Suggestions and Requests

[DC123456789]

Yeah, once you get large enough conquering unstable cities can have a much larger swing than other RFC mods typically have (scaled to RFCE's smaller stability scale), which often means that taking more than 2 or 3 cities can be quite dangerous even if you were previously solid.

 

[gilgames]

iidk how feasable, but in ck2 after 100 years of rule over a territory and its became your de jure empire. so foreign lands could beame at least contested after a while.

 

[johnfloyd27]

Agree.

 

[Baron03]

Since the Ottomans have a particularly difficult challenge in terms of conquest, even if there are changes to the general stability, would it make sense to change their UP from free janissary spawns to “no instability from foreign culture”?

They have to conquer the oldest cultural player in the game, the byzantines, as well as plenty of independent cities whose culture doesn’t vanish like a regular player who collapses.

This way the Ottomans would a double bonus of the Subjugation civic and can also run another expansion civic like Occupation to deal with conquered cities.

On a similar note: can city revolts akin to ANDs stability system be added to this mod? In other words, when stability turns negative, a city that would otherwise declare independence can have a one turn revolt as a warning beforehand. It could function similar to a slave revolt in SOI, so long as the revolt itself doesn’t worsen stability.

 

[Baron03]

More civ specific great general names. Not the easiest task for me, so there’s likely better suggestions. The whole Denmark-Norway thing and Kalmar Union made those choices difficult. I imagine some civ groups or regions can share a pool of great general names if that’s possible.

Iberia

Spoiler :

Spain 6: El Cid, Alvar Fanez, Diego Lopez II de Haro, Gonzalo de Córdoba, Ambrosio Sponola, Fernando Alvarez de Toledo

Portugal 5: Nunio Pereira, Pedro de Meneses, Afonso de Albuquerque, Matias de Albuquerque, Sancho Manuel de Vilhena

Aragon 3: Alfonso the Battler, Roger of Lauria, Roger de Flor

France 7: Charles Martel, Simon de Montfort, Gaston of Foix, Robert III de la Marck, Francois de Bonne, Claude Louis Hector de Villars, Maurice de Saxe

Burgundy 1: Charles the Bold

Islamic civs

Spoiler :

Arab 4: Khalid ibn al-Walid, Amir ibn al-Nas, Muhammad ibn Marwan, Leo of Tripoli

Egypt 4: Jawhar, Shirkuh, Qutuz, Al-Nasir Muhammad

Cordoba 4: Tariq ibn Ziyad, Musa ibn Nusayr, Ghalib ibn Abd al-Rahman, Mohammad I ibn Nasir

Morocco 2: Yusuf ibn Tashfin, Abu al-Hassan ‘Ali

Seljuk/Rum 3: Kayqubad, Danishmend Gazi, Alaattin Ali of Karaman

Ottomans 5: Dragut, Heyreddin Barbarossa, Telli Hasan Pasha, Gedik Ahmad Pasha, Kara Mustafa Pasha

Crimea 1: Tugay Bey

North Sea

Spoiler :

Norway 4: Erik Bloodaxe, Harald Hadrada*, Rollo, Ulrik Frederik Gyldenlove

Denmark 5: Halfdan Ragnarsson, Rorik of Dorestad, Cnut the Great, Herluf Trolle, Niels Juel

Scotland 3: William fitz Duncan, Alexander Stewart, William Wallace

England 7: Richard the Lionhearted, Edward the Black Prince, John Talbot, Charles Brandon, Roger Williams*, Sir Francis Vere, Sir Francis Drake

Dutch 4: Maurice of Nassau, William the Silent, Maarten Tromp, Henry de Nassau

Novgorod 2: Vsevolod of Pskov, Dovmont

Balkans

Spoiler :

Serbia 2: Gradislav Borilovic, Starina Novak

Bulgaria: 2: Khan Krum, Marmais, Nestoritsa

 

[Baron03]

I played through an early Cordoba game and Morocco game. Overall, I like the gameplay for both, but I thought of areas that could be adjusted for historical gameplay. This combines several ideas I have already proposed, but brings everything to focus concerning Spain and the Western Maghreb. Hopefully some of these suggestions will be helpful to the mod, but some of them may not. Think of them all as optional.


