RFC Classical World

[srpt]

sorry I have been silent for a while.

I've been away from the mod a bit for a couple of reasons. I'll get to that later but right now I just wanted to comment on 3 areas that have been discussed here lately.

1. Land
yes I want this mod to look and feel quite different in terms of land usage. I want there to be many farms, few cottages, and more empty space. I want this because it suits my sense of history. we all know that 90% or more of the population of every pre-modern society were farmers so I am saying cities should need lots of farms or they won't grow. I don't think things perfect the way they are now and I'm happy to look for other ways to achieve these ends, perhaps ways that offer more freedom to the player, but overall I want the importance of farms to remain. recently I have thought that its the 2 food from the city tile thats at fault, since it makes almost any city grow by itself without starting farms.

2. Units
the unit setup in this mod may be a bit weird but at the same time I've never really felt that way about it while playing. from within the game it seems to make sense. there are also 2 reasons to try to keep the unit roster as simple as possible. actually 2 very related reasons: the fact that each unit must represent equivalent fighting styles in few quite different worlds and the fact that they need names that make sense in those worlds.

3. Lategame
I know, I have never really finished it. there are unused buildings, unit balance is kind of unknown, the Sassanids usually own half the world by the Arab spawn etc. I'm much better at starting these thing than finishing.

I will make some time to discuss these issues further and probably make some changes.

 

[stolenrays]

I was watching the history channel recently and come across some ideas for the Saxons. UBs could be the Buhr for the courthouse replacement and The Great Hall for a colloseum replacement.

 

[Swarbs]

Welcome back srpt! Don't worry about not being on here all the time - it's not like we're paying you for all your work after all!

For the three areas you've discussed:

1. Land
I completely agree with you, and this is one of the best aspects of this mod imo. Instead of rows of hills full of mines and windmills, and flatland full of cottages, this mod actually feels like playing in classical times when the world wasn't all that developed.

Maybe some better balance could be had by reducing the base food from farms by 1? That way you have to research the plough or switch civics before you get lots of food, and so cities will actually need lots of farms if they want to support any mines or specialists?

Or maybe make the farms grow like the cottages, so you have to invest in developing a city before it becomes powerful? +1 food to start, then +2 food after 20 turns, +2f/1h after 40 turns, +2f/1h/1g after 60 turns? That way farms plus specialists become the best way to use most tiles, but you have to invest in developing the farm. Agrarianism could then speed the growth of farms.

2. Units
Again, I agree with you - the units are not vanilla civ, but they feel fine to play with. It just forces you to think outside the box and develop some strategies rather than the usual boring 'scissors paper stone' of vanilla civ where every unit has an obvious and easy counter.

3. Lategame
This isn't as much the fault of the mod, imo, as just being a perennial problem with Civ. The lategame in Civ4 as a whole can be pretty uninspiring, and basic RFC and the other modmods are much the same. If I were you, I'd try to get the basic part of the mod to a situation where you are happy with it, before banging your head against the lategame!

 

[Ogi123]

Again, I agree with you - the units are not vanilla civ, but they feel fine to play with. It just forces you to think outside the box and develop some strategies rather than the usual boring 'scissors paper stone' of vanilla civ where every unit has an obvious and easy counter.

...you now that alternative to 'scissors paper stone' is spamming strongest unit? Sorry but unless srpt will go forward with planned changes to combat (collateral cavalry), counter units is what we are left with. Besides that is what we currently have in mod, spears couter cavalry, axe and sword infantry. Only thing different is that at end of game heavy cav dominate due lack of some spear unit.
Oh and axeman needs some changes because as of now for same price/25% more you get heavy spear with is better in everything. At least make it cheaper (30h?).

Maybe some better balance could be had by reducing the base food from farms by 1? That way you have to research the plough or switch civics before you get lots of food, and so cities will actually need lots of farms if they want to support any mines or specialists?

Or maybe make the farms grow like the cottages, so you have to invest in developing a city before it becomes powerful? +1 food to start, then +2 food after 20 turns, +2f/1h after 40 turns, +2f/1h/1g after 60 turns? That way farms plus specialists become the best way to use most tiles, but you have to invest in developing the farm. Agrarianism could then speed the growth of farms.

That however is idea that I fully support, my main problem is not that other improvements are to weak but that farms are to powerful. However problem is that cities on plains will suffer horribly from this, more food resorces in some locations?
Agarianism giving +1food in such case will be much better civic than currently rather useless implementation. I'm still of opinion that windmills needs some boost.

Question: does buildings that get bonus from resources funcion as intented? I always tought that this should be bonus from acess to resources, so more than one source don't count. Otherwise you get +100% production or more from resources themselves, my personal record was 150% I think.

