Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[Leoreth]

Okay, I see the problem now.

You like other people seem to have a problem with the hurry anger timer reset on city conquest. Not everyone has that, though (but it seems that this isn't an isolated case so maybe keeping that line isn't worth it).

You can get rid of the problem by opening RFCUtils.py and putting a # at the beginning of lines 604 and 605 (the text will turn green in Notepad++ under standard settings).

 

[Hippo8085]

Two things:

1) AI Byzantine (don't know about human) UP is either not functioning correctly or obsoleting too early. I have been seeing them consistently full collapse before 1000 AD, which then usually leads to Arabian conquest of the Balkans, with Constantinople becoming their largest city and capital after the Seljuks.

2) Make it so that HRE does not spawn at war with the Vikings. While historical, this usually leads to the HRE taking over any Danish cities that the Vikings have, rather than the (likely intended) reverse.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Two things:

1) AI Byzantine (don't know about human) UP is either not functioning correctly or obsoleting too early. I have been seeing them consistently full collapse before 1000 AD, which then usually leads to Arabian conquest of the Balkans, with Constantinople becoming their largest city and capital after the Seljuks.

2) Make it so that HRE does not spawn at war with the Vikings. While historical, this usually leads to the HRE taking over any Danish cities that the Vikings have, rather than the (likely intended) reverse.

1) I have never found this to be the case, at least with the Arabian over-expansion.
Byzantium is always collapsed or on the brink of it; in the latter case, they might be a tech leader and it might take anywhere from 10-30 turns for them to go under.

2) This has been observed as well. I kind of like it like this though.

 

[Leoreth]

New commit is up. This time:
- more CNM improvements that you hopefully won't notice
- better embassy AI (less embassies in general, not with direct neighbors, only for more powerful or friendly civs)
- Vikings don't start at war with Holy Rome anymore
- new Portuguese UP: Ocean trade and Resettlement enabled with Optics.

 

[soul-breathing]

Leo, since players' Mongolia's capital and Ottoman's turns to Beijing and Contantinpolis after they own it, how about make player's Arab's capital turns to Baghdad after own it?

 

[Leoreth]

Duh. That was only meant for the AI. Let me fix it.

 

[soul-breathing]

Duh. That was only meant for the AI. Let me fix it.

Oh, come on...It's a very historical change for human player. At least I feel it very well to play as Japan with its capital in Tokyo, I think many other players may love it, please don't change it...

 

[BenZL43]

don't change it, instead add it
Indonesia's capital from Palembang to Sundapura after meeting Islam, for example.
(Since Islam is coded to spread to Indonesia usually at the medieval era, where the "capital" of Indonesia already shifted to Java)

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, right. An Indonesian capital change to Java makes sense.

The automatically moved palace has already been removed in the SVN though. It's a help for the AI because it is explicitly told to never build a palace. If you want to move your capital somwhere, you are free to do so however. There's no reason to get it for free, and it might even be unwanted for some players.

 

[Visard]

Maybe there could be fixed events for human players to give a choice to move the capital for certain civs. It could cost some money or 1 turn of anarchy.

 

[Leoreth]

But why?

 

[Visard]

Because building palace takes a lot of time and isn't usually worth it. But historically some civilizations capitals moved. It could give player an option to play more historical game without hindering your game too much.

 

[youtien]

Tried Aztec twice, failed UHV #1 last time with 15 pop. This time I chose city states and went metal casting - sailing - aesthetics - drama, made it 16 in 1520, but London got 17... well I can do better next time.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Re Palace moving: doesn't building a Palace "reward" you with -10 stability, or has that been changed?

There's so much undocumented stuff when it comes to stability and such... that lack of documentation is the worst part of RFC and all its spin-offs.

 

[Leoreth]

Re Palace moving: doesn't building a Palace "reward" you with -10 stability, or has that been changed?

There's so much undocumented stuff when it comes to stability and such... that lack of documentation is the worst part of RFC and all its spin-offs.

I don't even know, and that probably proves your second point. If it does, it should be eliminated. At least when doing so in historical territory.

I would love to create a fancy PDF document that covers all mechanics and the complete content of the mod, but that's a waste of time currently when everything is still bound to change all the time.

 

[civ_king]

I might try my hand at it next x.x version.

 

[BenZL43]

I don't even know, and that probably proves your second point. If it does, it should be eliminated. At least when doing so in historical territory.

I would love to create a fancy PDF document that covers all mechanics and the complete content of the mod, but that's a waste of time currently when everything is still bound to change all the time.

iirc yes, I think I read it somewhere in Rhye's fancy RFC Manual long ago.. or somewhere on this website

 

[Leoreth]

With the next SVN commit, no longer.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

I might try my hand at it next x.x version.

I can co-author if you need a hand.

 

[civ_king]

I can co-author if you need a hand.

Sounds good to me.

Leoreth, bug the two of us next version about a manual.