RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[Jusos2108]

I'm probably going to remove Justinian's plague for the next update, but...

What if we made Byzantium stronger at the start and left the plague in?

I'm thinking of giving them some initial stability points, some more buildings to reduce maintenance, and a fleet + larger army. I think it would be awesome if they had the capacity to attack and take at least southern Italy + North Africa. This might not be a wise strategy (expansion isn't going to help your stability and it would be better to hold back the army for garrison duty against the plague) but it would be nice to have more options.

I was thinking something like that myself and IMO your idea is the best solution so far. It would also be historically more accurate if Byzantium is stronger in the beginning. Then human player would have more options and hopefully AI would make a stand against the Arabs, who are BTW way too strong, but that is another problem.

 

[FakeShady]

I'm probably going to remove Justinian's plague for the next update, but...

What if we made Byzantium stronger at the start and left the plague in?

I'm thinking of giving them some initial stability points, some more buildings to reduce maintenance, and a fleet + larger army. I think it would be awesome if they had the capacity to attack and take at least southern Italy + North Africa. This might not be a wise strategy (expansion isn't going to help your stability and it would be better to hold back the army for garrison duty against the plague) but it would be nice to have more options.

I'd have to see what the AI would do. I assume they would just keep the troops at home and possibly that would crimp the Arab advance.

I should say, as a general note, that we basically envisioned balancing the human Byzantium last. That is, we know that Byzantium is a uniquely frustrating and difficult side to play as the humans, but our first priority is to get the dynamics of the region right, and make things play well for their neighbors. Of course we want Byzantium to be playable, but it will always be quite difficult and different, and that's by design. Byzantium should come with a warning label: Caution, this Civ is a unique experience.

Leave plague in + stronger + fleet is not just good, its realistic

Oh and i will like to suggest that the Seljuks and the 1250 Mongols KEEP whatever cities they conquer instead of raze them. So far i observe that those barbs seem to like razing. They should keep those cities, so that when future barbs appear, the Seljuks/Mongol cities will act as tanks, tanking the playable civs from the full force of the barbs. This is also realistic as the Mongols in 1250 attacked mainly the Seljuks.

There are also way too many Seljuks. Historically the Seljuks may have won the Byzantines in 1071 but the Seljuks were also outnumbered, lets not forget that.

 

[FakeShady]

As a Byzantine-biased tester xD i am pretty concerned about where exactly do the Ottomans spawn.

After doing a little research i realize the Ottomans in actual history actually does spawn quite near to Constantinople

BUT

I also realize the Ottomans land size before 1400 is very small. So maybe the Ottomans should spawn nearer to Constantinople after all, but the flip zone should be smaller. Not more than 3 Asia Minor cities should flip to the Ottomans, and even that is a lot already considering the Ottomans start with 3 settlers. And definitely NO cities to the west of Constantinople should flip to the Ottomans. I think that's fair

 

[jessiecat]

Returning this thread to playtesting for a moment, I have a question for everybody.

Have you ever seen the crusaders behave like this? I've noticed they always do this no matter which civ is leading the crusade, though I've never mentioned it until now.

Screenshot 1
The stack has arrived on the usual tile and instead of attacking Al Qods, they move 1 tile NE. Why?
Screenshot 2
3 turns later they've moved to Dimashq and split up, foot soldiers to the SW, cavalry and siege engines to the NW. Still no attack. Why?
Screenshot 3
Now they have stopped in two places at the edge of the map and are just sitting there waiting for me to attack. If I left them there they'd never move again. What is the point? The Crusades is a total non-event when you're playing as the Arabs. It's the same every single time.

 

[Jusos2108]

Returning this thread to playtesting for a moment, I have a question for everybody.

Have you ever seen the crusaders behave like this? I've noticed they always do this no matter which civ is leading the crusade, though I've never mentioned it until now.

Screenshot 1
The stack has arrived on the usual tile and instead of attacking Al Qods, they move 1 tile NE. Why?
Screenshot 2
3 turns later they've moved to Dimashq and split up, foot soldiers to the SW, cavalry and siege engines to the NW. Still no attack. Why?
Screenshot 3
Now they have stopped in two places at the edge of the map and are just sitting there waiting for me to attack. If I left them there they'd never move again. What is the point? The Crusades is a total non-event when you're playing as the Arabs. It's the same every single time.

I guess the AI is just exploring the map. Well really no clue, they have done the same when I played Arabs, except I destroyed them two tiles from Al Qods. Maybe Jerusalem should be high priority in every catholic civ's warmap!?

 

[embryodead]

I've seen crusaders capture weak Constantinople but never Jerusalem. It seems the AI simply calculates that the chances for capture are too low and gets stuck since these units shouldn't be there in the first place. A way around it would be to decrease the calculated power of the crusade's target (e.g. divide by 4), so the AI would behave more like Barbs and attack vs. impossible odds, at least vs. Arabs.

 

[merijn_v1]

IMO they should attack Jerusalem. No matter what. Even if it is suicide.

 

[FakeShady]

LOL yeah, they are after all willing to die for their cause, literally.

 

[micbic]

Yes...
Crusader 1: I do not mind if I die, let's capture Jerusalem (commits suicide)
Crusader 2: Yes! Good idea! (commits suicide as well)
All crusaders: Hell yeah!!!!1!!!@1!1! (team suicide)

5 mins after, all crusaders are dead. Jerusalem is not taken. They are however recognized as heroes, as according to reports "they died during the battle''

Anyway, let us close this crusader comedy off-topic XD

 

[sedna17]

I agree this is a significant problem with the current crusades.

