Development thread for 1.5

[cmakk1012]

The Byzantines could be even bigger and more lively in 500 also. They could hold Syracuse on Sicily and Brendesion (Brindisi) in Apulia, and try to conquer Ostrogothic Neapolis....

But there's just not enough space on the map and in the turns to fit that in if I'm honest with myself

 

[DC123456789]

I mean, we could have the Byzantines controlling southern Italy at start if a Sicilian civ is added, since then the Byzantines would lose those cities at around the right time.

 

[cmakk1012]

Even if that wasn't added (yet) there could still be a Byzantine city that falls to "Muslim" or "Norman" barbarians around that point

 

[Tigranes]

Really liked the latest SVN changes! One word about 1200 map though -- it is about the time to retire the TEST annotation because map look fairly balanced and complete by now.

Few critical companies missing at the start of 1200, especially in Near East last remaigning Indy strongholds of Christianity. Cyprus and Antiochia need some Templars/Hospitaliers.

Also it was my understanding that any newborn civ will flip their core area. Was that rule changed at some point?

 

[DC123456789]

A civ's core area hasn't corresponded exactly with its flip zone in RFCE for a long time.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Really liked the latest SVN changes!

Thanks! I'm also quite statisfied with how some of those turned up in the end.

One word about 1200 map though -- it is about the time to retire the TEST annotation because map look fairly balanced and complete by now.

The 1200AD scenario is not yet updated to the latest version of the map, otherwise it's perfectly playable.

Few critical companies missing at the start of 1200, especially in Near East last remaigning Indy strongholds of Christianity. Cyprus and Antiochia need some Templars/Hospitaliers.

I didn't set up the initial companies for the scenario manually, but wrote a script which places the already active ones to a couple initial cities.
So it's dynamic (as company spread itself), it won't always show up in the same places in 1200AD either.
When company value calculations are changed/improved, they might show up more frequently in the Levant on the start too.

Also it was my understanding that any newborn civ will flip their core area. Was that rule changed at some point?

A civ's core area hasn't corresponded exactly with its flip zone in RFCE for a long time.

Yeah, RFCE handles spawn and respawn area on separate maps. So it's based on tiles, not on whole provinces.
While it might be confusing at first, it's way more flexible for setting up the civ.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Possibly two negative options instead?

Decline option 1: Whilst we appreciate the need to support the faithful, we cannot spare any troops at this time.
Result: Decline to assist this time, lose some faith but still be requested for the next few crusades
Decline option 2: I will never play a part in the schemes of that snake of a Pope
Result: Decline to assist, lose lots of faith, don't be requested for the next few crusades

That way there is a straight decline, which knocks faith but not completely, and the nuclear option which means you don't get any more requests for a while but lose a lot of faith.

That way you can avoid the full penalties for missing one Crusade when you are in the middle of a major war and can't spare the troops

Yeah, something like this might work.
I'm not yet convinced that a second no option is needed, but will think about it.

 

[AbsintheRed]

@ on the Arab and Byzantine civ updates:
While I agree with some of those ideas/suggestiosn, won't start on bigger civ overhauls before 1.5 is released.

 

[gilgames]

Ok, I just finished a spanish game. I got a mistake, i built at least 5 musketman! Instead of terico. We have France, Spain and Germany as the tree musketeer. Their size stability and production are insane, and of course we got Austria, simply: The Scourge of Europe. (no more words)

So the 3 musketeer is just way too easy. If you know me I'm not the guy who complain if something is easy, but this is just ridiculous.
Popes tech gifting seems strong to me, but it need more testing.
2nd no option on crusades can be a temporary solution. In the long run, we need something to motivate player to participate in, imo 1or to turn of golden age can be a solution.
A big muslim company is a must, the whole islamic world seems empty.
Show un hireable mercenaries in the log is pointless, no civ will change religion to hire them.
The uhv done message is hilarious, and the 3rd on is unnecessary.
You should consider to give bigger numbers for Byzantine city placement factor. They settle cities way too close to each other. Generally everybody does, but its the most annoying in Asia Minor Byz/Ottoman, also denmark/Prussia tend to esttle every tile and Aragon too. For the same reason I think Moving Lithuanian start from 75/53 to 74/53.
Other thing to turn off city name show on city founding.
A little idea: Do not allow AI to build more than 1 religious prusecutor, they do not use them, but often build them in small cities thus crippling the initial production.

