RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[merijn_v1]

I suggest an independent Palermo spawns at 1130 AD. Palermo was the first capital of the Kingdom of Sicily. According to Wikipedia, the Kingdom existed for 1130 till 1861. IMO, this is the most historical way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sicily

 

[The Turk]

Well technically Palermo, is much older then that, and was part of the Islamic Kingdom of Sicily (part of the Ummayad Dynasty), I would then suggest that it be spawned at the beginning of the game, and that Sicily is rejoined onto the Arabs warmap, so they have the potential to capture it.

 

[merijn_v1]

Well technically Palermo, is much older then that, and was part of the Islamic Kingdom of Sicily (part of the Ummayad Dynasty), I would then suggest that it be spawned at the beginning of the game, and that Sicily is rejoined onto the Arabs warmap, so they have the potential to capture it.

Then all cities must spawn at the start. (Almost) All cities existed. But if they were at the start the map would be full of cities. For example: London existed in the Roman Ages, but in this mod it spawns at 1061 AD.

 

[kochman]

I understand your point, Merlijn... Palermo was around, but wasn't really important until the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Sicily was ruled by the Saracens for a while, but in that period, it wasn't a powerful place at all, it was basically an outpost... why give it the power that a civ "city" has?

When the Normans took it back in their Pope sanctioned mission, thankfully, the island and S. Italy became very important... ironically holding much sway over Rome as a result of taking the land at the request of Rome. It isn't quite that simple, but that's the gist of it.

 

[merijn_v1]

I understand your point, Merlijn... Palermo was around, but wasn't really important until the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Sicily was ruled by the Saracens for a while, but in that period, it wasn't a powerful place at all, it was basically an outpost... why give it the power that a civ "city" has?

When the Normans took it back in their Pope sanctioned mission, thankfully, the island and S. Italy became very important... ironically holding much sway over Rome as a result of taking the land at the request of Rome. It isn't quite that simple, but that's the gist of it.

It wasn't me who said it was around, but The Turk. What I meant is what you said. So we share our opinion.

(BTWYou spelled my name wrong )

 

[The Turk]

Well the reason I'm saying that you should have it from the start is because, it should be a viable city for the Arabs to conquer, because it would be quite cool, if you could one day have a crusade called to capture Palermo, or something like that.

And yes I do think London should be there from the start of the game, but more importantly I think there cities which flip to them should spawn at relatively the same time that the French do, and they should be heavily armed so that the French AI don't take is so easily. Plus I DON"T think its ok that Calais and Cherbourg are the cities that flip, instead it should be Rennes and Caen, these are the cities which have historic ties to the Norman crown. I don't know where you guys got Cherbourg and Calais from?

 

[Ekolite]

I think the cities that flip are just whatever France builds on the north coast. That way England can be sure to get at least something.

 

[KaiserBenjamin]

Well the reason I'm saying that you should have it from the start is because, it should be a viable city for the Arabs to conquer, because it would be quite cool, if you could one day have a crusade called to capture Palermo, or something like that.

And yes I do think London should be there from the start of the game, but more importantly I think there cities which flip to them should spawn at relatively the same time that the French do, and they should be heavily armed so that the French AI don't take is so easily. Plus I DON"T think its ok that Calais and Cherbourg are the cities that flip, instead it should be Rennes and Caen, these are the cities which have historic ties to the Norman crown. I don't know where you guys got Cherbourg and Calais from?

I think Cherbourg and Calais were early English conquests at the beginning of the 100 years war that they were able to hang onto for a considerable time. Still, I agree with you. Being that England was conquered and ruled over by the Dukes of Normandy for its early history, it makes way more sense for that to be its starting flip.

 

[thwump]

Caen is the city that flips if that's what gets founded. Its a decent argument for Calais, though, since that does start off as independent instead of being founded by the French.

 

[Wessel V1]

Unfortunately Calais just awfully sucks. If I play England, I try to give it away ASAP.

 

[The Turk]

ok, well first off you cannot use the 100 year war argument, because guess what, the year which Calais and Cherbourg flip, is about a couple hundred years before the beginning of the war (roughly). Not to mention, historically the nobility of Calais, were always faithfully loyal to the crown of France, so them flipping to the English does not make sense, even if the English sold raw wool to the people of Flanders.

That is why having the traditional "Norman" Lands flip to the English makes sense. The lands originally given to Harold Hadrada by the French King, (which later became the Norman Kingdom). Therefore these pieces of land, Rouen (the capital) and Rennes (Present Day Normandy), would make most sense.

But I still think you should add Calais, but add it with good fortifications, as an indepedent, and then the English OR the French can capture it.

Also another thing I was wondering is, why not you have the viking raiders, who spawn off the coast of France, capture cities rather than burn them to the ground, but limit them to coastal cities. I mean if anything, thats how the Norman Kingdom began.

 

[Ambassador]

Hi!

First of all I would like to express my thanks and praise for the modders of this wonderful RFC experience. I highly appreciate the thinking, playtesting, hard work and strive that went into this mod. I enjoyed playing it very much, mostly because it's so well-adjusted in terms of tech progression, stability, etc.