Maybe Jerusalem should be high priority in every catholic civ's warmap!?

I'm not clear on how warmaps are used when already at war; I know how they influence who the AI goes to war with. Have to look...

It seems the AI simply calculates that the chances for capture are too low and gets stuck since these units shouldn't be there in the first place. A way around it would be to decrease the calculated power of the crusade's target (e.g. divide by 4), so the AI would behave more like Barbs and attack vs. impossible odds, at least vs. Arabs.

I wouldn't know how to do that outside hard-coding it in the DLL. That seems less than ideal. Did you have some other idea? Actually, one possibility might be to give all Crusader units a special promotion "Crusader" that makes them act more like barbs.

 

[embryodead]

I wouldn't know how to do that outside hard-coding it in the DLL. That seems less than ideal. Did you have some other idea? Actually, one possibility might be to give all Crusader units a special promotion "Crusader" that makes them act more like barbs.

I was thinking of some custom function exposed to python, but promotion sounds better. Something along the lines of <iAIAttackOdds>

 

[Wessel V1]

I think there is a possibility to create different "combat-groups", so that there is always an interesting battle in any situation. Like this:

Player vs. AI: the player gets just enough to capture Jerusalem.
AI vs. AI: same story, altough the AI needs a little bit more units.
AI vs. player: AI gets twice the number of units, and lots of siege units so that he can be a serious threat to Jerusalem.

 

[BurnEmDown]

the AI would behave more like Barbs and attack vs. impossible odds, at least vs. Arabs.

Or maybe change it so that the crusaders are barbarians that go straight for Jerusalem or the designated city and one they capture the city they will flip to the civ which was picked as a leader? On second thought tho I think another solution will be better...

 

[micbic]

Crusade talking: What if Jerusalem does not exist (razed?)

 

[apenpaap]

I've seen a few crusades to Constantinople.

 

[FakeShady]

Then you get to choose to crusade against other cities, do you not?

 

[blizzrd]

Why do I have knowledge of/contact with (and negative relations) Turkey during the Autoplay turns leading to a start with Arabia?

This continued once the game started too.

 

[Steb]

So here's my experience with the challenging Netherlands.

I started with 2 settlers, but space for only one city. With the German and French borders nearby, I couldn't found a city at a reasonable distance from Amsterdam; instead, I sent the settler to Norway. I also sent troops towards Africa to conquer independent Tanja. I'm sure I couldn't have won with only one city, yet only one historical location was available. However, expanding in Norway and Morocco wasn't much of a problem (except that the Norse controlled tiles where I had 77% Dutch culture!), so let's just pretend the Dutch founded their first colonies in Europe...

There are two problems with the Netherlands: lack of space and lack of time. Well, they're not really problems because they're historical and the game is still playable, but they make it a bit less enjoyable. Few cities and no time to train units means a small army, and that means that every somewhat powerful civ will think of you as an easy target rather than a trading partner. Fortunately, I befriended Germany, but France, Spain and Hungary were problematic because they pillaged the Amsterdam area, thus wasting some precious time, and I couldn't do much about it. But! I survived. The large number of techs you start with can be very useful to bribe for peace or to get gold to spend with Const. Monarchy.

Concerning the UHVs: the first one (10 OBs) is very easy; however I was lucky that the World (well... Europe) War started a few turns after and not before 1640, or else I would have miserably failed. The 5 great merchants are not hard, though I thought I would run out of time. To suceed I took Apprenticeship for unlimited merchants and eventually Common law (+100% GP) to accelerate the process.

The third UHV, 4 colonies, was harder because of the time constraint. I was persuaded I would fail because Tanja was not productive enough, and then I discovered that some new tech I got enabled cheaper colonies... So I won with India, Jamaica, Malaya and East Indies around 1793. All the colonies that do not require a Trading Company were quickly built by Spain, mostly, and England. It would seem that the AI does not understand the concept of Trading Companies, since no one built any (fortunately for me). It may be caused by the fact that the projects themselves do not provide any bonus. Perhaps you could add a small benefit to them or try to make the AI aware that the investment will be profitable.

Useful civics were:
Constitutional monarchy to spend the gold surplus;
Bureaucracy to maximize Amsterdam, Common law to spawn GMs;
Apprenticeship for the merchants;
Guilds for the free specialist, and then Merchant Republic because it's so good;
Free religion because I never bothered getting a state religion;
Colonialism for the Trade routes.

Conclusion: the Netherlands are challenging, but winnable. However, they're mildly fun to play, because you always feel time is running away while your mighty neighbours threaten to pillage your small country.

And lastly a screen of the general situation by the end. Because screenshots are fun!

 

[FakeShady]

i think there should be incentive not just to conquer but also hold on to Jerusalem. Maybe something like:

Temple of Solomon: +25 gold per turn

This is make it a more desirable city to hold on to than other cities.

Venice should also be given more initial starting gold so that they can have the financial power to take over the crusade

 

[merijn_v1]

i think there should be incentive not just to conquer but also hold on to Jerusalem. Maybe something like:

Temple of Solomon: +25 gold per turn

This is make it a more desirable city to hold on to than other cities.

Venice should also be given more initial starting gold so that they can have the financial power to take over the crusade

That makes it too overpowered IMO. And don't forget, Arabia has Jerusalem most times. So if it provides that much, the Arabs gets allmost all gold. And in the begin your preloved Byzantines get that gold.