Minor Suggestions Thread

[deanej]

I agree about England. How about something along the lines of "Control Canada, South Africa, India, and Australia by yyyy"?

 

[FromasterG]

The only problem with the Monroe Doctrine is that the Americans never intended to snuff out existing European settlements, because that would have caused such destructive diplomatic problems with the existing colonial powers. They only fought to keep out further settlement so that the US could be the dominant power in the region.

Although the US invaded Canada twice, neither time was too successful, and it always returned the cities to their original owners. For the Spanish-American War, even though the US rooted out Spanish colonies for their own imperialism, it never really owned those territories. As far a game mechanics goes, I feel that Spanish owned Havana better represents the real Cuba than an American Havana even though an independent Cuba would be better still.

 

[say1988]

it never really owned those territories.

Except for the ones it owns to this day.

Through much of it independent history (from independence until the revolution) Cuba was very close to the US. Not to mention that the US has occupied many other nations in the Caribbean.

It fits well. It isn't perfectly historical but many goal aren't. The US attempted to acquire Canada and failed, view it as an alternate history goal (like Germans taking Britain and Russia).

 

[Corossol]

I think Ryhe really needs to integrate some of the changes from Better AI, however this would be hard work as he has also changed the AI specifically for this mod. So he would have to pick though the code in detail and make sure everything was compatible.

I'm making a modmod to improve many aspects of RFC (thread & download here) and like many modders my best intentions are often thwarthed by the weak AI. I'm going to take a look at the Better AI mod and see if I can incorporate some of the code in a future version.

 

[blizzrd]

I also think that the American UHV should not require them to necessarily invade Canada or the Caribbean. They historically left those areas alone, for the most part, and were more interested in expanding to the Pacific. Maybe a number of cities requirement or a population requirement could replace these two.

I disagree. US policy was very much about getting US control over as much of the America's as possible. As for "left those areas alone", this is just plainly an incorrect statement.

Panama, Cuba, Domician Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Grenada, Mexico, Columbia, etc. have all been invaded at various times since US independence from Britain by the US military.

 

[-Perceval-]

Ok, here a little pack of suggestions for the next version:

- Add one hill in center of france, north to the horse(there are a lot of hills and even little mountains in the center of france and even some ski station(it's very cold here!)).

- Change the french UHV who is really not historically accurate and change it by "the power of revolutions", a UHV who give them a little pack of units at each doctrin changes/anarchy(like it has already been suggsted in an other topic)(the french has a lot of time been in war with all the other european country!)

-Make the computer really more intelligent in the placement of his cities if this is possible(This is particullary visible with the aztecs and in RAND where he build some cities only two tiles of others cities.)

-Make the mongol a little bit stronger(to make them invade china) and less stable

-Make the khmer less stable

-reduce barbarian pressure on mali and aztecs(the poor guys!)

-Make the roman much more stronger

That's all !

 

[fireclaw722]

Ok, here a little pack of suggestions for the next version:

- Add one hill in center of france, north to the horse(there are a lot of hills and even little mountains in the center of france and even some ski station(it's very cold here!)).

- Change the french UHV who is really not historically accurate and change it by "the power of revolutions", a UHV who give them a little pack of units at each doctrin changes/anarchy(like it has already been suggsted in an other topic)(the french has a lot of time been in war with all the other european country!)

-Make the computer really more intelligent in the placement of his cities if this is possible(This is particullary visible with the aztecs and in RAND where he build some cities only two tiles of others cities.)

-Make the mongol a little bit stronger(to make them invade china) and less stable

-Make the khmer less stable

-reduce barbarian pressure on mali and aztecs(the poor guys!)

-Make the roman much more stronger

That's all !

1.)I agree that France should get some(on maybe) hill regions

2.)That would make French UP(I think you meant UP instead pf UHV) majorly unbalanced, though it would be more historically accurate

3.)It would be best if RFC was merged with Better BTS AI, that makes the AI better all together

4.)The Mongols are a hit-or-miss type thing with me, as they sometimes get China, but not often

5.)I say that Khmer is got some O.K. stability(now thats on a GREAT/GOOD/O.K./BAD/TERRIBLE/Horrid type scale)

6.)Aztecs don't need less barb pressure, nor the Mali, but the Mali need less Native pressure

7.)The Romans aren't very strong in my games(when I'm no them), and typically don't even take France(Gaul) from the Celts.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

You mean the power of free troops without stability hits when you have Cristo Redentor? Almost as good as the German UP.

