Development pre 1.6

Baron03 · Dec 31, 2018

AbsintheRed said:
Tested religious persecution, and balance seemed ok for me.
On the big picture (100+ tests with various civs and state religions, against different sized cities, with different number of religions), more than 50% of persecutions succeeded.
Wasn't the city Jerusalem, by any chance? It has special rules, much harder to persecute from that city.

No. It was just Alexandria, Barca, and Tyre. Does population play a role in the success rate of a persecution? They were all fairly large cities when I attempted it. Also, it could just be bad luck on my part.

AbsintheRed · Dec 31, 2018

Baron03 said:
No. It was just Alexandria, Barca, and Tyre. Does population play a role in the success rate of a persecution? They were all fairly large cities when I attempted it. Also, it could just be bad luck on my part.

City population shouldn't be a huge factor.
Base chance is between 50-80%, depends on your Faith.
Big population decreases it around 8-12%.
On the other hand, wonders might be a more significant factor, if they are of the prosecuted religion.
Each religious wonder decreases the chance between 5-15%.
Religious buildings also decrease the chance to some extent.
Finally, for Jerusalem there is a default reduction.

So it's hard to persecute with many religious buildings (of the target religion) in the city.
If the city has at least one wonder associated with the target religion.
It's always hard to persecute from Jerusalem, all religions hold on to that city.

Baron03 · Dec 31, 2018

AbsintheRed said:
City population shouldn't be a huge factor.
Base chance is between 50-80%, depends on your Faith.
Big population decreases it around 8-12%.
On the other hand, wonders might be a more significant factor, if they are of the prosecuted religion.
Each religious wonder decreases the chance between 5-15%.
Religious buildings also decrease the chance to some extent.
Finally, for Jerusalem there is a default reduction.

So it's hard to persecute with many religious buildings (of the target religion) in the city.
If the city has at least one wonder associated with the target religion.
It's always hard to persecute from Jerusalem, all religions hold on to that city.

That makes sense.

During a few games I noticed that Russia, Kiev, and Novgorod to a lesser extent settle cities fairly close and clutter up areas of the map. Kiev especially settled cities in tight areas that are mediocre. Russia does this on the far eastern edge of the map as well as between Moscow and Smolensk. I think it would be useful to tweak their city placement some so they are more likely to be spread out some.

Occasionally Lithuania tried to do the same, but thankfully it is boxed in fairly well. Poland doesn't cause much problems either.

caphyre · Dec 31, 2018

Map improvement efforts, pt. 2.

Issues:

Taganrog, Nikita, Zhitomir, Ovruch, Ostrog, Cherkassy, Aksay, Maykop, Mozdok, Stavropol, Yekaterinodar, Gdov, Novorzhev, Mogilyov, Grodna, Cherikov, Borisov were in wrong places. Khlynov, Tsaritsyn, Kamenskaya (Kamenskoye), Kholmogory are in wrong places too but I haven't fixed them this time. I am sure that there is even more such cities, but I gave up checking them all and will continue later.

There is no Pereyaslavl in Pereyaslavl province, no Simbirsk in Simbirsk province. Moscow is in Murom province.

Karelia, Livonia, and Estonia should be potentially stable areas for Muscovy because Pskov, Gdov, Ivangorod and other northern Russian cities are in these provinces. Or maybe there is needed a province (called Pskov, for example) around the lake Peipsi (Chudskoye) which will be the potentially stable area for Muscovy?

Viborg shouldn't be Vyborg under Scandinavian control.

Polish Lwow is Samosh (Samosz from previous version of the map) in Muscovian/Kievan/Novgorodian map, Lvov in their maps is two tiles southern.
This and many other similar situations made me think about one thing.
How about using city naming system as in RFC SOI? It seems to me that it's easier to edit and solves the problem: city name maps for various civs look like not synchronized with each other, e.g. some names are used in different tiles, some tiles are empty.
On the other hand, I tried to edit city names in SOI and it has lead to crash.

Of course this suggestion is not for the upcoming update, because it will require a lot of work.

