RFC Classical World

[Swarbs]

this change means the advantage goes to the attacker ie the one with initaitive. I think this makes some sense. what doesn't make sense is an army hop-scotching across foreign territory taking advantage of what are basically fortresses scattered across the land. bare hills still provide this function in a more limited way and that limitation is better for the game imo. if you have time to prepare-an-ambush ie fortify, the penalty is negated. maybe it's possible to make the fortification bonus conditional on terrain, but then the AI would have no idea. or perhaps it could be conditional on tile ownership. with this change I have already had more important battles out in the open because it wasn't possible to approach cities via defensible terrain, and I really like this change so far.

I agree with this, although would it be possible to keep some form of defensive bonus for archery units? That way you would replicate the process by which classical era armies had peltast and archer skirmishers to protect against ambushes - those units could act as the screen for a larger force of heavy infantry, cavalry and artillery who would fight for the cities. It would also simulate the vulnerability of classical armies if their skirmishers were destroyed by targeted enemy attacks.

The only question would be whether the AI could handle the need to field mixed stacks containing archery units, and keep them together if one unit gets a bonus from a terrain type and one gets a penalty.

another change I may make is to reduce the movement speed of most units and increase road speed to X3. the reason for this is the many, many instances where units path off the road while taking the shortest path to a destination. I have always found this irritatingly unrealistic. if I did this I would probably add some more pre-placed roads to the early maps.

I think a basic road speed of x2 would be perfectly adequate - the reason so many units path off the road is that a unit only seems to get 1 additional movement on a road. If a unit with movement of 2 got 4 moves on road then pathing off the road would largely disappear imo.

Also maybe set it so that crossing a river whilst on a road doesn't completely end the turn before bridge building, just takes a full move rather than 1/2 a move?

One bug I've noticed is that once Christianity splits into Catholicism, Arianism, Miaphysite and Nestorian, civs stop being able to build Christian wonders (e.g. Theodosian Walls) or found Christian shrines. I think that aspect of the game still needs a bit of work as the ERE is now a bit less rich to play when you can't build the big wonders.

 

[Swarbs]

Btw, welcome back srpt! Good to see you again, looking forwards to the new changes

 

[srpt]

forest defense:
those are good ideas. I'll think about it some more. for now I prefer no bonus to the way it was, for the gameplay reasons I mentioned. I don't want to add something the human player will just exploit over the AI.

road movement:
I thought roads gave a percentage bonus, not +1. the xml says <iMovement>50<iMovement>

Christian wonders:
they should all be buildable with the branches of Christianity, not the original. this gives incentive to make the split happen. some of the wonders xml is probably wrong.

and again, thanks for all the welcomes. it's nice to be back.

 

[CrossRFC]

Haven't been around in ages. Great to see this is still being developed.

 

[Sitalkas]

Oh god, yes!!!

Welcome back srpt!! I have been really busy with work lately, but I think I will find some free time to try the new additions !!

 

[Swarbs]

road movement:
I thought roads gave a percentage bonus, not +1. the xml says <iMovement>50<iMovement>

Well something is happening, as it generally ends up only being +1.

Infantry with 2 movement get 3 on roads
Skirmishers and Cavalry with 3 movement get 4 on roads
Cavalry with 4 movement get 5 on roads

Either way, there's not a huge benefit from roads at the moment, which is why the pathing off road occurs so often, particularly when crossing a river.

I would have roads give 100% movement as standard, then 200% with bridge building as in most mods. That would avoid almost all cases of pathing off roads.

 

[Swarbs]

-lowered Farm food to +1 since there seems to be too much food on the map compared to the happiness caps

I think this is a negative change - I've never noticed there being excessive food compared to the happiness cap for most civs in Europe and the Levant. Particularly now population seems to be giving +2 per point which really harms food output for most civs. Reducing the food from farms massively reduces the value of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates as sources of food, particularly in light of the -1 to production for tiles not adjacent to the city.

I would keep +2 for farms as that was a major distinguishing feature of the mod, maybe reduce the amount of grasslands in China as that is the only place where food is really excessive imo.

 

[Sitalkas]

I think this is a negative change - I've never noticed there being excessive food compared to the happiness cap for most civs in Europe and the Levant. Particularly now population seems to be giving +2 per point which really harms food output for most civs. Reducing the food from farms massively reduces the value of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates as sources of food, particularly in light of the -1 to production for tiles not adjacent to the city.