Now, I nevertheless have a couple of observations, suggestions and issues to raise. I played three games till victory with Germany, Spain and Byzantine Empire.

Observations
1. Bulgaria is always a powerhouse. They end up having the biggest army, are technologically well progressed and have a huge region to fill.
2. Venice is always the tech leader (right after me ;-) ).
3. When at war, many civs seem reluctant to actually conquer other cities or at least settle in some third class core area (for Spain Italy for instance).

Issues
4. Stability is really annoying with the Byzantines. I realize it's to prevent them from winning the game at the very beginning, but their stability even is bad in spots which formed core of the Empire, like eastern Asia minor (390 - 1080). Also, the Byzantines cripple more from homemade annoyances (stability) than real external threats. The Arabs are poor and hardly attack the Empire. They usually collapse very soon. The Bulgarians can be fought off without much harm. A case can be made for the Seljuk riders, but this is only temporary.
5. Once you made considerable progress there's almost no opposition. When I vassalized the first 2-3 vassals nobody wants to fight you any more. The rest is a walkthrough.
6. Everyone wants to become your vassal. That's pretty early on, and soon you end up having vassalage proposals from nearly everyone.
7. England NEVER conquers Ireland.

Suggestions:
8. Have an independent city in Sicily (Syracuse or Palermo), at the Krim (Cherson) and in Morocco (Fez).
9. Have some Barbarian rushes in Morocco.
10. Raise stability for Byzantines but increase also the maintenance drastically.
11. Make civ less inclined to vassalage.
12. Broaden Austria's expansion area to Soutern Germany and parts of Italy.

Thanks again for the mod.

 

[kochman]

The Arabs are not underpowered.
The problem they face is that human players KNOW they are coming, where they will be, and when. Same problem the Turks face.

In the hands of the AI, it is pretty routine to see the Arabs controlling much of Turkey, all of the levant, and most of N. Africa... or be collapsed.

I agree with higher stability, but higher maintenance costs for the Byzantines though.

 

[Zipzapzup]

Na i think Bystanz is just fine. It was meant to be a struggle about stability and i think that works perfectly. The problem is that as a human you are prepared for everything because you know when things will happen. Stability is nice and especially breaking away cities because its a thing you must handle when it happens and you can't predict it.
I think if you play Bystanz the Crusades heading for Constantinople must be stronger and the Barbs spawning must put a harder pressure on your cities. Spawning Arabs and Turks are too easy to kill.

Observations
1. Bulgaria is always a powerhouse. They end up having the biggest army, are technologically well progressed and have a huge region to fill.

Do you really mean Bulgaria? Because i never saw that happen in one of my games.

 

[Duke of Awesome]

i agree about England conquering Ireland or rather them NOT conquering it. i havent played enough games to give my opinion on the Bulgaria matter though...

 

[Ambassador]

@kochman: I wouldn't say underpowered. The thing is, they never even tried to get hold of Asia minor or Constantinople which they did historically. Two major assaults on Constantinople at the end of 7th cen. and the beginning of the 8th, plus the Abbasid army holding much of Asia minor prior to the re-awakening of the Byzantines under the Makedonian dynasty speak for themselves. Alas, the Arabs do a good job in Northern Africa.

@Zipazapzup: I agree with the stronger Crusade and Barbarian pressure, especially at the Balkans prior and also after the Bulgarian spawn. Turkish nomadic hordes where a major threat for the Byzantines up to the 11th century (remember the Pechenegs!).

And yes, I do mean Bulgaria. But nice to hear they aren't always as powerful as in my recent games. In the late game when I was playing Spain they had a huge army of Curaissiers, just waiting in their capital even though they were at war with HUngary and the Ottomans sitting with a tiny army in Edirne. What were they waiting for?

 

[ezzlar]

#Ambassador

You will soon learn that AI aggression is nothing more than powerful army stacks sitting in a city somewhere in the emipire. They mostly dont attack.

 

[kochman]

@kochman: I wouldn't say underpowered. The thing is, they never even tried to get hold of Asia minor or Constantinople which they did historically. Two major assaults on Constantinople at the end of 7th cen. and the beginning of the 8th, plus the Abbasid army holding much of Asia minor prior to the re-awakening of the Byzantines under the Makedonian dynasty speak for themselves. Alas, the Arabs do a good job in Northern Africa.

I have had several games where the Arabs had conquered Asia Minor and vassalized the Byzantines (before trying to conquer Constantinople one would assume). Which is better than they did in history.

 

[Ambassador]

@I've been playing Civ since the late 90s so I could have become accustomed to it. Yet, in LoR (Legends of Revolutions Mod) they use the pretty intelligent Better AI mod. Enemy stacks don't sit idly there but instead engage in reasonable battles. There IS an alternative.

 

[The Turk]

Oh, that would be amazing if they could implement that type of AI in this mod!

@Kochman
I have NEVER seen that happen, they ALWAYS collapse after a while, and they hardly ever capture Antioch on top of that, the Arabs, definitely a stronger stability boost, OR alternatively, they should respawn in Egypt as the Fatmids, like I have suggested before, but later on in the game