 

[srpt]

Question: does buildings that get bonus from resources funcion as intented? I always tought that this should be bonus from acess to resources, so more than one source don't count. Otherwise you get +100% production or more from resources themselves, my personal record was 150% I think.

no that is definitely broken. I will look into it.

 

[Manco Capac]

Out of curiosity, what occurred between these two turns so I pass from a stable and prosperous empire to losing half my cities (and garrison at the same time)? Is it the defense pacts and Axum DoWed me? Parthia collapsed? It's weird to go from a perfectly controlled game to an automatic loss like that. I feel cheated like it was an aryan archer event.

 

[Tigranes]

Dou you play latest SVN? It even failed to load with my latest version...

 

[srpt]

I can't load it either. you could do this:

enable logging in your civIV.ini file

play the turn where you collapse

look in My Documents/My Games/Beyond the Sword/Logs/PythonDbg

search for the last "STABILITY CHECK"

there should be a printout of your check and collapse

the civs are identified by number and the the first civ is "0"

hope that helps

 

[Manco Capac]

Thanks SRPT for the logging process. I think I have a glimpse of what happened:

Spoiler :

('city acquired', u'Sad Darvazeh', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Barbarians', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('STABILITY CHECK city lost iNewOwner=', 51, 'iPreviousOwner=', 21, 'year=', 13)

('quick severe crisis, iCiv=', u'Parthia')

collapseToCore

('city acquired', u'Pattala', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Hangmatana', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Parsa', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Tisfun', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Babirush', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Arbaira', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Maysan', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Shush', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Damascas', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Gwadar', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Qandahar', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Merv', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Parthia')

('city acquired', u'Merv', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Barbarians', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Independent Cities')

('city acquired', u'Qandahar', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Barbarians', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Independent Cities')

CIVICS

('bad combo', 'empire', 'tyranny')

('bad combo', 'empire', 'decentralization')

('good combo', 'tyranny', 'dynastic cult')

HEALTH & HAPPINESS

('total happy', 103, 'total unhappy', 72, 'cities', 8)

('total health', 130, 'total unhealth', 72, 'cities', 8)

('iHappiness=', 3, 'iHealth=', 7)

ECONOMY

('gold=', -24, 'research=', 196, 'costs=', 99, 'iRate', 73)

EMPIRE

('iCorePop=', 46, 'iEmpirePop=', 168)

('iEmpireRating=', -3)

RELIGION

('iNumForeignReligions', 8, 'iNumNonbelievingCities', 0, 'iNumCities', 8)

('iReligionRating=', -1)

TOTALS

('Civics:', 1, 'Health & Happiness:', 1, 'Economy:', 1, 'Empire:', -3, 'Religion:', -1)

('Total:', -1)

('iAdjustment=', -3)

RESULT

('downgrade from stable to unstable, minor crisis, iCiv=', 8)

('city acquired', u'Tyros', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Nubia')

('city acquired', u'Yerushalayim', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Nubia')

('city acquired', u'Antiocheia', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Nubia')

('city acquired', u'Kourion', 'year=', 13)

('iNewOwner=', u'Independent Cities', 'iPreviousOwner=', u'Nubia')

CIVICS

HEALTH & HAPPINESS

('total happy', 54, 'total unhappy', 24, 'cities', 6)

('total health', 74, 'total unhealth', 21, 'cities', 6)

('iHappiness=', 5, 'iHealth=', 8)

ECONOMY

('gold=', 15, 'research=', 40, 'costs=', 17, 'iRate', 38)

EMPIRE

('iCorePop=', 32, 'iEmpirePop=', 28)

('iEmpireRating=', 1)

RELIGION

('iNumForeignReligions', 3, 'iNumNonbelievingCities', 0, 'iNumCities', 6)

('iReligionRating=', -1)

TOTALS

('Civics:', 2, 'Health & Happiness:', 2, 'Economy:', 1, 'Empire:', 1, 'Religion:', -1)

('Total:', 5)

('iAdjustment=', -3)

('stability flat at stable, no crisis, iCiv=', 9)

('War declared, iTeam=', u'Axum', 'iRivalTeam=', u'Saba', 'year=', 13)

('War declared, iTeam=', u'Nubia', 'iRivalTeam=', u'Axum', 'year=', 13)

('STABILITY CHECK war, iTeam=', u'Nubia', 'year=', 13)

CIVICS

('bad combo', 'empire', 'tyranny')

('bad combo', 'empire', 'decentralization')

('good combo', 'tyranny', 'dynastic cult')

HEALTH & HAPPINESS

('total happy', 47, 'total unhappy', 41, 'cities', 4)

('total health', 38, 'total unhealth', 43, 'cities', 4)

('iHappiness=', 1, 'iHealth=', -2)

angry city

ECONOMY

('gold=', 24, 'research=', 130, 'costs=', 39, 'iRate', 115)

