auto-ai handicap is one of the better concepts.

It would be cool if you could give me your feedback on veteran promotions (light blue ones, for individual units) after Light of Hope scenario. I am thinking about removing them from time to time.

On later game vet promotions, I'll see about that once I get to LoH and SoR. I didn't manage to get in enough combat in the later scenarios to see them. I'll see if later I can start a new game in LoH and try harder to get vet promos

In terms of the veteran promotions as I've seen so far in earlier scenarios, I think the terrain bonuses are just too specific. It would be best if the number of them was significantly reduced and effects merged together. I would much prefer a promotion that gives a CS bonus on both Desert and Plains rather than just one or the other, even if the bonus itself gets made smaller- and I think the AI would be better at making use of it as well.

Also, it would be cool if instead of taking a veteran promotion one could "cash out", reducing that unit down to being halfway levelled up by converting said half of that individual unit's XP into unitclass XP (at a slightly poor conversion rate so one does lose out on some XP in the process). In RP terms, imagine it as taking experienced veterans and officers from that unit and sending them to perform in advisory roles / play cadre for less experienced, newly raised units...

... that would be useful for AI that tends to lose units. To further make losing individual units not as bad, there could be a law "casualty reorganization". When a unit gets destroyed, a portion of its XP would be converted and added to:
1 nearby unit of same unitclass (with ties broken by whichever has lower unit XP)
2 the next unit of that unitclass you build (better XP rate compared to previous option)
3 it's unitclass-wide XP pool
4 unusual option like conversion to a production yield, or something else

(imagining 1 as immediately reinforcing nearby units with whatever remains of lost unit that is combat effective, 2 as reconstituting a lost unit by rebuilding with new recruits and equipment alongside veteran remnants, 3 as withdrawal to the backline and gradual return to the front by whatever recovers on a case by case basis, and 4 as ending their service and sending them home)

I finished this a while ago but forgot to add my comments here

Light of Hope

- Another incentive towards winning the Great Game would be an option that makes it so Great Game winner is guaranteed to be one of the SoR ideological blocs

- another reason I suggested an Industrial-Modern scenario was so players could choose to build the ideology they want and get to play with it for a scenario instead of having to lean into making it radical... maybe both Industrial-Modern "Dusk of Empire" and Atomic-Information "Greatest Mistake" scenarios could "start later", with more pre-built buildings and pre-researched techs, etc, and be only 50 turns long (ruler for 12 years instead of 25)??? Theoretically, then you could get away with only half the content?? Okay i'll stop lol

- It'd be nice if at the end of scenario players could add a minor ideological tenet that allows them to choose an army priority they get at the start of Sleep of Reason, slightly increasing the proportion of that unit in next scenario's army and make it more likely to start close to or already being specialized

Equality: United Front
Infantry + Anti-Air

Supremacy: Superior Firepower
Battleships(+ Anti-Tank, will prioritize tech)

Freedom: Eagle's Wings
Fighters + Carriers

Autocracy: Unrestricted Warfare
Submarines + Bombers

Liberty: Individual Heroism
Destroyers(+ Paratroopers, will prioritize tech)

Order: Steel Wall
Tanks

(no Reason option, to balance it having 1 extra back out)


Sleep of Reason
- I think Anti-Tank and Anti-Air should both get their own stacking type by default, so I can better support my proper combat units with em

- I mightve said this before, but it'd be nice to see Artillery back in, nerfed compared to vanilla Civ V. it could be in ballistics tech, would have 3 range but lower strength. There are also lots of cool examples of WW2 self-propelled artillery to make specializations for this unit

- One has to be very careful with nukes because if explosion damage even so much as TOUCHES one of your allies traders or units that are too close, your own bloc declares war on you (usually crashing the game lol)

- My ideological bloc kept getting Global War events to fight a faction of nations that were all relatively low-scoring. I wanted to fight the other ideological bloc, which included Japan, second place on the scoreboard and too close for comfort, less than a hundred points below me- I badly wanted to sabotage them with a nuke or two. But my bloc got vote after vote to target the unimportant faction, so we voted against it repeatedly. Only more than halfway through the scenario did we finally get a vote against Japan's bloc and finally went to war
(so in short, please make it so Global War votes don't target the same ideological bloc multiple times in a row, and instead make it randomly cycle through all of them before repeating)

@Artillery
I do not feel like there is a gameplay reason to add them. Their utility is covered by bombers and guided missiles. Maybe as some unique innovation where you can deploy immobile artillery that lasts x turns?

@Anti-tank/anti-air
Anti-tank is getting buffed a lot. Still both units are supposed to be somehow niche. I don't want anti-air to cover more ground more easily because bombers already feel weak.

@Nuclear missile
It has yet to crash a game for me (though those wars with defensive pacts are indeed laggy).

@Total war
Great idea. Coded in.

@Minor ideological tenet
I don't feel this one at all. In general it is against my core design philosophy of affecting incoming scenarios too much.

@Ideological tenets and era conversion
I feel like this topic returns a lot in your feedback. I will try to explain my way of thinking behind it.

• Game chooses 3-4 ideologies (players) based on the algorithm that is supposed to create the biggest possible difference in ideological values between them. Unfortunately it tends to go for ideologies that have a lot of points in a single value (because an average value is about ~4). On the other hand it is cool that one value (liberty / reason / order) can be assigned to each league.
  
• Which explains why I didn't like the idea of top 3-4 players by score to become leaders. It could lead to situation where those players would have nearly identical ideological values which would be thematically very bland. And again it would be against my design philosophy (scenarios are supposed to be rise-and-fall; even the weakest player is supposed to have a fair start in next scenario).
  