I would keep +2 for farms as that was a major distinguishing feature of the mod, maybe reduce the amount of grasslands in China as that is the only place where food is really excessive imo.

extra food could be added by technologies or from civics

This way, cities could start small and get bigger and bigger as the game progresses

 

[Ogi123]

I think this is a negative change - I've never noticed there being excessive food compared to the happiness cap for most civs in Europe and the Levant. Particularly now population seems to be giving +2 per point which really harms food output for most civs. Reducing the food from farms massively reduces the value of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates as sources of food, particularly in light of the -1 to production for tiles not adjacent to the city.

I would keep +2 for farms as that was a major distinguishing feature of the mod, maybe reduce the amount of grasslands in China as that is the only place where food is really excessive imo.

Actually this is something that is most problematic in RFCW, because it basically force player into specialist economy. With plow tech and agrarianism this is +4food, even on plains that means 2,5 pop per farm.

 

[srpt]

extra food could be added by technologies or from civics

This way, cities could start small and get bigger and bigger as the game progresses

Actually this is something that is most problematic in RFCW, because it basically force player into specialist economy. With plow tech and agrarianism this is +4food, even on plains that means 2,5 pop per farm.

yes, I think the later bonuses from tech and civics are better balanced starting with just +1 food from farms. and I like that the cities start smaller in the early era.

 

[DC123456789]

I think the farm change is good, getting to +4 food by the endgame is a little overpowered.

Do you find the AI Qin a little underpowered? I don't usually see them unite China before the Han spawn, which is kind of unfortunate.

Also, a suggestion: when the Xiongnu spawn, spawn their capital Luut Khot at 2E, 1N of the horse and 1S of the sheep that's SW of Lake Baikal.

 

[srpt]

svn 273

-fixed road movement. it's now effectively X2 and units don't path off the road
-Maccaben UP now properly applies to archers as well as melee and mounted
-removed the old Seleucid UP (x2 gold from city conquest) that had been lurking thre since the small map days
-changed the infaltion offset ie the delay from the start of the game before it kicks in. it's now turn 100

Do you find the AI Qin a little underpowered? I don't usually see them unite China before the Han spawn, which is kind of unfortunate.

yes I'll have a look at that soon

Also, a suggestion: when the Xiongnu spawn, spawn their capital Luut Khot at 2E, 1N of the horse and 1S of the sheep that's SW of Lake Baikal.

good idea

Continuing my Seleucid game. the empire is disintegrating, economy in the toilet, Antigonids respawned and took Ephesus and Pella (they should respawn as Kingdom of Macedon), it's raining barb Parthians, Jewish revolt was successful (just Jerusalem though)

anyone have an idea for a UU and/or UB for Harshavardana?

 

[Swarbs]

Actually this is something that is most problematic in RFCW, because it basically force player into specialist economy. With plow tech and agrarianism this is +4food, even on plains that means 2,5 pop per farm.

That's my point exactly - with only +1 per farm most civs will find they are forced to take agrarianism asap as otherwise they won't have enough food to work mines, towns and other resources in their city radius.

Personally I would have farms still give +2 food, but have agrarianism give +1 per farm as in SOI. After all, genuine agrarianism is more about moving the nucleus of the economy out of the urban centres and towards the farms, making farmers self sufficient economic units rather than just food production units.

Giving +1 under agrarianism has always struck me as a little bizarre. It essentially has farms as being there to supply food to the cities, which is the polar opposite of genuine agrarianism.

An even more realistic option, imo, would be for farms to give +2 and agrarianism to have -1 and +2 per farm with the same -1 trade routes and 50% slower cottage growth.

That would reflect the process of turning farms away from food producing units for cities and towards sources of economic wealth. It would also give the player a genuine choice between pursuing an agrarian economy or an urban economy with more food for specialists, rather than just pushing every civ towards agrarianism just to grow their cities.

 

[srpt]

That's my point exactly - with only +1 per farm most civs will find they are forced to take agrarianism asap as otherwise they won't have enough food to work mines, towns and other resources in their city radius.

