RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[ecv]

Thanks for the feedback.

I'm fixing resource allocation for Scandinavia in the next map update - while there are currently a lot of resources in Sweden, there's not much within the logical city radii.

I didn't get very far in terms of gameplay with the Swedes either. Maybe 15 turns.

I'm open to giving them a health building to begin with, but nobody had founded Protestantism when they spawned. I'm not sure that having them start the game with missionaries is necessarily appropriate, although it's been proposed by at least one person that Protestantism should be founded upon the Swedish spawn.

I've rarely seen the Norse as a major power. There are two reasons they start in Aarhus and not Copenhagen - first, we tried to coordinate spawn dates with the best estimate of the founding of the first Norse cities. We came up with Aarhus and Tonsberg, which is supposed to flip to them at spawn to encourage settlement of both landmasses.

Thank you for your elaborate reply.

Maybe im posting this in the wrong thread. But anyway, the origin of the danish people (who combined with the norwegians, are the Norse) is in Scania (present day sourthen sweden). It was from there the rest of the danish lands were settled and the germanic tribes that lived there were dispatched.
The most importent of the earliest "real" danish cities are probably Roskilde, Ribe and Lund. But since Roskilde and Copenhagen are so close (~30 km), I think it would be a fair abstraction to simply have Copenhagen as the capital. Another point is that Copenhagen was both the capital and most importent city of the Norse (danish/norwigians) for the majority of the time spand by this mod and thus longer than all the other cities combined.

Also, the "core" of the danish lands was the Oeresund region (east cost of Zealand and west coast of Scania), from shortly after the formation (if not right away) of the danish state till Scania was conquered by Sweden in 1658.
Århus on the other hand has never been the capital of Denmark, and I honestly think that the importence of Århus in a historical context is a bit exaggerated on the wikipedia page. From the spawn of the Viking till around 1300, I would say that both Aalborg and Ribe are more importent than Århus among the danish cities located in Jutland.

 

[st.lucifer]

Thank you for your elaborate reply.

Maybe im posting this in the wrong thread. But anyway, the origin of the danish people (who combined with the norwegians, are the Norse) is in Scania (present day sourthen sweden). It was from there the rest of the danish lands were settled and the germanic tribes that lived there were dispatched.
The most importent of the earliest "real" danish cities are probably Roskilde, Ribe and Lund. But since Roskilde and Copenhagen are so close (~30 km), I think it would be a fair abstraction to simply have Copenhagen as the capital. Another point is that Copenhagen was both the capital and most importent city of the Norse (danish/norwigians) for the majority of the time spand by this mod and thus longer than all the other cities combined.

Also, the "core" of the danish lands was the Oeresund region (east cost of Zealand and west coast of Scania), from shortly after the formation (if not right away) of the danish state till Scania was conquered by Sweden in 1658.
Århus on the other hand has never been the capital of Denmark, and I honestly think that the importence of Århus in a historical context is a bit exaggerated on the wikipedia page. From the spawn of the Viking till around 1300, I would say that both Aalborg and Ribe are more importent than Århus among the danish cities located in Jutland.

Thanks for the explanation. Based on that information, it sounds like Copenhagen may be a more appropriate starting point.

If we were to use Copenhagen, the logical thing to do to put them on both landmasses would be to put Lund in as an independent which flips upon the Norse spawn, and take out Tonsberg.

This would, of course, increase conflict with Sweden upon their eventual spawn (as they flip everything east and north of Scania), but this may not be a bad thing at all.

Giving them more encouragement to take the resources in Sweden might also make the Norse more of a power.

What do others think?

 

[ecv]

Thanks for the explanation. Based on that information, it sounds like Copenhagen may be a more appropriate starting point.

If we were to use Copenhagen, the logical thing to do to put them on both landmasses would be to put Lund in as an independent which flips upon the Norse spawn, and take out Tonsberg.

This would, of course, increase conflict with Sweden upon their eventual spawn (as they flip everything east and north of Scania), but this may not be a bad thing at all.

Giving them more encouragement to take the resources in Sweden might also make the Norse more of a power.