• The reason why all ideologies are not passed is that... game would run out of tenets (considering 22 max players). I could reduce number of tenets to 4 per player. Still I kind of like that players in leagues share the same tenets (some abilities are "visible" like criticals).

Now I will try to guess why current system feels bad.

• Player grows attached to chosen ideological tenets which are gone way too soon (in opposite to social developments that kind of linger for 3-4 scenarios). This one would be kind of solved with the new game option... once it starts working. :)
  
• It feels bad to choose ideological tenets based on synergies-combos and knowing they will be 99% gone at next scenario because their values do not create a radical ideology.

At this point I am thinking about solutions like that:

• A: all players keep 3 out of 4/5 tenets they choose, adopt 2 tenets from a leader. It will make amount of tenets sufficient even for 22 players and grant minimum of 60% of tenets' choices.
  
• B: game option for a fully random ideological leaders. Player can choose tenets freely, passing is a lottery. I feel like this could replace current related game option.

Thanks for the write-up!

On Artillery: maybe it could be a Support Promotion instead of an innovation? Support Promotions are a neat aspect of the early scenarios. For example, I like how I can specialize a unit for pillaging the enemy countryside, others for besieging their cities, turn more into impromptu scouts, etc. Adds more variety on top of the existing differences between unit classes. It'd be cool to have some present in later ones as well.
I can think of others that would be neat to see in modern scenario, like Bazookas that turn an infantry into a mini Anti-Tank (but only on the defensive) or Motor Pool which gives any 2 move unit an extra move (probably too overpowered, in vanilla Civ my favorite Information Era unit is the Mechanized Infantry).

On Anti-Tank and Anti-Air. Ah, I see your point about AA guns, especially since the AI deploys a lot of them because scenario start has a tendency to give you a lot of them (COME ON gimme some actual starting COMBAT UNITS!!! I don't need enough anti-air to garrison all my cities with change to spare, I need forces on the frontline!!!).
But its good to hear AT gun buff is planned. On 22 players even a huge map on low sea level can feel pretty cramped, and Anti-Tank just doesn't have the same appeal as Infantry when one is defending on a narrow front. I also vote that all specialized Anti-Tank (being motorized or mechanized tank destroyers) should receive +1 Movement.
Even if you're in the heat of the fighting and getting lotsa XP it can be very hard to specialize both Anti-Tank and Paratroopers especially if you have a low tech start and only unlock them later into the scenario. This was the case in my playthrough, though I managed to unlock Paratroopers with Great General bonus and make use of them, but only specialized them close to the end of the game

Ideology era conversion: Ye, your guesses on why it feels bad are on point.
Solution A sounds nice, similar to a random social development or two getting replaced in transit between earlier scenarios. Though I ask if at the end of LoH, future ideological followers could choose what tenets they prioritize to be kept, and future ideological leaders could choose which two tenets of theirs their followers adopt?

Eagerly awaiting next update!

Also I have some more ideas

- Presence of enemy units on any workable tile of a city during wartime should add migration chance to the city, with the chance increased the closer enemy units are to the city, and how damaged the city is.
However, flee chance would be reduced if road/rail infrastructure is pillaged / if the city is blockaded

- civs that have gone into Exile during Global War are protected from becoming a target for everyone else and instead continue to fight alongside their ideological bloc as if they are not in Exile. If they are still in Exile when the Global War concludes they then will lose their protected status and be declared war on by everyone though

- more potential governor actions

1. Governor proposes hiring more expertise and making design adjustments to advance our Wonder project.
(can only trigger if you have production of a city they govern set to Wonder process. Does not directly add Wonder progress, instead gives a small multiplier boost for the duration of the current race, bigger if the race is closer to ending)
SUCCESS: The changes have made our workforce more efficient, and greater progress is being made.
(Adds a multiplier boost for the wonder race duration and increases Governor's power)
FAILURE: Governor's reorganization of the design teams only caused confusion and delay.
(Adds a dividing malus to wonder progress for the race duration and heavily reduces Governor's power)
REFUSAL: You know micromanaging the architects would be unwise at this time.

2. Our wise men are developing a writing system steeped in our cultural tradition, with a certain governor among them as its most vocal sponsor.
(can only trigger if you can create your own Alphabet)
SUCCESS: You lend a hand in completing and establishing the new alphabet across the empire.
(Creates an Alphabet and increases Governor's power)
REFUSAL: You prefer to speak your mind, not write it. Besides, their so-called "alphabet" needs more revision to be comprehensible.

3. Governor can expedite the mobilization of military unit being produced in city.
(can only trigger if a military unit is being produced in a city the Governor controls and production of said unit will take 2 turns or more)
SUCCESS: Governor is making sure production proceeds at double-time.
(Adds enough production instantly to halve the amount of time+production military unit will take to produce. Chance of unit being produced with less starting XP or increased likelihood of added unhappiness in the city, if applicable)
REFUSAL: We must not rush the training of our forces.
(Still has chance of generating Underappreciated grudge, but will not generate cause Callous commander)
PREEMPTIVE ACTION:
(cancelled without penalty if production time drops to 1 turn, could be done for example if you change city's tile working priority to Production when it previously wasn't)

- special governor actions that replace normal actions if civs are falling behind in something important.
For example, there could be a special action when one is in a major war (or Global War in particular) that replaces the current +2 unit supply one with an action that gives +4 or more, but only if civ have fallen far behind peer civs in the amount of unit supply and currently has said unit supply maxed out.
Basically, replaces an action with a more powerful one that provides twice the benefit to governor's civilization but also twice the power to the governor. And these special governor actions would only appear in bad circumstances where a civilization really needs the help.
Also, refusing one of these special actions has double the likelihood of making the governor feel unappreciated and also doubled likelihood of generating other causes when applicable (for example, refusing the special +4 unit supply action would also have double the chance to generate "Callous commander")