 

[blizzrd]

6.)Aztecs don't need less barb pressure, nor the Mali, but the Mali need less Native pressure

Actually most of the Impi who attack Mali are Barbarians. The Impi who attack Ethiopia are mostly Natives.

 

[fireclaw722]

I guess in most games(for me) the Barbs weaken Mali and the Natives take the cities.

 

[blizzrd]

What you have probably seen occur actually is that the Barbarians attack and raze the capital. Then Mali collapses to Native as opposed to Barbarians.

 

[JiimBV]

Some suggestions:

Phalanx: 5 75% Defense vs. Chariot, 50% vs. Melee Units, 2

Immortal: 4 , 75% vs. Mounted Units, 100% vs. Archers, Starts with Mobility

Bowman: 4 , 25% City Attack, 25% City Defense, Incapable of getting defense bonuses (such as walls/cities/hills/forests)

Make both Greece and Persia more willing to expand into Mesopotamia, with the help of their quick units, and Babylon's new weak defense unit. Also make Babylon more likely/willing to conquer Jerusalem, Shush and Sur, with the help of it's ancient offensive powerhouse.

I know these are most likely stupid ideas, but I'm really tired... and I'm gunna go to bed now. G'night!

 

[-Perceval-]

The enormous problem with the fact that phalanx has 50% against melee unit is that the roman never succeed to invade greece, so i disagree.

 

[JiimBV]

Well then...

Phalanx: 5 , 100% vs. Chariot, 50% vs. Axemen, 2

This would make sure that Greece doesn't have a big weak spot against Axemen, but allow Rome to conquer it with it's Praetorians. This would also make Greece very strong vs. Egypt.

Hopefully Rhye could force the AI to go on historic war paths somehow, but I don't know if that's possible. I know he has war maps now, but I've never once seen Greece be aggressive.

 

[deanej]

That's probably because Greece represents more than Alexander.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Hopefully Rhye could force the AI to go on historic war paths somehow, but I don't know if that's possible. I know he has war maps now, but I've never once seen Greece be aggressive.

When ancient AI civs start to do some meager build-ups, the plague and the barbs hit them. Not to mention that the usual AI unit incompetency is made worse by the fact that they build units 10% slower then the human at Monarch and at equal speed at Emperor.

Rome usually manages some aggression due to Praets, but everyone else usually doesn't, though Persia may occasionally destroy Babylon/India.

 

[BurnEmDown]

When ancient AI civs start to do some meager build-ups, the plague and the barbs hit them. Not to mention that the usual AI unit incompetency is made worse by the fact that they build units 10% slower then the human at Monarch and at equal speed at Emperor.

Rome usually manages some aggression due to Praets, but everyone else usually doesn't, though Persia may occasionally destroy Babylon/India.

Which is why you turned the plague off and lowered instability in your RFC
No offense

About the Greeks not representing only Alexander, I agree but his conquering of the middle east set the ground for Rome's expansion into that area. Imagine the Greeks staying at home and not bothering Persia after the Greco-Persian wars, with about 200 years of rest for the Persians, could Rome conquer all those lands? Then again RFC is quite the "what if?" historical-scenario simulator

 

[JiimBV]

When ancient AI civs start to do some meager build-ups, the plague and the barbs hit them. Not to mention that the usual AI unit incompetency is made worse by the fact that they build units 10% slower then the human at Monarch and at equal speed at Emperor.

Wow, I never knew that. I don't understand the reasoning behind it...

 

[Lone Wolf]

Wow, I never knew that. I don't understand the reasoning behind it...

Rhye was worried about the speed of his mod, and took measures to make the number of AI units less. Of course, of you have a sufficiently high-tech machine, it doesn't matter, and if you haven't, RFC will run slow anyway.

 

[KaiserKevin]

I'd like to request some 'yellow' spots on the map around Sur/Jerusalem for European countries given their involvement in the Crusades (a major historical event I have never seen duplicated in the game) At least give appropriate name changes for if a European civ takes those cities.