What do others think?

Thank you for listening.

Currently Tonsberg doesnt flip, since its founded 5 turns or or something after the Norse spawn.

Personally I wouldnt like to have both Copenhagen and Lund as cities when playing as the Norse. But that is purely from a game perspective - its imo rarely a good idea to have cities only 1 tile apart.

Having the Norse start with Copenhagen and Tonsberg is imo a good way to reflect that the Norse represent danes and norwegians. The Norse AI should however definently be encouraged to settle Scania.

As previously mentioned, I think there should be one or two independent cities in Sweden, Kalmar is a good candidate.
The Norse can then conquer them if they want, and have them flip to Sweden when the swedes spawn. This would be quite historical, since Sweden released itself from danish rule in ~1520. Denmark and Sweden are also those two contries in the world that have been at war with eachother the most (so i've read, dunno how its counted), and it would be great if that was reflected in the mod. Atleast I would like to "reflect" it.

 

[micbic]

Kalmar is a good idea, I would add Uppsala as the second one.

 

[ecv]

The problem with Uppsala is that its so close to Stockholm. Either Uppsala should be moved a bit so its one tile from Stockholm, or it should become Stockholm when the swedes spawn.

 

[st.lucifer]

Thank you for listening.

Currently Tonsberg doesnt flip, since its founded 5 turns or or something after the Norse spawn.

Personally I wouldnt like to have both Copenhagen and Lund as cities when playing as the Norse. But that is purely from a game perspective - its imo rarely a good idea to have cities only 1 tile apart.

Having the Norse start with Copenhagen and Tonsberg is imo a good way to reflect that the Norse represent danes and norwegians. The Norse AI should however definently be encouraged to settle Scania.

As previously mentioned, I think there should be one or two independent cities in Sweden, Kalmar is a good candidate.
The Norse can then conquer them if they want, and have them flip to Sweden when the swedes spawn. This would be quite historical, since Sweden released itself from danish rule in ~1520. Denmark and Sweden are also those two contries in the world that have been at war with eachother the most (so i've read, dunno how its counted), and it would be great if that was reflected in the mod. Atleast I would like to "reflect" it.

My mistake - I'd thought that Lund was a few tiles north of there, around where Goteborg is.

One potential problem with having the Norse start in Copenhagen and having Tonsberg flip is that it makes their spawn area larger than everyone else's, and it'll have to be irregular to avoid the Swedish spawn. That's another reason we had them starting in Aarhus, although if there's a way to change it to Copenhagen-Scania, that's ok with me too. There's also a strong likelihood that the Norwegian coast won't be colonized by the AI if they start that far east, but they have problems with that anyway.

We're trying to cut down on the number of independents, or I'd support the inclusion of Kalmar. It might be reasonable to put it in and reduce the number of Swedish settlers to 2 - starting with 4 is a lot.

 

[Cethegus]

Independent Kalmar would be a welcome sight. I don't have an opinion regarding the Norse capital but if you think Århus is inappropriate for a capital, bear in mind Timbuktu was never the Malinese capital.

 

[jessiecat]

I'd be happy keeping Aarhus as capitol as long as Tonsberg is already founded when the Norse spawn and flips immediately. If the core area was extended NW and the Norse were gifted a settler in Tonsberg then the AI might be encouraged to settle Stavanger and later Bergen and Trondheim instead of Malmo. The first UHV might then include settling all the coast of Norway and conquering Edinburgh and Jorvik by 1000AD instead of just having to spam settlers to squeeze in 3 cities in Britain. Much more realistic historically and more interesting gamewise IMO.

BTW I would favour Kalmar as a strong indy or barb which might discourage the Norse AI from expanding east into Sweden instead of west into Norway. And they still could found Malmo or Lund after settling Norway.

 

[ecv]

Hello Jessiecat,
I generally like it, but if Kalmar is a barb city, the Norse would be pressured even more - and in the 3 games I have started so far (where I didnt play the Norse myself), the Norse were at the bottom of the score.
Also, the danes originated in Scania, and I therefore think it would be a shame, if the area isnt included in their starting core area. It shouldnt be a place the go 200 or 300 years after they spawn.