The concise list of what I would add/adjust by date: there are seven main points.

Spoiler :

585 - Spawn independent city of Lisbon.

711 to 910 - Decrease the barbarian “Visigoths” from spawning in southern Portugal.

824 - Spawn of Navarre as a playable or non-playable civ.

1018 - spawn independent city of Zaragoza representing its historical taifa which existed for over a century.

1086 - historical Moroccan invasion of Spain

1139 - Move Portugal spawn to here from 1147 and have them spawn in Oporto.

1235 - Zayyanid Kingdom of Tlemcen spawn. Non-playable civ.

Each point In depth below:

Adding Lisbon and adjusting early Portugal.

Spoiler :

Adding Lisbon as an early spawning independent city gives Cordoba an attack target that it historically held for centuries. It was attacked by Vikings, crusaders, and the Almoravids before the Portuguese finally conquered it in 1147. I prefer this give and take over leaving the area completely empty until Portugal spawns and founds the city.


I would also curb the barbarian spawning in SE Portugal/Western Andalusia. The current spawning there limits Cordoba, and subsequently Morocco’s historical growth into the area. In other words, I would prefer less pressure from the west and more to the north where mounted sergeants already spawn numerously. It would encourage Cordoba to settle southern Portugal earlier as well if they capture Lisbon.

Navarre

Spoiler :

I have mentioned this elsewhere, but always liked the idea of Navarre being a playable civ as somewhat of a one city challenge. Although I wouldn’t say it is necessary for the game to have them included. I see their inclusion as an early barrier to Cordoba and a small partner to the reconquista. They would also serve as a potential vassal to larger Christian civs, and someone to conduct diplomacy with. My concern with their inclusion would be overlapping culture tiles towards Castile to the west and Aragon to the South. Although, it isn’t a big deal IMO.

Zaragoza

Spoiler :

When Cordoba collapsed, Zaragoza was an independent taifa for almost 100 years. The spawn of an independent city would represent this. It would serve as a target for Córdoba or Morocco to conquer. It was, after all, their northern limit. This is also a target for Spain. For Aragon’s spawn it can revert to a town or stand and be captured by the Aragonese.

Morocco’s invasion of Spain.

Spoiler :

This historically began in 1086 and lasted for some time, but never occurs between the AI. The result of this not happening tends to leave an entrenched Cordoba player in Spain. Lisbon and Zaragoza were briefly held by the Moroccans.

How to implement this scripted invasion? Morocco spawns in 1040, 15 turns prior to this event. My best idea would be for AI Morocco to receive a scripted army spawn in southern Spain akin to the Ottomans in Europe after their flip occurs. This would give the AI a little extra time to move and conquer; but also avoid a random historical spawn out of nowhere. One of the benefits would be breaking up a stagnating but stable and fortified Cordoba player (AI or human) who is entrenched in southern Spain. I have seen this before in plenty of games. It also enables the Moroccan invasion of Spain. A downside is that this one becomes a determined event in the game.

There are a few possible results of the scripted invasion: Morocco conquers Cordoba; Cordoba is weakened but survives; Morocco is weakened from instability. The third one worries me.

Portugal spawn (concise)

Spoiler :

I have laid this one out before. I think gameplay would be more interesting to follow a more historical approach to the Kingdom of Portugal. That is, they spawn in Oporto (I suspect spawning on top of a city would be the same as SOI? That is, the city starts flipped to the player) in 1139 and they must conquer Lisbon rather than simply starting there and founding it. It provides a realistic challenge, and the small variability of producing an ahistorical result.