EMPIRE

('iCorePop=', 46, 'iEmpirePop=', 60)

('iEmpireRating=', -1)

RELIGION

('iNumForeignReligions', 4, 'iNumNonbelievingCities', 0, 'iNumCities', 4)

('iReligionRating=', -1)

TOTALS

('Civics:', 1, 'Health & Happiness:', -2, 'Economy:', 1, 'Empire:', -1, 'Religion:', -1)

('Total:', -2)

('iAdjustment=', 1)

RESULT

('stability flat at unstable, minor crisis, iCiv=', 8)

From what I understand:
1) Some barb captured unstable Parthia city ==> collapse
2) That triggered a stability check
3) Perhaps a re-calibration of world stability as Axum was born and Parthia dead.
4) It seems I had two collapse, but the first caused by Parthia was the one at fault.

Is that correct? Or is there something else?

Also, will the future Makuria makes problem to the kingdom of Meroe. Which cities will defect to them? Only Nubia's core?

 

[srpt]

rev 140

free units from handicap level is back. I think that was the problem.

 

[Swarbs]

rev 140

free units from handicap level is back. I think that was the problem.

Still not working for me.

At Emperor level the F2 screen still shows zero free units. Have tried this with Ptolemy, Antigonids and Seleucids but it's the same every time (screenshots attached).

If you don't have time to look into it in more depth, can you please let me know the files to edit so I can try myself? This used to be my favourite RFC modmod, but now it's close to unplayable at high difficulty levels as the maintenance costs just cripple you.

 

[Swarbs]

Having looked into it a bit more, I've found the following lines in GlobalDefines.xml:

<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_BASE_FREE_UNITS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_BASE_FREE_MILITARY_UNITS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_UNITS_POPULATION_PERCENT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_MILITARY_UNITS_POPULATION_PERCENT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_GOLD_PER_UNIT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_OUTSIDE_UNITS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

Whereas for all other RFC modmods, and RFC itself, the figures are:

<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_BASE_FREE_UNITS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>4</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_BASE_FREE_MILITARY_UNITS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_UNITS_POPULATION_PERCENT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>24</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_MILITARY_UNITS_POPULATION_PERCENT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>12</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_GOLD_PER_UNIT</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_FREE_OUTSIDE_UNITS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>4</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

I think this is where the issue is happening - I put the vanilla values back in and the free units came back at a reasonable level (screenie for Ptolemy below).

Was this a deliberate change?

 

[srpt]

It must have been an experiment. thanks for figuring it out. I never play emperor.

rev 141 reverts those numbers to standard RFC

 

[Swarbs]

It must have been an experiment. thanks for figuring it out. I never play emperor.

rev 141 reverts those numbers to standard RFC

No worries - I guess those numbers would have applied to all difficulty levels to some extent, but it was most noticeable at harder difficulties.

Now back to carving up the classical world!

 

[DC123456789]

Changing civics does invoke any anarchy, no matter what you change. I assume this is not intentional.

As well, it seems that the 40 turn grace period after you spawn for stability checks is broken, at least for the Antigonids.

 

[DC123456789]

As well, core cities should not be able to declare independence. This just kind of results in further instability that puts the civ into a death spiral, whereas the whole point of cities declaring independence is that the civ retreats to areas where they can control more easily.

 

[Swarbs]

Changing civics does invoke any anarchy, no matter what you change. I assume this is not intentional.

As well, it seems that the 40 turn grace period after you spawn for stability checks is broken, at least for the Antigonids.

Do you mean does not invoke any anarchy? I think that's intentional - changing civics seems to trigger a fall in stability and a stability check, so if you are a stable civ you don't have any anarchy, but if you are unstable you can get three or more turns of anarchy.

As well, core cities should not be able to declare independence. This just kind of results in further instability that puts the civ into a death spiral, whereas the whole point of cities declaring independence is that the civ retreats to areas where they can control more easily.

Agree with this. Are you specifically referring to the Antigonids? They are in a bizarre situation, with Greece counting as a core province, but with three foreign cities there which cause bad Empire stability from the start and are very difficult to capture.

Imo Greece should be made border for the Antigonids - civs should not be able to lose cities in core provinces, and should control all, or almost all, of their core from the start.

 

[DrZomboss]

There's a similar situation for Seleucids, who do not control Tyros who is in their core province.... but Seleucids have a strong enough army to capture it, not like Antigonids.

 

[DC123456789]

Previously the Antigonids and Seleucids were okay because they had the 40 turn grace period to capture their core cities before they started getting stability checks, but without it they're kind of screwed over.

 

[Tigranes]

Any chance Arabs will get extra Settler for Basra? There is not a single port on the coast from India to Yemen!