 

[jessiecat]

Hello Jessiecat,
I generally like it, but if Kalmar is a barb city, the Norse would be pressured even more - and in the 3 games I have started so far (where I didnt play the Norse myself), the Norse were at the bottom of the score.
Also, the danes originated in Scania, and I therefore think it would be a shame, if the area isnt included in their starting core area. It shouldnt be a place the go 200 or 300 years after they spawn.

Just an idea about Kalmar. I'm happy without it. As for the Danes originating in Scania, our civ is the Norse (whatever that means) which implies Norway and expansion across the North Sea to me. Starting the Norse in Jutland and having them expand along the coast of Norway seems more interesting from a gameplay point of view. We've had to make a few compromises with history for all of our civs. The Norse seem a similiar case for flexibility, in my view.

EDIT: Just to illustrate. Isn't this a more logical start for the Norse than settling in
Jutland and Scania first? And if Tonsberg flips, so much the better.

 

[ecv]

The Norse is common term used for all the scandinavian people of the time. Read more about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen

Since Sweden is a seperate civ in the mod, the Norse seems mostly to be a portrayel of the Danes and Norwegians. The swedish vikings also mostly went eastwards (Novgorod, Kiev), something that isnt seen in this mod (atleast by the AI).

Harald Bluetooth (the wireless standard is named after him btw), was danish and united Denmark (of which Scania was a natural part) and Norway under his rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bluetooth

After that, the Scandinavian contries had the own kings for a few centuries, but from 1380 till 1814 Norway was ruled from Copenhagen, first as part of the Kalmar-union and later as the kingdom Denmark-Norway. The political elite of the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway was danish, and in Norway the period is known as "the 400 year night"..

If you dont have access to any danish or scandinavian history books, there is alot of good articles about all this on wikipedia.

The reason why I dont like Kalmar as a barbarian city is, that i fear it would make the Norse AI stay completely out of Sweden, and maybe even Norway.
I do however like the idea of a fairly strong independent Kalmar, since I think that would encourage a fairly historical development in the region.

Having the Norse AI settle Norway is ofcourse extremely importent, but I also think having the Norse put 1 or 2 cities in Scania/sourthen-Sweden is very importent. Both because of historical accuracy (as per the posts above), but also since it will hopefully spark a struggle for supremacy of Scandinavia between Sweden and Denmark(-Norway), like the strugle that existed in real history from ~1500 to ~1700.

EDIT: btw, about the map you posted jessiecat, I like that expansion. With Tonsberg flipping and the Norse also putting a city somewhere in present day sourthen Sweden, they would in a very historical position and ready to go rape and plunder the pesky brits!
However I still dont like that a city, which was never the capital, biggest or most importent city, is the capital of the Norse. Also with Copenhagen as the capital, the AI would probably be able to utilise the land area better. With Århus build, it doesnt build any other cities in present day Denmark, if Copenhagen is the capital you could build both Aalborg and Esbjerg as "fair" cities, or just one good one in the mid-west part of jutland.

 

[jessiecat]

I've just been reading a lot of the early history of Denmark on the Wiki, as you've suggested. It seems that Roskilde has much better claims as an early capitol. Could we not start with Roskilde and have it's name change dynamically to Copenhagen by the early 13th.C.? On our map they are less than 1 tile apart anyway. That way the player or the AI would have room to build Aarlborg and Esbjerg as well.
My problem with expecting the AI to settle in Scania and Jutland and in Norway as well is that it's just not smart enough. And what's the incentive for the human player in doing all that? I really can't see how we can accomplish all these various historic goals without pre-built cities like Lund and Tonsberg which would both flip at the start.. Any ideas?

 

[micbic]

If we flip Tonsberg and Lund to Norse, we should remove the settler+berseker in that galley, because we make them overpowered with 4 early cities.