Zayyanids

Spoiler :

This is currently represented by a scripted independent revolt. I prefer a non-playable civ spawning, the Kingdom of Tlemcen, instead. I have detailed this in another thread, but this would be more of a challenge to the human/AI player instead of conquering a city or two from the weaker independents. Realistically the Zayyanids fought with the Moroccans and even the Tunisians to some success, but also served as vassals. They would put pressure on Morocco where an independent revolt could not. Even though I believe there are more benefits to having an actual civ represent an area, the cost is time taken to code them into the game.

These are all my opinion and may not be right for the mod, but I believe they will improve the current game.
Edit: I forgot about Sijiasa. This would be the eighth point...

Spoiler :

Have Sijilmasa spawn along the oasis on its historical location. This may require its founding tile to be changed from desert to something inhabitable. This would represent the historic city that functioned as an important trade network through the western Saharan area.

 

[Baron03]

Adding Trade Routes as bonus resources for off-map places.

The idea would be to have resources that represent adjacent placed not located on the current map. These would function as land versions of the Atlantic Access resources. I would categorize them into 3 separate resource groups rather than just one to represent specific regions.

As usual, this is my opinion, and I put some time into thinking about it. However, it may not be suitable for the mod. My hope would be for this to give a little extra flavor to certain civs who do had historical connections to places outside of the mod’s map. It also gives them goals that are otherwise unachievable within the mod. In other words, Western Europe’s imperial empires would not be the only ones expanding. It does seem like a lot of work for very little so Absinthe can whatever he wants.


Light vs Heavy versions. The idea can be taken two ways; either have the trade routes as resources with build improvements (trading posts that generate commerce) and nothing else, or include projects akin to the Western Europe colonial projects. For the Heavy version, see below…

Classification:

Spoiler :

The names are not set in stone, but these are the three I have in mind. However, there could be four*

1. Sahara Caravan Route/Access

2. South Asian Route/Access (or Indian Route/Access)

3. Far Eastern Route/Access (or Asian Route/Access)

4. Nile River Access* (or Upper Egypt)

Location of each resource: By the same numbering above…

1. Three – Sijilmasa, Algeria, and outside Tripoli

2. Two – Red Sea (Arabia) and Eastern Anatolia

3. Two – Around Nizhny Novgorod and around Sarai’s old location

Egypt* - The main issue I have with Egypt is that the Nile Access Point could be entirely unique, and it does not quite fit into the other categories.

Project Ideas:

Spoiler :

These would represent conquests rather than simple trade routes. I am not entirely certain what the bonus effect would be, but I would not limit it entirely to resources. For example, I imagine that when Russia “builds” its projects, then barbarian steppe raids would cease via a python function. Maybe unique mercenaries could also be included?

1. Sahara – Mali (requires only one access point) Resources: gold, slaves, gems

2. South Asia – Mesopotamia, South Arabia (both require two access points) Resources: incense

3. Far Eastern – Volga Basin, Siberia (both require two access points) Resources: timber, fur, silk, gems, tea

Nile* - Nubia (this would only be one)

The purpose of all this:

Spoiler :

Mali would be for the Moroccans, who they historically conquered for a time. The same would apply to Mesopotamia for the Ottomans, Nubia for Egypt, etc.

Moreover, each civ would compete with their neighbors for each access point: Ottomans vs Rum vs Egypt; Moroccans vs Tunisians; Muscovy vs Crimea, etc.

To reiterate, this would be a lot of work, so I would not put this as a high priority. Maybe this would be looked at towards the end of the mod’s development?

 

[Baron03]

This is my idea for adjusting the crusade function within the game. I like the overall set up of the crusade mechanic within the game; voting, turn preparation, spawning military, etc. However, everything centers around one civ conquering Jerusalem. The minor suggestions I had may not be possible, but I wanted to suggest them anyway. This is for the main crusades in the holy land, not the Northern Crusades, Popular Crusades, or Heretics. Of course, this is all my opinion, and just a suggestion.