Personally I would have farms still give +2 food, but have agrarianism give +1 per farm as in SOI. After all, genuine agrarianism is more about moving the nucleus of the economy out of the urban centres and towards the farms, making farmers self sufficient economic units rather than just food production units.

Giving +1 under agrarianism has always struck me as a little bizarre. It essentially has farms as being there to supply food to the cities, which is the polar opposite of genuine agrarianism.

An even more realistic option, imo, would be for farms to give +2 and agrarianism to have -1 and +2 per farm with the same -1 trade routes and 50% slower cottage growth.

That would reflect the process of turning farms away from food producing units for cities and towards sources of economic wealth. It would also give the player a genuine choice between pursuing an agrarian economy or an urban economy with more food for specialists, rather than just pushing every civ towards agrarianism just to grow their cities.

you're right that a civic called Agrarianism leading to a specialist economy can seem counter intuitive. the idea is simply a farm bonus for civs focused on agriculture to exclusion of other things, like trade, culture and military. the bonus doesn't have to be food. I don't think every civ is pushed to it. I only use it if I don't have a use for the others or don't have the techs for them.

maybe farm +1 food, agrarianism +1 commerce from farm, plough +2 food from farm. that would make the tech really worth it, which I'd like.

my last 2 games with starting farms at +1 food (Antigonids and Seleucids) all my cities can grow enough to work all their important tiles with specialists in more than half of them.

 

[srpt]

I'm thinking a bit about unitcombat types and what you could do with them via promotion availability.

first what got me thinking about it was elephants getting mounted type promotions like flanking and sentry, which isn't really appropriate. they could have their own unitcombat type.

horsemen would be unitcombat light cavalry and would get flanking, sentry

horse archers would be missile cavalry and would get flanking and sentry also

javelinmen would be unitcombat light infantry or skirmish infantry and would get flanking, guerilla and woodsman (and maybe drill?)

lancers would be unitcombat heavy cavalry and would get blitz

archers and marksmen would be unitcombat archers and get city defender, guerilla, woodsman and drill. also perhaps "can only defend"

I think taking guerilla and woodsman away from melee units really makes skirmish infantry distinct and archers not attacking does the same for them

I also think there should be a scout unit (mounted graphic, doesn't require horses, can only defend). the AI would scout with it instead of scouting with armies which take odd, far away cities.

I also think it would be fun to have catapults and ships captureable

edit: just realized the Parthenon wonder has no effect. maybe +1 happiness in cities with Hellenism?

 

[Swarbs]

you're right that a civic called Agrarianism leading to a specialist economy can seem counter intuitive. the idea is simply a farm bonus for civs focused on agriculture to exclusion of other things, like trade, culture and military. the bonus doesn't have to be food. I don't think every civ is pushed to it. I only use it if I don't have a use for the others or don't have the techs for them.

That's how it used to be, but now the lack of food surplus makes it much more valuable in comparison to the others.

vs Trade Economy, use the extra food to run merchants
vs Patronage, without the extra food you will struggle to run more than two artists
vs Miltary Economy, use the extra food to run tradesmen or engineers

my last 2 games with starting farms at +1 food (Antigonids and Seleucids) all my cities can grow enough to work all their important tiles with specialists in more than half of them.

That's fine for the Antigonids and Selucids, which have good enough territory they don't really rely too much on farms with so many other food resources. But it's a problem for the Ptolemaics imo, as it basically makes many of the Nile floodplains fairly useless as farms only give 2 and 1. Particularly with the high rate of accumulation.

Maybe make farms more variable depending on the terrain type - I definitely think farms should get an extra bonus to food on floodplains as they were so vital to early agriculture and the size of cities like Babylon and Alexandria, which were still huge.

Would you consider starting with +1 for farms and +1 extra for farms on floodplains? Then after The Plough all farms get +3 whether on floodplains or not.

+1 for farms is definitely a better reflection of agrarianism than extra food. Maybe even -1, +1 and +1 to reflect the economic and production importance of farms under an agrarian system.