Also I think there is needed some sources of salt in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhmut, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drohobych) and somewhere in the northeastern provinces of Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soligalich).

Spoiler Changes :

Khabarovsk should be excluded from the list of names given to cities on tiles without names.

Spoiler CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml :

Spoiler RFCEMaps.py - Muscovy :

Spoiler RFCEMaps.py - Kiev and Novgorod :

gilgames · Dec 31, 2018

HNY to all of you

gilgames · Dec 31, 2018

And some more feedback.
I did a few game and i was happy that AI novgorod was pretty solid. On the other hand, musvovy ai is terrible, but i think its not really tje ai, but the balance.

I won as spain and venice and hungary. Venice 2. Uhv is hard if you cant divert the crusade or you dont get one. I payed the money to divert it, chosed konstantinopol, then nothing happend, no dow, no units.

The other 2 nations uhvs are very easy. Also hungary's territories uhv does not count for vassals. I had bulgaria, and they dumped a settler on the tiny egde of my province and uhv counter said its not good. Otherwise easy af.

Ps: naval bases are awesome.

gilgames · Jan 2, 2019

Watching this make me think to readjust a few things in the mod. I feel it worth the discussion

cmakk1012 · Jan 2, 2019

gilgames said:
Watching this make me think to readjust a few things in the mod. I feel it worth the discussion

Stuff like this is what has made me call for a Rûm civ before. Having the Ottomans spawn out of the blue in Western Anatolia really feels like a massive oversimplification to me...

Rafaelito · Jan 2, 2019

Tested the new byzantium changes. So far, so good. The previous one was really hard, yet possible to win. The new changes made the civ playable for all players, veterans or not, which is good. Now you will not have massive gold problems or instability while conquering the goal provinces. All you need are manor houses everywhere before plague strikes.

gilgames · Jan 3, 2019

So i have a game as arabia. But i need your help, how to aproach at the 3rd uhv. I was planning to take a city in lombardy to spam missionaries, but any tip is welcome.

Note on 1st uhv: you must be very precise to excecute it. HAs go west, the rest to for edessa. Need 2 settlers. Sur and alexa can do it. Sur also make a ship. Hire egyptian archers for palermo.

DC123456789 · Jan 3, 2019

The 3rd Genoan UHV seems like it's far too easy - the Bank of St. George never spread beyond 3 of my cities so that condition was completed without any effort whatsoever, and of course building 8 banks is very easy to do in the timeframe involved as well. I'm not sure if the Bank of St. George spread is intentional, but if it is I'd suggest an additional condition to the 3rd goal (maybe be the richest civilization, although with the absurd amounts of gold Genoa can make it probably won't be that hard either).

AbsintheRed · Jan 6, 2019

gilgames said:
Watching this make me think to readjust a few things in the mod. I feel it worth the discussion

cmakk1012 said:
Stuff like this is what has made me call for a Rûm civ before. Having the Ottomans spawn out of the blue in Western Anatolia really feels like a massive oversimplification to me...

The massive Seljuk spawns in the late 11th century, and more importantly, the related Islam spreads in various parts of Anatolia (including the western parts) represents the turkish presence in the area.
So I wouldn't say that the Ottomans spawn out of the blue.
Having said that, I'm in favor of a full Rum civ in the long run.

AbsintheRed · Jan 6, 2019

DC123456789 said:
The 3rd Genoan UHV seems like it's far too easy - the Bank of St. George never spread beyond 3 of my cities so that condition was completed without any effort whatsoever, and of course building 8 banks is very easy to do in the timeframe involved as well. I'm not sure if the Bank of St. George spread is intentional, but if it is I'd suggest an additional condition to the 3rd goal (maybe be the richest civilization, although with the absurd amounts of gold Genoa can make it probably won't be that hard either).

