RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[merijn_v1]

I'm not saying that every civ should be able to build both units. I'm saying that the HA shouldn't replace the the Mounted Soldier. IMO, they should exist alongside eachother. (like the SoI naval model I describe below). The eastern civs can only build Horse Archers and the Western civs can only build Mounted Soldiers. IIRC, the old system had that, but without the Horse Archer replacing the Mounted Soldier. (Gameplaywise, it's the same as you want, but IMO, aesthetically better in the civilopedia)

I fully agree with you that a French Horse Archer is bad. I think I was a bit unclear.

Look for example at the SoI naval model. The Arabian civs can build Dhows and Baglahs. The "Western" civs can build galleys and Roundships. Both units have the same function, only buildable by different "cultures" (can't currenlty come up with a better word) The exist alongside eachother, but one doesn't replace the other. The Horse Archer and the Mounted Soldier should be like that.

I don't mind if the units diverse a little in the bonus they recieve, but the Horse Archer has currently too much advantage over the Mounted Soldier. (2 first strikes, 25% cheaper, 50% attack bonus vs. catapult and trebuchets)

 

[AbsintheRed]

IIRC, the old system had that, but without the Horse Archer replacing the Mounted Soldier.

The way it was before wasn't perfect for all civs. AFAIK some civs were able to build them both
Also had some annoying bugs regarding how the UUs XML tags was called from the .dll
Caused some crashes with memory usage

I don't mind if the units diverse a little in the bonus they recieve, but the Horse Archer has currently too much advantage over the Mounted Soldier. (2 first strikes, 25% cheaper, 50% attack bonus vs. catapult and trebuchets)

IMO it's not that much, but we can bring the bonuses closer if you want
Btw, complete unit rebalancing is on the plate as well, one of my long term plans for the later versions

I'm saying that the HA shouldn't replace the the Mounted Soldier. IMO, they should exist alongside eachother.

Look for example at the SoI naval model. The Arabian civs can build Dhows and Baglahs. The "Western" civs can build galleys and Roundships. Both units have the same function, only buildable by different "cultures" (can't currenlty come up with a better word) The exist alongside eachother, but one doesn't replace the other. The Horse Archer and the Mounted Soldier should be like that.

Yes, as I said in my last post, that's my plan
They replace a fictional early light cavalry, and all of them are the same level:

Having said that, I plan to further improve the Horse Archer and Mounted Sergeant thing in RFCE.
IMO the best would be to have a general unit type for the earliest light cavalry units
Horse Archers would replace that for Bulgaria, Hungary and Kiev, some kind of early beduin light cavalry would replace that for Arabia and Cordoba, and Mounted Sergeant would replace that for all the other civs
It's not an actual UU, only differentiating the unit type more.

 

[merijn_v1]

The way it was before wasn't perfect for all civs. AFAIK some civs were able to build them both
Also had some annoying bugs regarding how the UUs XML tags was called from the .dll
Caused some crashes with memory usage

Wasn't it much easier to forbid the civs that could build both to build one of them than to make it a fully replacement?
I have never experienced such problems. And the barbarians always had this. I don't see why a normal civ suddenly should have problems with it.

IMO it's not that much, but we can bring the bonuses closer if you want
Btw, complete unit rebalancing is on the plate as well, one of my long term plans for the later versions

I was thinking of giving the MS also a bonus vs. catapults and trebuchets. And maybe increasing the costs of the HA a little bit. So the HA will still be a bit cheaper and have some first strikes. I think this is fair enough.

es, as I said in my last post, that's my plan
They replace a fictional early light cavalry, and all of them are the same level:

The difference between our ideas is that you want both of them being in the same unitclass, and so making the civs only able to build one of them, while my idea is to make them in a different unitclass and forbidding each civ to build one of them. The effect is the same. But with my version of execution, you don't get the "extra UU" in the civilopedia. And if you go to the HA page, you don't see that it's the UU of Arabia, Cordoba etc, as it is now. (I'm not on my own computer now, so I can't upload a screenshot of what I exactly mean)

 

[AbsintheRed]

Wasn't it much easier to forbid the civs that could build both to build one of them than to make it a fully replacement?
I have never experienced such problems. And the barbarians always had this. I don't see why a normal civ suddenly should have problems with it.

Too many assert failures can cause some memory CTDs
Check this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=472267
So I'm looking for a better solution than leaving those NONE unittypes there

I was thinking of giving the MS also a bonus vs. catapults and trebuchets. And maybe increasing the costs of the HA a little bit. So the HA will still be a bit cheaper and have some first strikes. I think this is fair enough.

Sounds good to me

 

[merijn_v1]

Oh, I see. That would be annoying indeed. I haven't experienced such problems before.
(Or does Realism Invictus also have a lot of NONE tags? I do have allocation failures there. If yes, than I did experience it)

Is it possible to forbid civs to build units with python?

 

[merijn_v1]

2 screenshot to explain what I try to avoid.

 

[2phunkey4u]

This is how edead did it. Units on the same tier, but each type only available to certain civs. The heavy versions later both upgrade into mounted gunners.

 

[merijn_v1]

That's exactly the same idea I had.


But that has the NONE tags, which can cause the CTD, as absinthered explained in post 5944.

Spoiler :

Personally, I prefer the old way. (Which is the same way as SoI). It's aesthetically much better.

