RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[merijn_v1]

This may have been proposed already, but it seems like an omission:

We have promotions to counter archery units, heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry, but no promotion vs. polearms. Some heavy infantry have built-in advantages vs. polearms, but it's not possible to train units that lack that initial thrust. For a name, I'd suggest something like 'armored', as shock is already taken.

We have. Just look at the promotion "Feint".

 

[Michael Vick]

I also think an indy Bordeaux would be better than an indy Tours. It would make the player's choice of city locations much more flexible. Combining that with a later Burgundy spawn might just achieve a proper balance.
I'd go with that.

100% agreed, although I think Marseilles should not be a part of the picture, if you could just take it out of the settler map it would be more historical, and Burgundy would get to Benelux more quickly. I propose an 880 start, the start of the reign of the first Duke, Richard the Justiciar.

 

[micbic]

Historically, Burgundy was existent at three periods. At the first two of them, it stretched down to Marseille, so I dont see a reason to take it out. What is a bit ahistorical though is that it gets at Alsace-Lorraine. So the ideal Burgundy, for me at least, would be a cut-out nation, where the southern part gets Dijon, Lyon, a city west of them and perhaps Marseille or Basel, while the north takes Antwerp and Liege.

 

[Michael Vick]

I push for the cutting of Marseilles because if I'm not mistaken those first two instances were the Kingdoms of Burgundy, not the Duchy.. I think.

 

[micbic]

OK. The Duchy of Burgundy only existed as an independent nation in the 1300-1500 timespan. So, if we are to only represent the Duchy...we have to spawn it around that time, and not at 880. (and BTW, the Kingdom of Burgundy was based at Lyon)

 

[st.lucifer]

Historically, Burgundy was existent at three periods. At the first two of them, it stretched down to Marseille, so I dont see a reason to take it out. What is a bit ahistorical though is that it gets at Alsace-Lorraine. So the ideal Burgundy, for me at least, would be a cut-out nation, where the southern part gets Dijon, Lyon, a city west of them and perhaps Marseille or Basel, while the north takes Antwerp and Liege.

I've actually seen this develop a couple of times in the handful of games I've managed to play since returning. That said, I'm not sure we can really force this - Civ isn't really designed with cutouts in mind. Also, while it's somewhat ahistorical for Burgundy to hold Alsace-Lorraine, remember that we're talking about an area that was constantly in flux since pre-Roman times - and it still seems to be something of a crapshoot as to who ends up with it in-game (in the current game I'm playing as Genoa, Germany has Koeln, Burgundy has Amsterdam, and France has Luxembourg). If the value those 3 civs place on the Benelux region is high (as it should be), we should end up with lots of conflict and fairly random outcomes.

I push for the cutting of Marseilles because if I'm not mistaken those first two instances were the Kingdoms of Burgundy, not the Duchy.. I think.

Are you proposing the removal of Marseilles as an independent, or just removing it from the Burgundian UHV? If it's #2, what do you propose as a replacement UHV?

 

[micbic]

And yes, I think that after some more tweaking, Burgundy is OK . The screenies are from 1100 as well. And BTW the Benelux situation is really interesting, in that game at least.

 

[Michael Vick]

@st. lucifer, #2, I propose leaving the rest of the territories in the settler map, pretty much the same thing except without Provence.

 

[micbic]

If there is a problem there, it is not that the Burgundy AI builds cities in south France, but it captures indy Marseille. And, AFAIK, you cant code the AI to 'not capture x city'

 

[jessiecat]

If there is a problem there, it is not that the Burgundy AI builds cities in south France, but it captures indy Marseille. And, AFAIK, you cant code the AI to 'not capture x city'

I agree. Keep Marseilles and Bordeaux as indies to be captured by anyone. And get rid of Tours!

 

[micbic]

Just a note for the screenies: Tours was replaced by Burdigala as indy. Anyway, the French found it.

 

[st.lucifer]

@st. lucifer, #2, I propose leaving the rest of the territories in the settler map, pretty much the same thing except without Provence.

That's reasonable, if not terribly difficult (Control the Rhine valley?). One thing, though - Burgundy pretty much has to take Marseilles to accomplish the Crusade UHV goal. While it's possible to march an army big enough to take Jerusalem through central Europe, the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Levant, it's much more challenging.

Also, while I haven't seen it happen in the games I've played, presumably Genoa could challenge for Marseilles. At least, it manages to when I'm playing it...

 

[st.lucifer]

Just a note for the screenies: Tours was replaced by Burdigala as indy. Anyway, the French found it.

Which city/cities ended up replacing Tours, and whose were they?



I mean, which cities did the French or Burgundians build in the void left by the excision of Tours?

 

[Michael Vick]

Bordeaux (Burdigala), intended for capture by French. Where did you put Bordeaux though, micbic? It seems to me that the marsh tile would be the most geographically accurate location.

 

[micbic]

@Michael Vick: Perhaps, but cities cannot be founded at marsh, IIRC.

 

[jessiecat]

@Michael Vick: Perhaps, but cities cannot be founded at marsh, IIRC.

Michael's right, I think. Just replace the marsh with grassland in Worldbuilder and place it there. No problem.

But I always build on the tile SW of the marsh as it takes in the wine and you can chop the forest and mine the hill to the south. A much better spot, I think.

 

[st.lucifer]

Michael's right, I think. Just replace the marsh with grassland in Worldbuilder and place it there. No problem.

But I always build on the tile SW of the marsh as it takes in the wine and you can chop the forest and mine the hill to the south. A much better spot, I think.

We can always switch the marsh/mud to the other side of the river and make the site more attractive. If I remember right, I set it up the current way for spacing purposes.

 

[st.lucifer]

Apparent bug:

I got 3/3 historical UHV conditions as Genoa, and the victory didn't trigger (despite it changing to 3/3 on the civ list).

 

[Michael Vick]

Move the wine up, Bordeaux should definitely be a very profitable and productive city, right now they've only got wine, clam, and cow if I'm remembering right. Productivity is the foremost concern here, but maybe we should consider giving them a second wine resource too.

 

[st.lucifer]

Move the wine up, Bordeaux should definitely be a very profitable and productive city, right now they've only got wine, clam, and cow if I'm remembering right. Productivity is the foremost concern here, but maybe we should consider giving them a second wine resource too.

I could justify expanding the Massif Central west another tile or two (or adding a couple of scattered hills) to increase their production. There are already a lot of wine resources in France, but there's a lot of wine in France. I don't think we're giving away much to add another, particularly if it overlaps Toulouse's BFC.


Micbic, are you ok with me reclaiming map duties?