 

[The Turk]

Yes, I too played a Spain game, and it was very easy. You need to buff up the Muslim Moroccan dynasties, and have them actually invade Southern Iberia. The Reconquista happened really quickly and easily for me.

 

[cmakk1012]

It's interesting, Cordoba is too weak at Spain's spawn but seems strong enough for Portugal and Aragon when they spawn. Could just their starting stack when AI be improved?

 

[cmakk1012]

Oh yes, Morocco does need a buff as well, as Spain I was able to take parts of Africa easily since their cities kept seceding

 

[Force44]

Im not that type, but i just rage-quited from my polish game
...
There was a discussion about the polish UP that how awesome it is. No its not. only theoretically. They cant build all that buildings, especial in all your cities.

Personally I am on the side that the Polish UP as it is right now is not that awesome.
But when you take the arguments from the opponents side into consideration you can prevent yourself from rage quitting an additional time.

The fun in the game is through expression.
Now expression is a very personal thing.
Some people like to express themselves as a bird.
And some people like to express damn elves! as an elephant.
Generally the expression of a bird and an elephant are mutually exclusive.
The Polish UP supports both expressions so it is a very good UP.
That the simultaneous persuasion of both the bird and the elephant leads to ruin is due to a fault that lies with the player not with the UP.

Judging from your post you fell prey to the fault of wanting too much too soon. (You did not have enough production to support the armysize you desired.)
My personal opinion is that this is exactly the mistake the Polish UP encourages and that therefore the Polish UP is a very beginner unfriendly UP. Even players the caliber as yourself (Gilgames) apparently occasionally fall prey to it. And with the amount of emperor victories under your belt you are hard to consider as a beginner. That makes the Polish UP at least partially a handicap in my book.

Now there is no actual urgent need to fix anything broken with the UP of Poland. But personally I do feel that taking away some of the expression of either side and adding it to the other side will make the experience more enjoyable over all. (current experience for playing two polish games with two very different expressions: 'bird'~8 and 'elephant'~7. Proposed experience: either 'bird'~7 and 'elephant'~9 or 'bird'~10 and 'elephant'~6)

Having said that. A succesfull Polish game probably needs a solution similar to the recipe of victory for the first French UHV-condition.
Note how the solution to the French first UHV-condition (location of initial cities and priority of improvement and defence of tiles) is unrelated to their UP in its current form. (theoretically the city of Hoff, with acces to both copper and iron in Saxony, is a little better and would benefit from the French UP. But its additional production is negated and countered by the additional barbarian pressure. If only there was an additional village one plot southeast of Paris to allow a spot with more commerce so the need to spawn barbarians through pillage for money was reduced...)
With your record on the first French UHV I have full confidence that you (Gilgames) will find the solution to the three Polish UHV-conditions eventually.
And since my prediction of the Polish UP turning out to be not so great for future attemptees turned out to be correct let me make another one:

When you eventually do find the solution your victory will be all the sweeter.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yeah, Spain (Castile) is among the easiest civs.
I agree that Cordoba and Morocco should be much more powerful in the hands of the AI, but not really sure how to achieve that.
A potential buff could come in many forms. improving their starting situation (units, techs, flips), adding them better production/growth/support modifiers, and nerfing their opponents.

It's interesting, Cordoba is too weak at Spain's spawn but seems strong enough for Portugal and Aragon when they spawn. Could just their starting stack when AI be improved?

Currently the AI and the human player always get the same starting stack though. And we do not need more units for a human Cordoban player.
Was toying with the idea to separate human and AI starting stacks for a while.
Maybe it would worth the effort? In this situation more starting units would help the AI the most, based on the latest games reported here?