It may give a CTD sometimes, but with reloading (an autosave) you can play on. As I have never experienced this with this mod, I don't think it's a problem. However other people can think different about this.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I put them back the way it was before
But I'm still not statisfied with this, so it's only until I find a better solution...

EDIT: I already expereinced a couple CTDs, this is definitely connected to it
If this stays this way, I have to find and fix a couple other assert failures before release...
(I'm not perfectly sure about it yet, but my guess is that these memory CTDs may only accur if there are too many assert problems)

 

[strangess]

Bug report herefor 1.0) When I discover Astronomy, my city display screen gets half crippled. It looks like a zoomed in region of the map with some of the information superimposed on the map but much of it inaccessible. The only thing I can think which I did oddly was I discovered techs which made colonies possible before discovering Astronomy. Anyone familiar with this thing already? Should I post a savegame?

 

[AbsintheRed]

It's a small display issue for France and Portugal
Copy over the files from the patch in the second post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=455068

Btw, there is a small delay in the next version, but RFCE 1.1 will be released in a couple days
I'm finalizing inquisitions right now, try to solve a couple more assert failures with the debug dll, then a little balancing and it is good to go

 

[ezzlar]

Like I mentioned earlier, I like the new persecutions. But in the case the persecutor fails, I think the city should revolt for 1 turn anyway.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Like I mentioned earlier, I like the new persecutions. But in the case the persecutor fails, I think the city should revolt for 1 turn anyway.

It does revolt
Also unhappiness for a couple turns

I interpret an unsuccessful persecution, that there still were killings and trials and whatnot, just the persecution couldn't achieve it's goal in the end
The religion's roots were to deep in the city
Unhappiness, and a small revolt to represent the religious controversies is fitting IMO, both on successful and on unsuccesful persecution

 

[ezzlar]

I might be wrong, but I thought there was only a message that the persecution failed, no other effects?

 

[AbsintheRed]

I might be wrong, but I thought there was only a message that the persecution failed, no other effects?

Revolt and unhappiness is there for months now

 

[ezzlar]

Tested. You are correct!

 

[dmitrytrue]

I didn't found better thread for my issue:
Game crashes each 5-10 turns after 1700s with message "bad memory allocation" or something like this. Using windows 7. Graphics reducing doesn't useful at all, perhaps because in this game nothing to reduce ;D
And it is really annoying in lategame, because each turn lasts 5-10 minutes. What should i do?

 

[AbsintheRed]

I didn't found better thread for my issue:
Game crashes each 5-10 turns after 1700s with message "bad memory allocation" or something like this. Using windows 7. Graphics reducing doesn't useful at all, perhaps because in this game nothing to reduce ;D
And it is really annoying in lategame, because each turn lasts 5-10 minutes. What should i do?

MAFs (memory allocation failure) will happen in Civ IV no matter what, at least if you are on a 32 bit OS
This is an issue with the base game itself, no matter what the modders do it, will be there
Switch to 64 bit OS, and you are fine

Alternatively, there is a "MAF fix", which includes adding more memory for the game
It doesn't really solve MAFs though, only postpones them

Check these posts:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224178
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12192629&postcount=209

 

[gilgames]

Hi everybody!

I'm new here, as a poster, but I play RFCE a while ago. Right now I want to give you a hugh bunch of playtest feedback, coutry by country and a general one. I have to tell, that i'm a viceroy player, and made only a few monarch game, but i've fopund them too annoying. Soon I'll finish all the UHVs on viceroy, so then I goto the next level of challange.
!!!WARNING!!! A wall of texts are coming!!!

(ps: I'm a hungarian player, so my english is crapy, sorry for that!)

 

[gilgames]

So first lets see the generel things:

- The map is awesome I like it really!
- So: Unit upgrade cost are simply bad. specially archery and meele units upg. cost. pls check it. i.e. arbeleister to mustekman 10g, archer to crossbow 50g, I just dont get it, a crossbow is much cheaper, than a musket btw early in game its too expesive, later ok or cheap!
- The AI is still an idiot! While I was waiting to my nation I saw a message: Ivan Asen was choosen to lead the crusade (Jerusalem)!!! WTH? Cordobans as chatolic is common or Genoans take Lübeck os Roskilde!!! and so on, I can tell more if needed.
- I suggest to make the last crusade for sure, its usually missing. I talk about the ~1269's its missed 3 times out of 5.
- Wonder issues: Shrine of Uppsala: I cant build it after a while. Last time I played with Lithuania and it wasnt built yet, got a shrine in my city and had not the tech: Divine Right. But couldnt built it for no reason Vinland: Played as Venetian and norse wiped, without this project. To meet the 3. uhv, I thought its the fastes way. Got my ship to iceland, take the city made a workboat, and still could not build it I was so dissapoited.
- there is a lost of civics that refer to small empires (i.e. burocracy ect.) but there is only 1.5 country to use that! Venetians in the very fisrt period and Netherlands! nobody else! (maybe portugal, but no)
- Inquisitors in general miss to often in my experience they work with 40% efficiency, but a good play require imo 70-80%
-Scores!!! Just for testing, played Norse on viceroy and on monarch. my scores were: v-15515 and m-15551, it simply does not woth it to play on monarch can you do something about it? (or wnat you?)
-
-
-