Main Crusades

Spoiler :

All listed below are the main historical crusades.

1st – 1096 to 1099 Target: Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli

2nd – 1147 to 1150 Target: Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli

3rd – 1189 to 1192 Target: Jerusalem, Cyprus

4th – 1202 to 1204 Target: Constantinople

5th – 1217 to 1221 Target: Damietta

6th – 1228 to 1229 Target: Jerusalem

7th – 1248 to 1254 Target: Damietta

8th – 1270 to 1270 Target: Tunisia

9th – 1271 to 1272 Target: Cyprus, Tripoli

What I had in mind was having more involvement and choices from the selected player(s). In short, enabling the second player to participate, choosing city target, and a pre-determined random event. Details below.

Second Player and City Targets

Spoiler :

The game already allows a Catholic civ to pick between two civs for each crusade. What I wanted was the second player to participate in the crusade, just like the chosen civ, but they would spawn at a different city target with a smaller army. In short, depending on which crusade is occurring or what targets are available, then the chosen player can pick where they want to crusade. For example, the First Crusade has three historical targets.

To keep things simple, I would imagine the first civ always going for Jerusalem, or the top historical target. The second civ would pick a lesser target, if possible (Antioch or Tripoli). The targets follow the same triggers that start the crusade in first place. Therefore, if Jerusalem is under Catholic/Orthodox control then it cannot become a target.

Predetermined Random Events

Spoiler :

This idea is a little out of the box so to speak, but there is the issue of stability when conquering far away foreign lands in the game. To counteract the stability penalty for the second crusading player, I would imagine a customized pop-up event occurring. For example if the second crusading player successfully captures Tripoli, then the following message would appear “Rejoice! The crusades have been a success, and you have the County of Tripoli!” and a reward/bonus would appear to choose between (these are just ideas)

1. +5 stability for 20 turns

2. +20 piety

3. Receive 150 gold

4. Receive a great general

Notes on certain crusades.

3rd crusade – I mentioned on another thread about the very unlikely possibility of having Cyprus be a non-playable minor civ within the game. It could be tied into the game this way, and become a useful ally/vassal, nor not. It’s not a big deal.

4th crusade – I always preferred replacing this crusade with the spawning of a Latin Empire, however unlikely that may be; but if the status quo is maintained then I assume this would function the same.

As I mentioned above this is all my opinion, but I think this would improve the crusades. The Arabs/Egyptians would not simply have to defend Jerusalem with a few units, and there would be more choices for a player to take.

 

[gilgames]

and all participiant should get a hefty gold boost, its really underwehlming to take part as a player. Also i belive all member sgould be able to vote on all leader, who to be in charge, not just 2. these are simple and easy things to do, but would improve ralism a lot.

 

[Baron03]

So I’m guessing Absinthe is gone, and the mod is no longer in development?

 

[JHLee]

So I’m guessing Absinthe is gone, and the mod is no longer in development?

Last update was in May 2020, so yes, I guess it could be said that the mod is not in development, at least for now.

 

[Publicola]

In my experience, Absinthe pretty regularly goes months between updates, which tend to be pretty sizable. He also posted in January of this year that

Yeah, it's high time to release the new version, and I'm working on it once again since early december.
Actually I should have made the last huge round of changes a full release (around revision 1279), into RFCE 1.6.
With the changes in the later revisions and with the upcoming updates, I plan to call the next version 1.7.

Presumably @AbsintheRed has other things occupying his attention, and the update probably turned out to be more work than planned, but I certainly wouldn't consider this mod to be abandoned or no longer in development.

That said, I'm really hoping that version 1.7 will be released by December at least. I'm teaching a 'History Through Games' class this year, and will be assigning RFC:Europe as 'homework' in January -- I'd love for students to be able to install and play with the most recent updates at that point.

 

[Baron03]

In my experience, Absinthe pretty regularly goes months between updates, which tend to be pretty sizable. He also posted in January of this year that

Presumably @AbsintheRed has other things occupying his attention, and the update probably turned out to be more work than planned, but I certainly wouldn't consider this mod to be abandoned or no longer in development.