 

[srpt]

what do you think about adding the +1 food to plough, so it's +2 total?

just finished the Seleucids. it was a fun game. the Parthians were tough and took Merv, Herat and Susa. I gave them Baktra for peace since it was my only city east of them and I wanted to fight easier foes. I retook Athens from the indys and also took Cyprus from them for the provinces part of the 2nd goal. by then the Romans had the Rhodes, Pella and Epidamnos. I left them alone. I used the golden age from the 2nd goal to declare on the Judeans, Nubians and Pontus without a crisis and got the 3rd great general in 62bc

 

[Ogi123]

I'm thinking a bit about unitcombat types and what you could do with them via promotion availability.

first what got me thinking about it was elephants getting mounted type promotions like flanking and sentry, which isn't really appropriate. they could have their own unitcombat type.

horsemen would be unitcombat light cavalry and would get flanking, sentry

horse archers would be missile cavalry and would get flanking and sentry also

javelinmen would be unitcombat light infantry or skirmish infantry and would get flanking, guerilla and woodsman (and maybe drill?)

lancers would be unitcombat heavy cavalry and would get blitz

archers and marksmen would be unitcombat archers and get city defender, guerilla, woodsman and drill. also perhaps "can only defend"

I think taking guerilla and woodsman away from melee units really makes skirmish infantry distinct and archers not attacking does the same for them

I also think there should be a scout unit (mounted graphic, doesn't require horses, can only defend). the AI would scout with it instead of scouting with armies which take odd, far away cities.

I also think it would be fun to have catapults and ships captureable

edit: just realized the Parthenon wonder has no effect. maybe +1 happiness in cities with Hellenism?

Honestly it doesn't matter much, with how terrible civ4 combat system is. But if we are talking about units... Overall in my opinion what is needed is more abstraction as there simply isn't any way to portrait typical classical combat with skirmishers, line infantry and cavalry, so my pie in the sky proposition is totally revamp unit lines:
1. remove siege units - they were historically used only in sieges, and from gameplay point of view collateral damage cheapens game and makes cities into death traps for defenders.
2. Heavy infantry line - workhorse of your army, reasonable strength (4/6/8/10), 2 movement, requires metal, all units of this line get +10% city attack, can bombard city defences.
3. Light infantry line - skirmishers, low strength (3/4/6/8), 3 movement, start with sentry, withdrawal chance(10/15/20/25?), access to guerilla/woodsman/flanking promotions, -25% city strength, no resources needed.
4. Heavy cavalry line - expensive, limited (2 + 2 per city), 3 movement, very strong (6/8/10/12), access to barracks+stables so 5Xp on creation, -10% city attack, requires horse + metal, some civics increase unit cap.
5. Light cavalry line - fast pillagers, scouts, harassers, limited as heavy cavalry. Good movement (4), pillaging doesn't requires movement points, good withdrawal chance (15/20/25/30), can flee from defensive combat (10/15/20/25), missile cavalry rolled into this category, strength as light infantry, requires horse.
6. City garrison line - cheap, weak outside cities, can only defend, 2 movement. All units of this line get +50% city defence, low strength (4/6), no resources needed.

 

[Swarbs]

what do you think about adding the +1 food to plough, so it's +2 total?

Too late in the game for floodplains imo.

Whilst I agree that there's too much food with +2 food for farms on grasslands and plains, floodplains were the major source of food for most of the early period of the game. If you look at pretty much every major population centre of the classical world - Egypt, Mesopotamia and China were all fed by floodplain.

Also, personally, I think it's not too much of an issue to have cities like Babylon, Alexandria, Seleucia and the Yellow River cities exceeding their happy caps, as this is pretty much what happened to them IRL.

So I would still have farms giving +1 food in general with +2 food from floodplains. Then I would have crop rotation give +1 food to farms not on floodplains, to reflect the role of crop rotation in preserving soil nutrients, which essentially substitutes for the regular deposit of nutrients on a floodplain.

Then the plough gives a further +1, so farms get gradually better over time, rather than being pretty rubbish for most of the game and suddenly becoming really good with one magic tech. After all, the plough didn't really revolutionise agricultural crop yields, it just made the process of preparing a field to sow quicker and less labour intensive, so I don't see the argument for it having such a massive impact on crop yields.

 

[Swarbs]

1. remove siege units - they were historically used only in sieges, and from gameplay point of view collateral damage cheapens game and makes cities into death traps for defenders.

I would favour removing the collateral damage from siege units (or if it can't be removed then cap it at a ridiculously low value like 5%) and keeping their ability to bombard defences. That would better reflect their actual use in real life, as tools to knock down walls rather than kill loads of people.