Yeah, I was afraid this is the case.
If the player is too successful economically during the other goals (which is often the case for human players with Genoa), it might feel that there is no challenge at all for the company goal.
But those companies can easily spread to other areas as well, so if you didn't have to "fight" for them, it means that you were already the best possible target for them by far.
I'm not really sure how to improve this, as in the end this means you played well enough to won the UHV, only it happened earlier.
Not ideal for sure, any ideas how to improve on the UHV?
I would like to keep a company-related goal for them. We can also add further goals, but being the richest civilization seems dull to me. I don't like that goal on other civs either.

gilgames · Jan 6, 2019

Spain and France are too easy. I did both of them.
Last spanish uhv, if its not automatic, you do it wrong. As framce i won in 1550~ and the last one was so easy.i had 3 colony by the time others discovered astronomy.

AbsintheRed · Jan 6, 2019

Baron03 said:
That makes sense.

During a few games I noticed that Russia, Kiev, and Novgorod to a lesser extent settle cities fairly close and clutter up areas of the map. Kiev especially settled cities in tight areas that are mediocre. Russia does this on the far eastern edge of the map as well as between Moscow and Smolensk. I think it would be useful to tweak their city placement some so they are more likely to be spread out some.

Occasionally Lithuania tried to do the same, but thankfully it is boxed in fairly well. Poland doesn't cause much problems either.

Those civs are set not to settle very close, with fairly small overlap in their cities.
For example, AI Moscow won't settle a tile, if at least 5 tiles are taken from the new city's BFC.
6 tiles for Novgorod and Kiev.
All are very low, means they usually have to settle at least 4 tiles away, even if they will only neighbor 1 previously established city.

Btw, what counts thight to you?
I think the ideal settling distance is 3 tiles for most western and central European civs. (4 for civs with more ground to cover, like the ones you mentioned, but also Morocco, Byzantium, Ottomans, Arabia, etc.)
In RFCE, is not bad to settle in 3 distance. You wouldn't use all tiles in most of your cities' BFC anyway.
Historically, we are not aiming for huge cities in a medieval mod.
In gameplay: during most of the timeline, health issues leave cities under size 12-15 for most civs. At least that's the intention.

AbsintheRed · Jan 6, 2019

Thanks for the feedback on Arabia and Byzantium everyone! Those civs were the most critical with all the recent changes IMO.
I just finished a full game with both civs. I found both to be challenging and fun with the new setup, really enjoyed them.
The updates in the last commit were partly based on the feedback, and partly my experience during the early part of my playthroughs.

Rafaelito said:
Tested the new byzantium changes. So far, so good. The previous one was really hard, yet possible to win. The new changes made the civ playable for all players, veterans or not, which is good. Now you will not have massive gold problems or instability while conquering the goal provinces. All you need are manor houses everywhere before plague strikes.

gilgames said:
So i have a game as arabia. But i need your help, how to aproach at the 3rd uhv. I was planning to take a city in lombardy to spam missionaries, but any tip is welcome.

Note on 1st uhv: you must be very precise to excecute it. HAs go west, the rest to for edessa. Need 2 settlers. Sur and alexa can do it. Sur also make a ship. Hire egyptian archers for palermo.

Thanks! Hopefully it will be fun to everyone.
With the various buffs the goal was to make them reachable for an experienced RFCE player, while keeping them fairly hard.
(Hopefully I didn't gone overboard for either civs, and they are still fairly hard after the update)

AbsintheRed · Jan 6, 2019

gilgames said:
Spain and France are too easy. I did both of them.
Last spanish uhv, if its not automatic, you do it wrong. As framce i won in 1550~ and the last one was so easy.i had 3 colony by the time others discovered astronomy.

Colonial UHVs are generally too easy.
Will have to do something with tech progress in the middle/late game. Quite a few adjustments with techs, actually.
Couple new techs, revising the whole system with techs way too closely tied to dates, etc.
It's a huge topic, won't touch it for 1.6.

AbsintheRed · Jan 6, 2019

gilgames said:
Feedback:

Last night i finished my first successfull game as cordoba.
Cordoba normally is a moderate start, then a massive war vs other iberians, then a boring end turn unitl uhv is done.