That said, I'm really hoping that version 1.7 will be released by December at least. I'm teaching a 'History Through Games' class this year, and will be assigning RFC:Europe as 'homework' in January -- I'd love for students to be able to install and play with the most recent updates at that point.

That’s good news then. I hope there is an update in the coming months. That sounds like a cool class!

 

[Rafaelito]

It would be nice to have Absinth back, have a couple of suggestions to make. Btw, that really sounds a cool history class. I'm sure your students will get addicted in History

 

[LAF1994]

Two suggestions for the mod:
1) Get rid of random city seccessions. They're arbitrary, unrealistic and bad for gameplay. Cities should not be able to magically break away for no reason immediately after being conquered.
2) The barb spamming should be toned down somewhat.

 

[manio curio]

I've put like 60 hours into this mod and I swear, every time you think you're having the best game possible, you start getting cities collapsing. The stability mechanics are completely anti intuitive. Latest game with Spain I hover over 30 stability and cities only in contested areas, not a single one in "foreign". I take Caen from the English, give them to my vassal Burgundy, stability is still 20-25. About 5 turns later I take another french city and give it to burgundy. Few turns later my stability goes to -10

And this crap happens in every game I play. When I play as England and conquer scotland, scots declare independence. When I play as Prussia, lithuania gets independence. As Russia, Kiev grants independence. Playing as Austria I am doing great and conquer krakow (which is in contested area) and a few turns later it declares independence... And in every single scenario, the stability spikes are just huge: you're on +20 stability one turn, then 5 on the next, and then -10 the next and thats when you lose cities.

and ive played this mod a crapton. But every time I quit simply due to these stability reasons. I can never have a real "war" experience where I can get a late game war of spain vs germany, or prussia vs france, etc, because something happens which I cannot control and my crap starts collapsing.

I cant imagine how much even more annoying it must be for new players. Stability is very poorly explained. There are no guides. The numbers are useless. The better you are doing, the worse the stability, and vice versa.

I had the same issues, I was playing with germany with 20-25 stability and I attacked denmark. I ended with -10 in a 2-3 turns. It seems like especially when you have plenty of provinces outside your historical core that number is as low as you can get with stability. I played with habsburg and france and had fun. They have access to many provinces without suffering too much of instability. I even won by domination.

 

[manio curio]

In general I think this is the best rhye's and fall mod ever. The pace is good unlike the classical one where you have low productivity and the stability rules are clear and allow for the user to make a plan whereas the original game is a little bit confusing on the matter. I would beg the developer to bring it to the modern age, something like full 19th century or even WWI

 

[Autumn Leaf]

The best RFC of all is Sword of Islam. In terms of code, it's beautiful. In terms of gameplay, it offers superb choices.

The biggest problem with RFC:E is that Absinthe did a half-assed job of purging bad (in hindsight - I emphasise that) decisions made by Rhye, and also accepted historical victory goals that heavily emphasised territorial objectives. He wrote himself into a coding and developmental corner. It's not irreparable, but the odds are it will never be repaired.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

There should be a way besides vassalization to have personal unions represented. Plenty of countries got formed/expanded because of that. Ex: Castille/Aragon, Poland/Lithuania, England/Scotland. Burgundy/France or Burgundy/Germany, Austria/Germany or Austria/Hungary, Denmark/Norway & Prussia/Brandenburg (not appearing in-game but it deserves justice).

This is because I've seen UHVs that require you to conquer nations that historically you acquired in a friendly manner.

My idea is that in these situations the vassal's cities flip to the masters if they collapse and the master is stable enough, or being given the choice at the expense of possible stability downside.

Or a less severe change: Change most of the aforementioned objectives from "Control these areas" to "Control or vassalize these areas".

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

Anyone around here knows how to change your own civ's leader?