 

[cmakk1012]

I think more starting units would help, yes, since they need an early boost first and foremost. I'm not sure how to buff Morocco, though.
Would it be possible to make Cordoba more unstable maybe? If they collapsed in the 1000s as they did historically and IF Morocco was able to sweep in and take some of the newly independent cities that could work, but I don't know if that's possible to make happen consistently

 

[gilgames]

There is a slim chance that my english skill is not enough sophisticated to fully understand your (Force44) post but I hope i got the point. I think you missed one important matter in my rage. By the time i quited i had a fully developed core, ca. 6-7 cities and the rest was coming up, and still didn't had the production to completly take advantage of its potential. Yes I wanted to play as a bird+elephant. I also did polish uhv once upon a time. But I guess everybody has several civs with whom doesn't play often. For me its Poland. Portugal, Genoa Scotland and the English. If you would replace that polish civ with i.e. Netherland they could outproduce the whole world with that land. So imo they simply lack of prod.modifier and/or tech rate. So I didn't fell prey to anything, I just tried to play it as it is intended: fail. But i'll try them soon.

AI morocco could be improved with settlers. They AI settle in a very stupid manner (too close + too much unproductive cities). Cordoban AI seems good and historical to me. Arabs could use some "brain" and they would be nice.
One more side-note: AI builds dozens of ships but "never" use them, usually transport ships. Also way too much "explore" ships are out there.

 

[2phunkey4u]

Out of curiosity, started another game with Poland.

Everything unfolded normally, but something curiously bad happened in 1167. I got called up for a crusade, clicked the option to decline and immediately lost the game then. Judging from the diplo options and the hall of fame screen, I got force-shifted and lost the game as Aragon. Very odd.

 

[Swarbs]

Personally I don't think the problem with Poland is anything to do with its UP, it's much more to do with the sheer length of time between the spawn and the UHVs and the resultant lack of direction.

Other civs with similar long term UHVs like Germany and Arabia do at least have some interim goals - Germany has to conquer most of Europe but before that it has to conquer part of Europe, so there is something to work towards. Poland on the other hand has a huge gap between its spawn and the first two UHVs, both of which go in virtually opposite directions - one is all about improving territory and building large core cities to produce max food whilst the other is all about taking and holding cities in territory outside the core. So it is hard in the early period to remain focused on both at once and not go all out for one then miss the other.

Although having looked at your save gilgames, I don't think you have really played it as intended - the open ended nature of the religious UHV obviously implies this one should be done last. So the intention is to focus more on the food and military goals at first in order to meet the deadline which you don't seem to have done.

In particular it looks like you have beelined Printing Press in order to found Protestantism. There's no need to do that, and it certainly isn't historical or intended - you can just let Germany or whoever found it and then switch when asked. You've also researched Shipbuilding which is of no value to Poland. Also the time and effort spent getting Divine Right for Westminster Abbey is largely wasted - Poland doesn't get any instability or unhappiness from foreign religions so half the point of Religious Tolerance is gone anyway. And why build the Golden Bull when you have stayed in Apprenticeship? The amount of hammers spent on those wonders could have built your own SOD.

If you'd gone down the bottom of the tree, you'd probably be at Professional Army and Flintlock by now, so you would have a wall of pikes and muskets supported by Pistoliers who would eat up those Hungarian Huzars and Arquebusiers. I appreciate you want to play a richer game and not just focus on the UHV, but in my opinion (and it is just my opinion of course) you have ignored the 2nd UHV for too long and now are in a situation where you don't have a buffer to respond to unexpected setbacks and still win the game.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Out of curiosity, started another game with Poland.

Everything unfolded normally, but something curiously bad happened in 1167. I got called up for a crusade, clicked the option to decline and immediately lost the game then. Judging from the diplo options and the hall of fame screen, I got force-shifted and lost the game as Aragon. Very odd.

Wow, strange.
Which revision do you use?
Do you happen to have a savegame before it happens, and if yes, is it reproducable?

 

[gilgames]

I dont know but westminster is a must in my every catholic civ game. Its just too powerfull (can u change it?) And alsó like to have protestantism as my own. Maybe just bad habit. I tried poland again and failed hard, germany defeated me. I have to try it again.
PS: it seems slower ín lategame then several Update before.
PS2: sorry my phone is very stupid. Infó just Now noticed that it autocorrect every word