 

[st.lucifer]

Ok, here's my proposed compromise solution:

The Norse start in Copenhagen, Roskilde, or Lund (pick one) on the square which is currently barley (the barley will be moved).
They begin with two settlers, one of which is on a galley.
There are no independent cities in the area, and no barbarian cities.
Sometime around 1250, Kalmar spawns (if the area isn't already covered by culture or a city), as an independent with a fairly small population (3?), walls, and a castle.

The Norse core area covers the territory included in the attached picture. This doesn't cover all of Scania, but covers Jutland, the west coast of Sweden, and the southern tips of Norway.

 

[jessiecat]

If we flip Tonsberg and Lund to Norse, we should remove the settler+berseker in that galley, because we make them overpowered with 4 early cities.

Maybe start with Roskilde (becomes Copenhagen) which flips Lund and Tonsberg but give them no settlers at all. So just 3 then. What about that?

Sorry. Cross-posted.

Just to combine both ideas. One settler, which founds Roskilde on the tile you suggest which flips Tonsberg when it spawns. Kalmar then is founded as an indy later. That gives them the foothold in Norway from which they can expand along the coast if we can encourage them to do so.

 

[micbic]

By the way: Merry Christmas to everyone from (strangely) frozen Greece!!!

 

[jessiecat]

By the way: Merry Christmas to everyone from (strangely) frozen Greece!!!

And seasons greetings from a warmish (10C) and surprisingly dry (for us!) fishing village of Looe
on the south coast of Cornwall.

 

[micbic]

OK, Christmas today, blah blah blah....
I currently playtest the Kievan Russians. The first UHV (as found to be in Rhye's of Europe official site) seemed easy, and I think I currently can't lose it. Being in 1242, I haven't seen any barbarian unit invading my territory except these grouped horsemen before the Seljuk invasion (which btw, as per my sources (aka Wordbuilder), was very destructive ( I will post screenshots)). Yes, no Mongolian keshiks!!!
1) Maybe it is because the attack is scripted for later?
2) Does it have to do with existence of Astrakhan? In my game, it spawned at 1212 AD and 3 turns later, good neighbors Bulgarians razed it...

In first case, I am doomed. In second, I am sucking lucky boy.

Screenshots:
1) The cold (6 celsius at midday) city of Ioannina, where I currently write fron.
2) Asia Minor after Seljuk invasion
3) Middle East after Seljuk invasion
4) Current look of my godlike Empire.

 

[ecv]

And a merry christmas to you.

A couple of things. First, starting with 3 cities and no settlers is imo too scripted. I know im hard to please.
I also like that the Norse start with a city in Denmark and one in Norway. Since these are the countries the Norse in this mod primarily represent. And the capitol should imo be Copenhagen, but the name Roskilde will do for me. The two cities is (or should be) in the same tile in the game anyway.

Second, I think 1250 is too late a spawn date for Kalmar. If the Norse(-AI) settle Scania (and it should do that in most games imo), there will most likely be Norse culture on the plot by that time.

Also, I tried deleting some units in the world-builder in the turn right before the year ~1450 crash, but it didnt help. I then tried to dig alittle into the problem, and the crash seems to be due to an access violation in the function isHasReligion() - the function looks in an array for someting, I guess the index goes out of bounds? Here's the callstack:

> CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvCity::isHasReligion()
CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvPlayer::choosePurgeCity()
CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvUnitAI::AI_update()
CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroupAI::AI_update()
CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvPlayerAI::AI_unitUpdate()
CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvGame::updateMoves()
CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvGame::update()

Looking at this, it seems as if atleast my crash is related to the religious prosecutors.

EDIT: Ok, I removed the call to choosePurgeCity() in AI_update() meaning that prosecutors now dont do anything, recompiled the dll, and now the game goes past the turn where it previously always crashed.

 

[jessiecat]

@ecv. Looks like you may have pinned down the reason behind your crash. I wonder how would this affect mine and others? And why mostly in the 1400-1500 period? This might be an important breakthrough. Well done. Hopefully sedna and 3miro can investigate this more fully soon.

@micbic. I think the Mongols will arrive after 1250. And you thought the Seljuks were tough?
Be afraid. Be very very afraid.