This time it was different. Instead of heavy fighing vs barbs, i could take pamplona then went broke, 0% sience, but managed to be size 12, that was enough. Later killed a spanish settler, so they were low and insignificant. Went up to 30-40% and got mezchita and 2 other wonder as well. I killed spain by 1200, then it was a slow fight versus portugal till 1400 ca. Aragon was the last after 1450. In the meantime i became a wondermonger. I was also constantly fighting with morocco.

It was very hard, compared to a usual cordoba. Also i got something to do all the time, and thats good.
After 1500 i could sabilized my economy enough to go up to 70-80% of sience buti was behinde a few tech by then.

Ps: i would love to see, how the does it, i mean financially. What %s is it running with.

gilgames said:
Ok, i finished a game with hungary. It was okey. There were no power peaks as in 1.5, and took 200 years more.
The only "problem" i can mention is that before mercantil8sm, no way you can be above 60% sience...thats wierd. Oh and vassal does not fulfill the territory goals. That should be changed. Or allow me to dow my vassal as i please.

Ottomans have a bug. When Byzy dies, all of ur cities stops what they were doing and ask for each what to do, as if you were just now conquered them.
Playing as Ottomans us super fun now. Just the stability needs some balance, i collapsed 2/2 game so far

Great to hear these, it seems that playthrough has improved for most civs!
Science is intentional, you shouldn't be able to run 100% science most of the time.

Regarding city production, I don't think that's a bug.
Production lists had to be actualized for some reason.
New tech maybe?
As always, a relevant savegame helps. A save right before the event/strange stuff. Previous turn, usually.

gilgames said:
And some more feedback.
I did a few game and i was happy that AI novgorod was pretty solid. On the other hand, musvovy ai is terrible, but i think its not really tje ai, but the balance.

Nice.

I won as spain and venice and hungary. Venice 2. Uhv is hard if you cant divert the crusade or you dont get one. I payed the money to divert it, chosed konstantinopol, then nothing happend, no dow, no units.

That does seem like a bug though.
Would be great if you could find a save before that crusade happened.

The other 2 nations uhvs are very easy. Also hungary's territories uhv does not count for vassals. I had bulgaria, and they dumped a settler on the tiny egde of my province and uhv counter said its not good. Otherwise easy af.

Ps: naval bases are awesome.

Was thinking about this before, but not really sure what's better regarding vassals and territory goals.
While it would solve some potentially annoying situations, I doubt it would be preferable for gameplay.
It's really exploitable if you are allowed to have vassals hold the required territory for you.
You could just gift away all cities in unstable territories, let your vassals do the heavy lifting.
And it's not just stability, economic and tech related UHVs would also be connected to this change.

gilgames · Jan 6, 2019

If i knew it wont count, then i would crush them....
Also, in general, lower tech pace does not seems to be very good. I mean there are a few civ, that can tech a lot faster then others. Like france, venice, norway...and everybody behide 900+ are screwed. Diplo relations are improved a bit but trade did not. If i.e. will trade latin sail with me for code of laws and 100 gold. That nuts. I feel like is 1 to 3 the trade rate. (Byz is the only exception)

And do something with russia too. They are pathetic.

DC123456789 · Jan 6, 2019

AbsintheRed said:
Yeah, I was afraid this is the case.
If the player is too successful economically during the other goals (which is often the case for human players with Genoa), it might feel that there is no challenge at all for the company goal.
But those companies can easily spread to other areas as well, so if you didn't have to "fight" for them, it means that you were already the best possible target for them by far.
I'm not really sure how to improve this, as in the end this means you played well enough to won the UHV, only it happened earlier.
Not ideal for sure, any ideas how to improve on the UHV?
I would like to keep a company-related goal for them. We can also add further goals, but being the richest civilization seems dull to me. I don't like that goal on other civs either.

How does the Bank of St. George decide what and how many cities to spread to? Maybe it might be easiest just let it spread to a couple more cities than it currently does. Although that might just mean that it just spreads to more Genoan cities and makes you even richer...

Development pre 1.6

Baron

Deity

Baron

Chieftain

Priest-King

Priest-King

Priest-King

Prince

Warlord

Priest-King

Attachments

Deity

Deity

Deity

Priest-King

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Priest-King

Deity

Similar threads